A Modest Mosque Proposal

At a White House iftar dinner (a tradition dating back to the days of Thomas Jefferson) President Obama finally pointed out the blindingly obvious - that our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to everyone, and that means New York's Muslim community has every right to build the Cordoba House community center and mosque in lower Manhattan.

As expected, the right wing exploded in often incoherent rage:

• Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Republican who has made quite the media career out of opposing the center, said that since 9/11 "was carried out in the name of Islam" anything Muslim anywhere near the World Trade Center site would simply be "salt in the wounds." (It should be mentioned that King's boundless sympathy for the 9/11 victims did not prevent him from blocking a bill providing medical aid for first responders who fell ill from working at the Trade Center site.)
  
• CNN's Eric Erickson tweeted that supporting Cordoba House on freedom-of-religion grounds is exactly the same as supporting human sacrifice, satanism and polygamy.
  
• The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer said that no more mosques should be built anywhere in the United States because "each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government."
  
• Pamela Geller, the Muslim-hating blogger who more than anyone else has driven the false "Islamic supremacist mega mosque" storyline, even went so far as to claim that Obama is pro-terrorist: "If you had any doubt who Obama stood with on 9/11, there can be no doubt in our minds now."

As best as I can make out, the hysterical opposition to the center is based on this line of deduction:

1. 9/11 was carried out by Muslims.
2. All Muslims are the same.
3. The families of 9/11 victims, attack survivors and area residents should not be subject to the hurt and humiliation of having a reminder located so close. Plus, as Geller says, a mosque in lower Manhattan "is not a religious issue. This is a national security issue."
4. Therefore, nothing Muslim should be allowed anywhere near the Trade Center site.

Let's take a similar line of reasoning and apply it to a modest proposal, that Christian facilities should be located far away from schools, playgrounds and other places where children assemble:

1. For decades, the Vatican allowed priests to molest children.
2. All Christians are the same.
3. Abuse survivors' families and parishioners whose priests were hauled to jail for abusing children should not be subject to the hurt and humiliation of having a reminder located so close. Plus, protecting kids is not a religious issue. This is a child-security issue.
4. Therefore, nothing Christian should be allowed anywhere near schools or playgrounds.

Of course, this not only violates Christians' religious freedom, but also lumps all Christians in with the pedophile enablers in Rome. As it happens, King, Fischer, Geller et al are doing the exact same thing by pretending that our constitutional freedom of religion does not apply to Muslims and that all Muslims are the same as those who carried out 9/11. Stereotyping and bigotry is stereotyping and bigotry, whether it's applied to Christians, Muslims, Jews or anyone else.

The president should not have to underline such a basic American principle as the freedom of people to worship as they wish without government approval or interference. But with the fires of anti-Muslim bigotry being stoked higher and higher by reckless demagogues, he had to remind the nation that freedom of religion is for everyone, whether or not a particular belief may be popular with the majority.

Or, as Rep. Jerrold Nadler correctly told King, "We do not put the Bill of Rights, we do not put religious freedom to a vote."

Well put.

Newtered

When Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's Proposition 8 last week, he pointed out that the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage is not just an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due-process and equal-protection clauses but is wholly unsupported by the facts. When he asked Prop 8's defenders during the trial to prove their claim that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage, they actually refused, saying, "You don't have to have evidence of this point." So in his ruling, he pointed out the obvious: that there is simply no legitimate (much less overriding) reason to deny gay couples the same rights granted to straight couples.

So Prop 8 is now a thing of the past (pending appeals) and it seems like much of America greeted the decision with a yawn. After all, gay marriage was already legal in five states and the District of Columbia, and the world is still here. In the six years since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize such marriages, the sky has not fallen and the state has not been overrun by locusts.

But the nation's self-appointed "defenders of marriage" issued a collective primal scream and insisted we're on the fast track to Sodom and Gomorrah, especially since Walker is rumored to be gay:

• "There is only one issue before each of us Californians: Is Marriage of Divine or of Human Origin? Judge Walker pays no attention to this fundamental issue, and relies solely upon how Prop 8 made certain members of society 'feel' about themselves. Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that Marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God's plan for the world and human society. Period." (Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles)
• "It is unnatural...an older white guy handed down the decision and he happened to be gay. That might have had something to do with it." (Patrick Buchanan)
• "Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling yesterday, in which he trampled on the will of seven million Californians, is a monstrous, egregious, reprehensible expression of judicial activism and tyranny." (American Family Association)
• "Let's not be shocked that Judge Walker cannot comprehend the self-evident rational basis for prohibiting homosexual marriage, after all, he is a practicing homosexual. The Bible plainly tells us that once a person has seared his conscience to such an extent that he can exchange his natural sexual relationship with the opposite sex for homosexuality, his ability to reason becomes utterly compromised." (Christian Anti-Defamation Commission)
  

And so on. One of the people putting in his two cents is Newt Gingrich, past House Speaker, present Fox News mainstay and future possible presidential candidate:

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy."

Now, it seems that Gingrich doesn't sanitize his website to make sure only supportive comments get through - unlike Sarah Palin, whose Facebook ghostwriter routinely strips her page of anything even remotely critical. You see, quite a few people noticed how it's just a tad self-righteous for a serial philanderer on his third wife to lecture anyone on what marriage should or should not be, and made clear their feelings in the comments. Some of the best include:

• "Newt you cheated on your first wife then dumped her when she was in the hospital with cancer. Later you cheated on your second wife with a 27 year old congressional aide. Maybe you should pipe down about defending marriage."
• "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Err... A man and 2 women. Err... a man and 3 women. Damn, why do women have to keep getting old."
• "One man and one woman, huh? So Newt, is your 'one woman' Jackie, Marianne, or Callista?"
• "No, I want to hear more from the twice-divorced man about how marriage has to be reserved for one man and one woman. I wonder if the two former Mrs. Gingriches would testify as to Newt's reverence for marriage."
• "Which one of your multiple marriages was the most sacred to you?"

Doesn't Gingrich have staffers whose job it is to prevent him from stepping into such situations? They're obviously not very good at it. Or perhaps he listened to them and then posted the statement anyway. Either way, he looks like not just a fool, but a hypocritical fool as well.

You'd think Gingrich and other mountebanks would learn to keep their mouths shut on such things. But until they do, they will always provide good entertainment.

All Means All

The Anti-Defamation League's website says it "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all." They just issued a press release concerning the proposed Cordoba House community center in downtown Manhattan. They're against it.

The group's rather torturous justification goes like this: yes, we know Muslims have the same religious freedom as everyone else. Yes, we know the people who are building Cordoba House are not even close to the people who destroyed the World Trade Center. And yes, we know that opposition to the center is mostly being driven by paranoia and bigotry. Nevertheless, we're against it because it would hurt people's feelings. Freedom will just have to take a back seat this time.

Did the ADL forget the part of its mission statement about "civil rights for all?" Or did they compromise their principles in an attempt to win the support of people who react not out of logic and reasoning, but out of blind fear and hatred?

It's the latter. The ADL has a long history of standing up for what's right, but they've given themselves a very large black eye with this one. Advising a religious minority to compromise on their freedom so as not to ruffle the feathers of the majority, telling them not to rock the boat - hmm, where have we heard that one before? Oh yes, it's how Jews have been told to get along with our Christian neighbors for centuries. And we know how well that turned out, don't we?

When a religious minority is told not to worry, they have to give along to get along, that endangers religious freedom for everyone. And the ADL, of all people, should know that very well.

While their intentions in sparing 9/11 victims' families feelings may be good, they're going about it entirely the wrong way. People's feelings get hurt all the time, but that's no reason to throw away freedom. By that logic, person A can advocate that person B not be allowed to speak because A's feelings would be hurt by what B has to say.

"Civil rights for all" means just what it says. All means all. The ADL should reconsider.