Hitchens on the Danger of Emotions Underlying Self-Pity of Beck Rally (Slate)
Christopher Hitchens in Slate:
In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one. What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated? Who wakes up believing that there is no appreciation for our veterans and our armed forces and that without a noisy speech from Sarah Palin, their sacrifice would be scorned? It’s not unfair to say that such grievances are purely and simply imaginary, which in turn leads one to ask what the real ones can be. The clue, surely, is furnished by the remainder of the speeches, which deny racial feeling so monotonously and vehemently as to draw attention.
Concerns of this kind are not confined to the Tea Party belt. Late professors Arthur Schlesinger and Samuel Huntington both published books expressing misgivings about, respectively, multiculturalism and rapid demographic change. But these were phrased so carefully as almost to avoid starting the argument they flirted with. More recently, almost every European country has seen the emergence of populist parties that call upon nativism and give vent to the idea that the majority population now feels itself unwelcome in its own country. The ugliness of Islamic fundamentalism in particular has given energy and direction to such movements. It will be astonishing if the United States is not faced, in the very near future, with a similar phenomenon. Quite a lot will depend on what kind of politicians emerge to put themselves at the head of it. Saturday’s rally was quite largely confined to expressions of pathos and insecurity, voiced in a sickly and pious tone. The emotions that underlay it, however, may not be uttered that way indefinitely. (Emphasis added)
Islamophobia: Stoking Fears about an American Community
As a country that has long prided itself on representing a superior national enterprise, we must learn from our past. We have not yet taken unconscionable measures against our Muslim citizens and must avoid doing so at all costs. As our history indicates, our Constitutional values may well be at stake when we fear and single out an American community.
The following is reposted with the permission of the author and is also available at The Revealer, ReligiousFreedomUSA and Spectrum Magazine . Editor
By Joshua M.Z. Stanton -
When John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, fear-mongers raised the specter of his dual loyalty. Would he really serve American interests or merely be a pawn for the Vatican? After all, he was a Catholic. Church doctrine, it was whispered, could co-opt the person designated to uphold America’s laws and Constitution.
Similar fears have been raised about Muslim-Americans, and ironically, often in conjunction with our current Christian president. Generalizations based on religion are disturbing because they reduce rich, diverse, and complicated belief structures to monolithic and inaccurate convictions. Yet what is most galling is the fact that accusations of dual loyalty, no less to a religion other than the president’s own, have not dissipated during the course of Obama’s first term in office. If anything, they have grown more raucous and extreme.
So what exactly is the unknown that fear-mongers harp on? Among other things, it is the fear that a growing American religious community may suddenly undermine the country’s Constitutional values. Sharia, so-called Islamic law, is the new specter that fills the void left by the dissipated fear of Vatican doctrine and fear of Communism that crumbled alongside the Soviet Union. Forget the millions of Muslims in the United States who drink coffee, go to work, raise children, celebrate the Fourth of July, and pay their taxes on time. Sharia equals terrorism. “Need proof,” the fear-mongers ask? Just look at the fact that the terrorists who attacked us on September 11 observed Sharia. “Do you want to support terrorism?”
This argument not only appallingly conflates all Muslims with Muslims who observe Sharia, but Muslims who observe Sharia with terrorists. The notion that 1.4 billion people could ever be the same might seem laughable, were the decision to lump all Muslims together – and then equate them with the worst handful – not made so frequently. This false logic is at the root of much fear.
Trying to provide a parallel to the pseudo-logic of Islamophobia is a challenge. Here is but a vain attempt from American history: fear of the Japanese during World War II. Many differences are immediately apparent. The United States was actually at war with Japan (it is not at war with Islam), Japan is a nation rather than a highly disparate group of religious practitioners, and the war was being fought in good part through conventional tactics. Even so, the widespread fear of a fifth column had horrendous consequences for freedom in America. The American government, under an Executive Order from the Roosevelt Administration, rounded up and interned more than 120,000 American citizens in guarded camps, even though few if any had even considered undermining American war efforts. Their lives were tossed into disarray, undermining the American dream they immigrated for and the Constitutional values for which their brothers in arms were fighting overseas.
As a country that has long prided itself on representing a superior national enterprise, we must learn from our past. We have not yet taken unconscionable measures against our Muslim citizens and must avoid doing so at all costs. As our history indicates, our Constitutional values may well be at stake when we fear and single out an American community.
Currently, we see Islamophobes and fear-mongers inching us toward unthinkable violations of religious freedom. In America, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peace-loving and loyal citizens. Their mosques and community centers reflect this outlook. Yet when civic leaders in New York recently went public with their hope to transform the former Burlington Coat Factory building into a Muslim community center, they were tarred and feathered for “radicalism.” Their proposedPark51 center was mislabeled the “Ground Zero Mosque” and the center’s visionaries, Daisy Khan and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, were labeled terrorist sympathizers. Both condemn terrorism and have worked tirelessly for decades to prevent it through interfaith collaboration and dialogue. Rauf even partnered with the George W. Bush administration to work for Middle East peace. Moreover, the movie theaters, swimming pools, dining areas and conference centers they propose are hardly radical. Only through conflation, distortion, and fear could we become so afraid of a mere recreation center.
Some say that the notion of a “mosque” near the hallowed site of Ground Zero is insensitive. That position might seem consistent but for three things: the proposed Muslim community center is out of sight from Ground Zero, other houses of worship have not been barred from the area, and little (negative) attention has been paid to the strip clubs in the neighborhood. When strip clubs are prioritized over a place for people to talk, socialize, and pray, it seems clear that fear is at play. Better a known vice, the fear-mongers imply, than a less understood religion.
Cost of this fear is tremendous. Protests against Park51 have metastasized into a national movement against the establishment of mosques. Fighting the construction of mosques has lead to even more outrageous threats – and plans by one extremist church in Florida to burn copies of the Quran on the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Even some local and national politicians have joined in the chorus of fright. Long-term solutions to terrorism are far more complicated than short-term political gain; it is easier to unite constituents against a phantasm than for a purpose. Fear of the unknown has spiraled out of control, targeting Sharia, places of worship, and now even Scripture. The fear is feeding on itself, and starting to consume the essence of religion in America: freedom. The Founding Fathers knew that when one house of worship is endangered, none of them are safe; when a Torah is burned, a Bible may be next; when one kind of religious law is defamed, theologies of all kinds may become subjected to hate.
It would seem that in the name of preserving American values – supposedly against terrorism – we have come to actually compromise those same values. Freedom cannot be preserved through its own debasement. Singling out Muslim Americans, much as with prejudice against Jewish Americans and Catholic Americans before them, will prove to be wrong. The question is how much damage will be done before the fear subsides.
Impeding the construction of Park51 actually strengthens radicals. Daisy Khan and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf have more than proven their love of America and desire for peace. If anything, the Park51 community center they envision will revitalize the neighborhood still recovering from the 9/11 attacks. It will be a sign from moderate Muslims that they stand with all Americans in the process of rebuilding – and mourning – the devastation.
In fact, the only true beneficiaries of Islamophobia are the terrorist organizations that want to show that America is not actually free, that Muslims will never be welcome here. Terrorism is both a cause and a product of fear; Islamophobes amplify the voices of extremists and create polarities that need never exist.
Rather than unwittingly aiding extremists, Americans should return to their core values, namely the profound belief in religious freedom. It is what the Pilgrims came to the New World for and what the Founders fought for during the Revolutionary War. As the great patriot Thomas Paine proclaimed, “I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.” That is a credo to which all Americans of faith can ascribe, so long as they do not succumb to fear.
__
Joshua Stanton, is co-Director of Religious Freedom USA and a Founding Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue™. A Schusterman Rabbinical Fellow at Hebrew Union College, he is the recipient of numerous leadership awards. He is also a blogger for the Huffington Post and serves on the Board of Directors of World Faith, as well as the Education as Transformation project.
An Analysis of the Results of the Federal Prop 8 Same-Sex Marriage Trial
This article also appears here.
This is an analysis of the courtroom proceedings in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the August 4, 2010 decision by Judge Vaughn Walker upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry and not an analysis of the moral reasoning behind either position.
Summary
In short, Judge Walker ruled based on the evidence presented, as any trial judge should, and regardless of his own personal sexual orientation or biases, Prop 8 supporters simply did not make a viable case for themselves. Sloganeering may have won the election but did not win a trial where real evidence was required. Prop 8 supporters may later look at the ruling and claim it was wrongly decided but as this essay points out, the reality is that they did a poor job presenting their evidence and only put two witnesses on the stand, both of whom had previously written statements that contradicted their testimony in favor of Prop 8. When both of these witnesses were neutralized, Prop 8 advocates had nothing left with which to prove their case and any effort by any judge to add in facts to uphold Prop 8 would have been the very definition of judicial activism.
How Prop 8 Became Law
In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state constitution and thousands of same-sex couples were married. In November 2008, by a vote of 52% to 48% California voters passed Proposition 8 ( “Prop 8″ ) a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
This constitutional amendment was argued before the California Supreme Court. At oral argument in March 2009, the court asked Ken Starr, lead counsel in favor of Prop 8, whether there was any limitation to what the people could do.
Speaking of the state constitution, Starr replied, “The right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process. The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle.”
Despite the vast implications of Starr’s statement, the court found itself powerless to overturn Prop 8.
The Question Before the Court
When David Boies and Theodore Olson brought suit against Prop 8 in Federal Court alleging that the equality principle of the Federal Constitution was violated when the people of California took away the existing right to marry, the argument focused on a simple question, “Is there a compelling state reason, or even a rational basis, for California to prohibit same-sex marriage?”
During the run-up to the November 2008, Prop 8 supporters were free to say anything to get votes. They took full advantage of this by portraying a parade of horrors that same-sex marriage would bring and played to gut-level anti-homosexual feelings. They argued that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages. They argued that it would lead to increases in child molestation. They argued that the Bible said homosexuality was wrong and that the state law should mirror the Bible.
But in Federal court, Prop 8 supporters needed to present legal, secular empirical evidence to support the idea that same-sex marriage was such a threat that the government was compelled to put a stop to it. This argument was made more difficult by the fact that a handful of states already approved same-sex marriage.
In this context, personal or religious convictions and moral arguments needed to be backed up with objective facts. Unlike the California Supreme Court, Judge Walker was not beholden to the simple fact that the California constitution had been amended. He was charged with examining the evidence for and against Prop 8 in light of the U.S. Constitution.
The Evidence Presented
As in any trial, the judge would have to make a decision based on the evidence presented. He did not have the luxury of filling in the gaps in the testimony in order to reach a decision in line with his own feelings, which is the hallmark of being an “activist judge.” Rather, he had to rule based on the facts presented, and this is what he did in his lengthy ruling which is available online athttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling
To challenge Prop 8, same-sex marriage advocates brought forward eight lay-witnesses, including two same-sex couples, and nine expert witnesses. The lay-witnesses described their feelings of being discriminated against and the idea that the law was not fair. Expert witnesses testified to various facts and statistics that they said demonstrated that same-sex marriage was not socially harmful. These were the standard arguments that same-sex marriage proponents have been making for years and there really was nothing new or novel.
Same-sex marriage advocates even called Hak-Shing William Tam on the stand in order to demonstrate that voters had been given incorrect information and voted based on anti-homosexual prejudice. Tam’s name had appeared next to the ballot arguments in the voter information pamphlets in the run-up to the November 2008 election. Tam had helped craft many of the arguments for Prop 8 and he testified that, as he stated on his website promoting Prop 8, he believed that homosexuals were 12 times more likely to be pedophiles, but could not state where he got this information.
Tam also admitted he had stated that incest and polygamy had been legalized in the Netherlands soon after the country legalized same-sex marriage in 2001. This was factually untrue. The questioning went like this:
David Boies: “You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized same incest and polygamy?”
Tam: “Yeah, look at the date, Polygamy happened afterward.”
Boies: “Who told you that? Where did you get that idea?”
Tam: “It’s the Internet. Another person in the organization found it and he showed it to me. . . . I looked at the document and I thought it was true.”
Prop 8 Advocates Presented Only Two Witnesses And Neither Was Consistent Or Credible
Prop 8 supporters cross-examined these pro-same-sex marriage witnesses extensively but despite the large number of people who had promoted Prop 8, Prop supporters only put up two witnesses to defend the Proposition. With so few, Prop 8 defenders should have realized that they needed to put their best foot forward and present overwhelming evidence. Instead, Prop 8 supporters presented weak witnesses who had previously contradicted the pro-Prop 8 position.
David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values think tank, was anticipated to be Prop 8’s star witness. Normally expert witnesses need to “qualify” to testify in that capacity, as the court relies on them heavily when making decisions. In this case, Judge Walker allowed Blankenhorn’s testimony to be heard as an expert despite his lack of academic credentials or research and reserved the right to determine later whether he really qualified as an expert.
Blankenhorn gave contradictory testimony that marriage is a “socially-approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman” with a primary purpose to “regulate filiation”; but he also said that it was a “private adult commitment” between a man and a woman.
Blankenhorn wilted when Boies brought forward evidence that Blankenhorn had previously made written statements that Blankenhorn believed that marriage was important and could even benefit gays and lesbians, their children, and society at large. He also admitted a previous statement that same-sex marriage could lead to less sexual promiscuity. Then Blakenhorn shot Prop 8 advocates in the foot when he said that he still believed his previous statement that, “We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before.”
In his decision, Judge Walker found Blakenhorn’s testimony was not credible due to his inconsistent statements. After all, which Blankenhorn was he to believe? Judge Walker spends several pages defending his decision not to give Blankenhorn expert status and to dismiss his testimony as not credible.
Prop 8 proponents’ last best hope was Professor Kenneth P. Miller, an expert in American and California politics at Claremont McKenna College. Miller was expected to testify as an expert that gays and lesbians were not really a downtrodden minority and were not harmed by Prop 8’s disparate treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
Although same-sex marriage advocates objected to his lack of qualifications in the area of same-sex marriage, the court allowed him to testify.
At the trial level, an expert is expected to have a knowledge of materials listed he or she relies on and lists in an “expert report.” Miller testified that his “expertise” in the area was based on materials given to him by the Prop 8 attorneys and that he had only read “most of the materials” and had “tried to review all of them.”
When Miller took the stand, like Blankenhorn, he was trapped by his previous writings that ultimately undermined his argument. In 2001, Miller had written an article in the Santa Clara Law review entitled “Constraining Populism: The Real Challenge of Initiative Reform” in which he wrote that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, are vulnerable and powerless in the initiative process. He also admitted that at least some of those who voted for Prop 8 did so purely out of anti-gay sentiment.
The Decision And Its Aftermath
Given the fact that Judge Walker was dealt this hand, focused same-sex marriage advocates and two scattered Prop 8 witnesses this outcome was inevitable. Had they presented a solid case, some element of bias might be taken into account, but they presented such a sad defense of Prop 8 that a ruling in their favor would have required the judge to admit objective facts that they did not bring forward.
Predictably, despite the inexcusably poor showing by Prop 8, the religious right is painting Judge Walker as an “activist judge” who “ruled from the bench.” We are even seeing arguments that Prop 8 should have never been brought to trial and that the “will of the voters” should have prevailed.
The Prop 8 defense was fundamentally ineffective and was unable to explain why in any way it was necessary to take away same-sex marriage rights in order to protect a compelling state interest. They even failed to demonstrate that there was a rational basis for Prop 8.
Despite the deficit in Prop 8 advocacy, Judge Walker clearly spent a great deal of time considering the matter and writing an airtight decision that will be incredibly difficult to refute on appeal.
The question remains as to whether Prop 8 supporters will cut their losses now and allow California to join a handful of states where gay marriage is legal or whether they will appeal to the Ninth Circuit and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court which could nationalize same-sex marriage.
###
For further reading see:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/03/16/raw_majority_power_why_check…
http://spectrummagazine.org/node/1981
Transcript of Mayor Bloomberg’s Speech on Ground Zero Mosque
Delivered August 3, 2010 at Governors Island in New York.
“We’ve come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that more than 250 years later would greet millions of immigrants in this harbor. And we come here to state as strongly as ever, this is the freest city in the world. That’s what makes New York special and different and strong.
“Our doors are open to everyone. Everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it’s sustained by immigrants — by people from more than 100 different countries speaking more than 200 different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here or you came here yesterday, you are a New Yorker.
“We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That’s life. And it’s part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11, 2001.
“On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn’t want us to enjoy the freedoms to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams, and to live our own lives. Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that even here — in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance — was hard-won over many years.
“In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.
“This morning, the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to extend — not to extend — landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.
“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.
“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.
“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.
“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.
“For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.
“On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ (Bloomberg’s voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) ‘What beliefs do you hold?’
“The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.
“Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation, and in fact their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. But doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together, and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any ways consistent with Islam.
“Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith. And they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for better, the better part of a year, as is their right. The local community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal. And if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire city.
“Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure, and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off-limits to God’s love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/bloomberg-stands-up-for-mosque.html#ixzz0vb0sShlY
Mayor Bloomberg Gives Stirring Speech on Mosque
Why Using “Landmark Status” to Block the NY Mosque is a Threat to Religious Land Use Rights
Although the ACLJ, not to be confused with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), does not try to hide the fact that anti-Muslim sentiment is a predominant reason behind their opposition to the mosque, the ACLJ is instead trying to use a calling on the city to declare the proposed site a “historic landmark” because the landing gear from one of the jets that crashed into the World Trade Center landed on the site.
The ACLJ knows that there is nothing better than rallying around an “enemy” to bring out advocates and wallets, and is raising allegations that the mosque would be offensive and is telling supporters that the builder has unspecified terrorist ties. Setting aside, for the moment, the tinge of religious discrimination and Establishment Clause violation, let’s focus on the legal issues raised by the ACLJ’s tactic of declaring the site a “landmark” and how this could adversely affect church building projects across America.
Promoters of a mosque at Ground Zero, if blocked, could assert their rights under the “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act” (RLUIPA) that religious organizations in America who wanted to build and maintain their property without undue burden, such as unreasonable zoning laws, have fought for over the last twenty years.
The legal history of RLUIPA overshadows most of what happens in the courts and although many of you are familiar with it, I’m going to give it again for the benefit of those just joining us. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (the infamous peyote case) that if a governmental rule applies the same to everybody then it’s okay even if it puts a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion. Thus, Mr. Smith, an Oregonian, who had smoked peyote during a religious ceremony and got fired as a result was denied state unemployment benefits. Oregon could have made an exception for religious exercises but decided not to and so the court said that Mr. Smith was surely out of luck.
Many people said that Mr. Smith should never have smoked peyote even if it was part of his religion because it messed with his health and safety and that he deserved to be fired and denied unemployment benefits. But court watchers were alarmed when they realized how big a hole the Supreme Court had blown in the Free Exercise Clause. This provided states with the mechanism for getting rid of religious accommodation for religious minorities. State employees aren’t likely to go out of their way to accommodate your religious minority practices if they come into conflict with generally applicable state law. If everybody has to wear blue hats, then you do too. If everybody has to take a test on Saturday, then you do too. They’d say, “This is the state and we don’t have the resources or ability to accommodate every request. What makes you so special?”
Anyway, Congress, not open advocates of peyote and in a rare show of clarity, decided that this wasn’t good and they passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 which required religious accommodation in almost every area of life.
The Supreme Court fired back in 1997 in Boerne v. Flores and struck down RFRA. In Boerne, the Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, Patrick Flores, wanted to enlarge the church in Boerne, Texas. The city objected saying that the 1923 structure was a “historic landmark.” The case was litigated and the Supreme Court said that the city was right and that RFRA, which was the brand-spanking new law signed by President Clinton that the church relied on to win its case, only applied to Federal Government actions, not state actions.
Members of Congress scratched their heads and tried to figure out a way to get a law passed that would help churches like the one in Boerne and still pass so they came up with the oddly configured, but workable, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). They figured that the new law could also apply to prisoners since they were stuck in prison and needed to have a way to have their religious practices accommodated. Congress was so jazzed about RLUIPA that it was passed in 2000 by “unanimous consent” by both the House and Senate and no vote was even taken. RLUIPA prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use.
So coming back to the mosque, if RLUIPA were applied, the city would have to have a really good reason to deny a building permit. But now the religious right in America is up in arms, not about the neutral building of a house of worship, but because it is a place where Muslims would worship.
But what does the ACLJ think about Christian churches that admittedly want to house actual convicted criminals?
In Barr v. City of Sinton, the ACLJ makes an argument that under RLUIPA and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Sinton is in Texas), a pastor was wrongly prohibited from building a halfway house for low-level criminals within 1,000 feet of his church.
In an ACLU press release, ( http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-texas-and-aclj-urge-state-supreme-court-enforce-religious-freedom-act ) Jay Sekulow is quoted as saying, “The city’s ordinance puts an unfair burden on Pastor Barr’s free exercise of religion by forcing him to either permanently shut down Philemon Homes or relocate beyond city limits. The city’s ordinance also turns the Texas RFRA on its head – a statute that the Texas legislature intended to provide broad protection for the free exercise of religion by limiting the authority of state and local government officials to apply laws and ordinances in a way that substantially burdens religiously motivated conduct. We’re hopeful the Supreme Court of Texas will correct this injustice.”
Now I’m sure that the ACLJ would not want to see New York “apply laws and ordinances in a way that substantially burdens religiously motivated conduct” if the group was Christian, but since it’s Muslim, it’s a whole different story.
If Sekulow, et al, are able to convince the city to prohibit the building of the mosque, the ACLJ has already written a brief (that the ACLU also joined) that the mosque could adopt and modify for their
argument. http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/AmicusBrief_Barr_v._CityofSinton.pdf
If the ACLJ were able to have the mosque site declared a historic landmark, but the underlying reason is religious discrimination, they could be surrendering the hard-fought rights gained under RLUIPA. Soon churches across America would find it harder to expand their buildings or seek out new sites. Even today, it is difficult for houses of worship churches, synagogues, or mosques to be built in many communities- they do not provide tax revenue, they bring in traffic, and the neighbors simply say “Not In My Back Yard.”
The ACLJ is now making the opposite argument with regard to the Ground Zero Mosque, and is emblematic of an emerging trend in American religion and politics. Groups are willing to openly assert rights when it is in their own best interest to do so, but block identical rights when they disagree with whoever is asserting the right.
Many religious organizations have benefited enormously from the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLIUPA). Using cover of faith to block its application to unpopular religious groups is the quickest path to its demise.
Promoting Religious Liberty: Whither the Obama Administration? (Doug Bandow – Huffington Post)
EXCERPT:
The Obama administration has talked much about increased engagement and improved outreach abroad. But it has neglected to offer effective support for one of the most important human rights, religious liberty. The dilatory nomination of Dr. Cook as Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom is a start. Much more remains to be done, however. It would be tragic if the president who has done so much to raise expectations of America around the world did not use his popularity to encourage greater respect for religious liberty abroad.
LINK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/promoting-religious-liber_b_641534.html
‘Under God’ Spray-Painted On Secularist Billboard (WSOC)
EXCERPT:
Charlotte, NC (WSOC) – A secularist billboard on the Billy Graham Parkway was vandalized over the weekend.The billboard, which was paid for by the The North Carolina Secular Association, shows an American flag and the words “One Nation, Indivisible.”
Over the weekend, someone spray-painted the words “under God” on the billboard.Police were notified and are reviewing surveillance video from a nearby gas station, according to the NC Secular Association.
“This act shows just how needed our message is,” Joseph Stewart, founder of the NC Secular Association, said in a release. “Inserting ‘under God’ on our billboard is like inserting it into the original Pledge in 1954: it divides us as a nation. Our sign doesn’t say ‘One nation under no God’; it is inclusive. It says ‘One Nation Indivisible.’”
CLICK HERE TO SEE A PHOTO AND READ THE FULL ARTICLE: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/24068030/detail.html#
Italy Fights School Crucifix Ban (AJE)
The Italian government has begun its appeal against a decision by the European Court of Human Rights to ban crucifixes in school classrooms.
Nikki Haley provokes question: What’s Sikhism? (CNN)
EXCERPT:
By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN – While researching my prior post about Nikki Haley coming under attack by her fellow South Carolina Republicans for her Sikh heritage, I came across a local activist, Oran Smith of the Palmetto Family Council, who told CNN, “Most people can’t even pronounce ‘Sikh,’ even the ones that are criticizing her.”
For the record, the word Sikh rhymes with click. But knowing how to pronounce Sikhism won’t take you very far toward understanding whether this religious tradition is something that voters in South Carolina should fear and candidates in South Carolina should flee. So what are Sikhs and Sikhism all about? To answer that question, I contacted Gurinder Singh Mann, who occupies an endowed chair in Sikh Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Mann, one of the world’s foremost authorities on Sikhism (and himself a Sikh), took time out from a conference he was attending at Lund University, Sweden, to tell me this:
“Belonging to a five-century-old monotheistic tradition, the Sikhs lay emphasis on a life of hard work, social commitment, and ethical living. A complex set of doctrinal, historical and sociological reasons made them a very political people and they have kept up that heritage in both the Punjab, the land of their origin, and wherever they have migrated to in the past century. Nikki Haley may well be the latest episode in this saga: you carry on your politics and change the religion if need be.”
READ THE FULL ARTICLE: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/22/nikki-haley-provokes-question-whats-sikhism/