Proposing Limited Rights.

I wrote a while back that I consider myself to be a First Amendment absolutist. This is obviously in reference to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (the first of the ten amendments that are collectively called The Bill of Rights). It was in defense of the cartoon South Park for their depiction of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. I saw this as a freedom of speech issue; something that is unequivocally protected by the First Amendment and as such should be defended as a pillar of American (and to a certain degree Western) principle.

The First Amendment is not limited to freedom of speech and the press though. It also clearly forbids any law that favors one religion over another. The United States government cannot establish a national religion, nor can it interfere with the individual practice of religion. This part of the First Amendment is just as important as the freedom of speech and the press. In fact, it is the combination of all of these factors that makes it such an important amendment and worthy of being the very first.

It is with the idea of being a First Amendment absolutist that I turn my attention to a story that has got American conservatives fuming: the revelation that there are plans to build a Muslim mosque/community center in lower Manhattan, a few blocks away from Ground Zero. One of the most vocal critics of these plans is Sarah Palin, who on Sean Hannity's program said:

I just think this is just one of the worst decisions that ever has been made that will adversely effect New York City. And those innocent victims, those families of those who were killed in the 9-11 tragedy, it saddens me to think that people don't understand what building this mosque at such hallowed ground really represents. The mosque, fine, we are all about religious tolerance, that's what makes America beautiful and free. We're all about religious freedom, but to provoke even more heartache and more division in our country, especially there in New York City, by choosing that specific location, to kind of mark territory with this mosque. I think that it's a knife in the collective heart of Americans who say, "Yeah, build the mosque, but down the road."

Palin tries to conceal her own religiously clouded bigotry by blowing this rather uninteresting and unimportant story out of all reasonable proportion. She claims that she is "all about" religious freedom while advocating the restriction of said freedom for a group that believes differently from her. She either fails to realize or deliberately omits the fact that religion in America is essentially a free enterprise (I suspect she fails to realize considering her laughably poor knowledge of the Constitution as demonstrated throughout the 2008 Presidential campaign and in her new career as professional 'Facebooker'). Building a community center a few blocks from Ground Zero (not actually on Ground Zero as she and other pundits have implied) is not the "knife in the collective heart of Americans". Why is it being built? Could be because there are Muslims who live in the area and a community center seemed like something that would benefit that specific community? According to Palin, no.

I would certainly understand outrage if some fundamentalist, bin Ladenist sect of Islam sought to set up a place to make a shrine out of Ground Zero for their absurd jihad, but that is not what is being proposed here. It is just a community center and mosque for the local Muslim community whose branch of Islam is different from the jihadists and fundamentalists of America's enemy. There should be no controversy here.

Getting back to my original point though, is the idea of religious freedom. It is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. As a result, nothing can be done legally to ban this center from being built. Palin needs to realize that she can say she supports religious freedom all she wants but if she is advocating the restriction on American Muslims to build a place of worship and community she is, by definition, not for religious freedom.

This is the same woman who feels that the laws of the United States are founded on Christian morality (which is, quite frankly, wrong) and that the Bible should be a bigger influence in the U.S. government. I cannot conceal my contempt for how remarkably moronic this woman is. She is a hypocrite who wants special protection for her chosen faith and at the same time limits on another equally ridiculous faith. She clearly has no understanding of the founding of America, and continues to be celebrated for this lack of knowledge by the conservative media. It depresses me that she is considered an influential and worthwhile spokesperson for anything related to U.S. politics. I wonder if her implication that there can be some restrictions to a Constitutionally protected right would hold up when a discussion of the Second Amendment comes up. I think we all know the answer to that.

There is no consistency in the positions this vapid, anti-science, creationist, fundamentalist bigot holds on this issue. Personally, I think all religions are equally wrong and equally stupid (they are not, however, equally violent but that is drifting too far from the point) yet under the American constitution they should all be protected to the same degree. No special treatment and no persecution or restriction should be afforded to any religious group operating within the United States who are not committing any crimes as a group. This mosque/community center should be allowed to be built and used by the people of that community. The reactionary talking points of those on the right (some of whom probably still harbor suspicions that the President is a secret Muslim himself) are, quite honestly, ridiculous.