Skip to comments.Building a mosque is not covered by the first amendment
Posted on 08/03/2010 10:08:17 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
There are great things about America one of them is the freedom of religion. However the freedom of religious expression is restricted in the USA. We are free to believe whatever we want, but since the Supreme Court 1879 (Reynolds vs. US) decision there are limits to expressing religious beliefs if those hurt others.
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.
We are free to believe in Jesus , however in America we are not free to erect a cross on public property and say a prayer before a school football game. There are restrictions on our religious practices. The freedom of religion in America is extended to beliefs not to expression.
Building a mosque is a religious practice. Muslims in NYC are free to believe in Islam. However they should be a subject to the same old Supreme Court limitations on religious expression. If a religion practice is hurtful for others it can be prohibited in court.
Honestly, I am sick and tired listening to Democrats claiming we have to build a mosque next to the 9/11 attack sacred ground because of the freedom of religion.
There is nothing in the Constitution that protects the buildings religion. The Founding Fathers protected the freedom of the people, not of the buildings. Erecting a mosque is not covered by the first amendment, but by the city zoning regulations.
Apparently the city of NY decided they are OK with having a mosque at Ground Zero despite the protests of the citizen of NY and all around America. It is a local architecture and city development issue. There is nothing we can do if they say they are OK with it. Or maybe we can.
In America we also have the freedom to organize and we can start working toward erecting a church and a synagogue on both sides of the Ground Zero mosque. I am sure the moderate imam wouldnt mind. After all he told the City of NY his intentions are bringing the people and religions together. Really?
If a religion practice is hurtful for others it can be prohibited in court.
There is no freedom to not be offended. I suppose that gays can be hurt by the existence of church buildings of denominations that refuse to recognize sodomite marriages, so the buildings have to go.
This is based on the false assumption that islam is only a religion. It is a violent political ideology with its own laws and court system. Religion is only one component and is used to impose islam on non muslim societies. Islam is anathema to the U.S. Constitution. The two cannot coexist in the U.S.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You would be wrong.
I agree - there are a lot of restriction to religion in America.
If they give unlimited freedom of religion to Islam - they better give it to us too. It is not fair to restrict Christianity, but not restrict Islam.
Someone just needs to leave a fresh pig carcass on the spot of land via drive-by.
As I noted our religious freedoms are restricted by the courts. Can you erect a cross on government ground? Can you lead a prayer in public school? The first amendment gives unlimited freedom - however the courts restricted it to beliefs, not practices.
Are we free to eat pork in NYC now?
This is nothing but cowardice on display, and the same people who are afraid of, or wish to gain from, angry Muslims will call angry Americans extremists. They are scum.
Muslims have a god that speaks to them, telling them to kill, kill, kill, and cities kowtow to them. Let a Christian think he is hearing God tell him to kill, and watch how fast he gets locked up. The acceptance of Islam is insanity, recognizable by all but the cowards.
“In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind . . . The only sects which he (Locke) thinks ought to be and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.”
This is up for debate and also many Christmas Trees, Menorahs and Creches are erected each year on public land.
Can you lead a prayer in public school?
Up until the 60s you could and it was done in the Founder's times as well. This is a recent atheistic occurrence.
The first amendment gives unlimited freedom - however the courts restricted it to beliefs, not practices
Can a child drink communion wine if that child is below the legal limit to drink alcohol? Yes because the child is expressing his beliefs.
Reynolds vs. US 1878 - the restriction over religion practices was born:
‘Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?’
Muslims are free to believe, but the religious practices are not unlimited free.
Buildings are not religious - people are.
The Men in Black should be given no such power over the people's will and their Constitution.
It’s quite a stretch to attempt to include the building of a place of worship as a practice that should or could be restricted. Your poor analogies of erecting symbols on public property fail, when the direct analogies of building a church or synagogue on private property are available.
Personally, I recognize the mosque for what it is, a taunt. However, I also recognize that no has the right to not be offended. When you have freedom, you’ll have offense. Freedom to not offend, isn’t really freedom at all.
I agree with you. The fact is our religious practices are being restricted more and more by ACLU and friends in courts. However when Islam is involved - they all act like the freedom of religious practices is unlimited.
The fault lies with the local government and the local residents for allowing this to proceed.
The Muslims are just taking advantage of the climate where weak-kneed locals refuse to stand up in great numbers to oppose this.
In most places churches are subject to zoning laws.
But none of this matters - the ruling class wants to show everyone who is boss and this is their way of doing it.
Don’t like it? STOP VOTING LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.
I’ll try to act surprised when all these people get re-elected this fall....
Your assessment is fair. I am too emotional over the issue. Sorry.
I am sure buildings of worship are subject to zoning regulations. You can’t build a mosque in my yard if I disapprove - we have property rights.
Bloomberg and the NYC board are seeking cover with the Constitution - they have the responsibility to approve or not.
I wonder what kind of lobbying is involved. Bribes may be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.