[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Ground Zero Mosque (Actually, Two-Blocks-from-Ground-Zero Mosque) I dont have anything helpful to say on the ethical, public relations, or interfaith amity questions raised by the ground zero mosque. Cathy Young takes one view, and I know there are others, but I leave that question to people who specialize more in such matters. But the legal issue is open and shut. The Free Exercise Clause means that the government may not discriminate against an entity because of its religious denomination. The Free Speech Clause means that the government generally may not discriminate an entity because of what it says or teaches (and that applies to discrimination against religious speakers as much as to discrimination against secular speakers). There are some exceptions to the latter principle, but none apply here. This means that the government may not refuse a zoning permit to a group because its Muslim, or Tea Party, or Socialist, or anti-gay-rights. It may not try to use landmarking law to bar the group from reconstructing a building, if the law is being used because of the groups message. (A religious organization may in some situations and in some jurisdictions get an exemption even when a neutral, generally applicable law is being applied to it for religion and speech-independent reasons; but here the landmarking law was clearly being applied precisely because the mosque was a mosque, so the Free Exercise Clauses prohibition on religious discrimination comes into play.) Nor can the New York Public Service Commission force Consolidated Edison to refuse to sell its property to a religious or ideological because of the entitys religious or ideological affiliation. A private property owner might have the right to discriminate based on religion or ideology in its choice of buyers. (I dont know New York law on the subject, and I dont know whether federal housing law would apply to discrimination based on religion in sale of non-residential property.) But the government may not force or coercively pressure private property owners to so discriminate. Naturally, the fact that many people might be offended by the presence of a mosque not far from Ground Zero doesnt change the constitutional analysis. Nor does the fact that people remain free to build mosques elsewhere; content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech cant generally be justified on the grounds that they are limited in location, and neither can religious discrimination. These are basic principles of American free speech law, and of American religious freedom law. They help protect all of us, liberal or conservative, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist. Carving out exceptions from them will jeopardize all of us. We shouldnt sacrifice these basic American principles principles that help make America free and great, and distinguish it from most other countries for the sake of symbolism.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
interesting legal analysis from a conservative lawyer.
The first amendment isn't talking about muslims. It is talking about real religions. Christianity.
What about those Hindu dudes? And those Jews? What is it with the Sikhs and their knives? What about Mormons and their superman under gauchies? What's up with that?
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|