The Mosque at ground Zero
Tuesday, 08/24/2010 8:39:50 PM

Recently during a White House dinner commemorating the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, President Obama said that those wanting to build the Islamic Center and mosque 2 blocks from where the World trade Center twin towers once stood have the constitutional right to religious freedom. The next day he clarified that he was talking only about the right to build the center and not the “wisdom” of doing so close to “ground zero” where more than 2,700 people died when planes hijacked by terrorists slammed into the twin towers of the World trade Center.
A New York City newspaper reported that The Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, along with the city's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to allow the building of the mosque. The decision was based solely on the fact that “there was little architectural significance to the building, and with or without landmark designation; there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. “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.
It seems that everyone wants to invoke the Constitution to stop prayer or build a mosque. What exactly does the Constitution say about religion?
In 1791 the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified and states: “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.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Is stopping the building of this mosque a violation of the 1st amendment? It is wise here to employ a hermeneutic principle that should be used by anyone who studies the Bible to ask a very important question regarding the 1st amendment: what did the original writer/writers intend when they wrote it? If we do not ask that question when attempting to interpret a text, conclusions will run amuck, and many will end in absurdity.
The Plymouth Colony was an English Colonial venture from 1620 to 1691 founded by a group of separatists (Congregationalists) and Anglicans who were fleeing religious persecution in England, and searching for a place to worship as they saw fit.
What was happening in England that caused them to flee? In prior years, the Protestant reformation had taken roots in Europe and religious persecution resulted against the Protestants by both the Catholic Church as well as the Church of England. Two notable reformers in England during the reformation were William Tyndale and John Bunyan.
John Bunyan, best remembered for his book A Pilgrim’s Progress was a Baptist minister jailed in 1661 for preaching without a “license” and for preaching at unapproved “private meetings.” When The Church of England was the official church of the kingdom, this was the fate of those who would oppose the crown. Bunyan had repeated chances to gain his freedom if he promised not to preach. He declined the offer stating that he would preach whenever God afforded him the opportunity. He remained in prison for 12 years.
Prior to that, William Tyndale was a reformer that was responsible for producing the first English translation of the Bible. How was this received by England’s authorities? In 1535, Tyndale was arrested by church authorities and jailed for over a year. In 1536 He was tried for heresy, strangled and burnt at the stake.
This was the history of the men who wrote the constitution as well as the 1st amendment to the constitution. This was undoubtedly in their mind as they drew from collective experiences and wrote: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Is the question of the mosque really about religious freedom?
In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to this clause, holding that a state must demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting religious activities. Sherbert v. Verner, involved a woman who was fired and denied unemployment benefits based on her religion that restricted her from working on Saturdays. She won because her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was infringed upon and the state did not have a compelling government interest to deny unemployment benefits.

In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) The case arose when the Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, Patrick Flores, applied for a building permit to enlarge his 1923 mission-style St. Peter's Church in Boerne, Texas. Local zoning authorities denied the permit, relying on an ordinance governing additions and new construction in a historic district which included the church as a contributing property. The Archbishop brought a lawsuit challenging the permit denial under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Archbishop Flores argued that his congregation had outgrown the existing structure. He claimed his ability to act on his beliefs was substantially burdened by the denial of his proposed addition. In the end, the addition was denied.
According to case law a state must demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting religious activities. It is not difficult to argue the case that due to the death of 2,700 people at the hands of Islamic terrorists where the proposed 13 story mosque is to be built is a compelling interest in restricting this religious activity.

If the building of the mosques is prohibited, is there really a violation of the 1st amendment? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Is a Muslim’s free exercise of religion violated if the mosque is not built in THAT location?

New York Governor David Peterson has attempted to provide an alternative location for the building of a mosque in the same area, but a further distance from Ground Zero. To date, the proposed builders have showed no interest in taking him up on his offer.

If the government of the United States prohibited Muslims from attending any mosque, then there would have been a violation of 1st amendment rights. If all the Muslims in New York City were banned from attending a mosque after the terrorist attack, then their 1st amendment right would have been violated. If there were a wholesale slaughter of Muslims due to their religious beliefs, there would have been a violation of the 1st amendment.

All Muslims in the United States are free to exercise their religion. The terrorists who are locked up in Guantanamo Bay are allowed to have their prayer rugs, and have been told what direction Mecca is located so that they can face that direction while they pray (as their religion dictates).

Is the building of the 13 story mosque 2 blocks from ground zero an attempt to allow Muslims to look down upon the destruction that radical Muslims created in the name of Allah? Will the project be funded by radical Islamic groups? Is it an attempt by Islamists to assert their superiority and victory over the freedom and capitalism that is enjoyed by the infidels of The United States? These are all questions that are yet to be answered.

But the major question that must be answered in a country that is built upon the fundamental rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, as well as freedom of religion . . . if they are prohibited from building the mosque has their 1st amendment rights been violated? I believe the answer is . . . No.