Guest post from Robert Jursik…
For a man seemingly incapable of going fifteen minutes without saying "Let me be clear," President Obama evidently has an uncanny knack for being misunderstood. Following the iftar dinner hosted at the White House Friday night, headlines in every major newspaper in America – and even the New York Times – screamed something similar to "President Backs Ground Zero Mosque." Within twenty-four hours came the update: "Uhh, no he didn’t."
Now we are told that he actually meant he supports the RIGHT to build a mosque but would not actually comment on the WISDOM of it. Horse hockey. The "eloquent" Harvard-trained lawyer-turned-best-selling-author-turned-president knows exactly what he meant: he wants everyone to think he agrees with them. It should not be that difficult to come down on one side of this question or the other. The debate we’re seeing in this country now proves that without question. Given the choice between progressive liberalism and libertarian constitutionalism, I choose…neither.
In fact, I choose – as I always do – conservatism…
…a defense for traditional virtue and established institutions. The conservative understands that the free exercise of constitutional rights nevertheless has a boundary, and your rights end at the point where my rights begin. The Constitution forcefully guarantees the right to freedom of worship, for Muslims, Jews, Christians, or even atheists. Constructing houses of worship is an extension of that right. No one on ANY side of this debate has or should contradict that. It is stipulated without objection.
This has always been a debate over time and manner, over the limiting of one group’s Constitutional right so as to protect the rights of others. Do I have the right to pray the Rosary? Of course. To pray the Rosary on my knees? Certainly. To stop my car, get out of it so that I may pray the Rosary on my knees? Absolutely. TO STOP THE CAR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE AT RUSH HOUR? No! There are boundaries for Constitutional rights, and part of the art of politics is to find that balance. This is the battleground for the Ground Zero mosque, and it is a fight for the distinctive conservative concept of cultural identity: who are we as Americans?
Conservative Americans recognize that simply because you have the right to do something does not mean you should, and that there are abstract barriers of tradition and culture which will limit behaviors permitted by the Constitution. The permissive liberals regard the Constitution as a "living" document, capable of constant flux, growth, and re-interpretation. Libertarian constitutionalists adhere to a strict textual orthodoxy which simultaneously abolishes the Department of Labor while legalizing heroin. The conservative acknowledges the fixed supremacy of the Constitution as the law of the land, but also the greater supremacy of nature and nature’s God. The mosque should be opposed because it is wrong to put it there. Not unconstitutional, not political, not prejudiced – just wrong, in the classical moral sense.
I will sum it up in two words: NOT HERE. Thousands upon thousands of Muslims live, work, and worship in New York City in nearly complete peace and security. I don’t know but there must be dozens of mosques peppered throughout the five boroughs. It is obvious on its face that New York has welcomed, and continues to welcome the free exercise of Islam nearly everywhere. But that "nearly" is critically important. On September 11th, 2001, radical, suicidal adherents to that religion flew planes into the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 Americans – in the shadow of which, the proposed mosque would have stood. Had they not done that, the mosque would simply be one more of the dozens that now sit in quiet obscurity throughout the city. That circumstance is gone forever. That area is not, and never will be the same. The murders that occurred there nearly a decade ago continue to sear the minds of the families and friends of the fallen. Regardless of Constitutional considerations, sheer decency, respect, and sensitivity for them and that neighborhood would demand the mosque be re-located – even if the law does not. That they will not move – even after receiving offers of State property for that purpose – speaks volumes.
Cordially,
Robert F Jursik
rjursik@comcast.net
AIM: RobertJursik
