The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
From the preamble to the Bill of Rights
I think it's interesting that the first members of the U.S.
Congress took the time to explain why they were putting together the first amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
They probably thought people would wonder why they were adding to a document they'd ratified less than two years prior. This part is especially telling: "...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers...." Wish our current members of congress had equally strong feelings.
There is a lot of talk these days about making changes to the U.S. Constitution again. In some cases, members of congress are advocating repeal of certain amendments, or parts of certain amendments. Most people who think these ideas through to their logical conclusions will see the unintended consequences of such action.
But especially troubling to me is how many Americans are forgetting what is in the Bill of Rights, in particular, the first amendment.
Amendment I
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.
The first amendment has been interpreted quite broadly over the past 220+ years. The government tries to stay out of religion and pretty much allows you to say what you'd like to say. We have a lot of freedom to express ourselves in this country, with notable exceptions (pornography, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).
But lately I've been disturbed the the number of people who feel that it's quite okay to prohibit "the free exercise thereof" when the religion being practiced is Islam. As a Christian woman, I have some very strong opinions about the way women are treated in that religion, particularly as expressed by members of the Taliban. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I have theological differences in their understanding of the nature of God. But as an American, I recognize the rights of American Muslims to practice their religion as they see fit, as long as it does not harm others or break the laws of the United States.
A recent poll shows that 68% of Americans are opposed to the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque." I imagine a lot of this sentiment has to do with concerns about the building being in such close proximity to the World Trade Center site. Anyone who has been to New York knows that the area is filled with churches, synagogues and even a mosque already. (There's a current mosque four blocks from Ground Zero that pre-dates the World Trade Center.) What is the harm in one more?
If the concern is because the 9/11 terrorists and the 9/11 planners were/are Islamic, why are we blaming the entire religion for the acts of a few? (There are more than a billion Muslims in the world.) No one blames Christians as a whole for the acts of Timothy McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers, even though their actions were motivated by their Christian faith. What is the difference?
This country has long been identified as a "Christian" nation since the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, so perhaps Americans feel that freedom of religion only applies to other Christians. I'm forced to reach this conclusion since Americans are trying to stop Muslims from building new mosques all over the country, not just at Ground Zero. I'm hard-pressed to understand how any American can justify their opposition to any place of worship, but they do.
Sadly, this is becoming a political issue that is driving a wedge ever deeper into the partisan divide. On one thing we should still be united, regardless of party, gender, race or religion: the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps it's time to re-read it.
3 comments:
I can see why some places are having a hard time with face-covering clothing such as a burka and wish to make rules against the use of such clothing on certain premises. For example, if someone tries to enter an airport or a courtroom clothed in a traditional burka, how can you tell who is under there? It might not even be a woman, at the very least, and certainly is would be very difficult to use a security camera's records on this person should a crime occur. For this same reason, most schools disallow hoods pulled onto the head within the building. It may look like religious prejudice, but it has its practicalities. A Jewish skull cap doesn't do the same thing with covering up a person's identity. And nuns don't cover their faces -- and a lot don't really cover much of their hair anymore either.
However, as to the building of a mosque near the site of the towers, I certainly agree with you. A mosque would be a symbol of peace and worship. And it's classic prejudice to blame all members of a group for what a few members have done or are.
I'm also having some issues with the folks who want to change the 14th amendment, but that's for a different post, I think. (For the record, I think immigration issues should begin by helping Mexico solve its problems so that fewer Mexicans wish to leave and dealing with those who still try to come illegally at the border, not by rounding them up like cattle. I also have no problem with criminals found to be illegal immigrants being shipped back home, but I do have a problem with hunting down those whose only crime is trying for a better life.)
The one change I would like to see in the Constitution is the ERA, but that is long gone and too late. (sigh).
Great points. I can certainly agree with limiting religious freedom in certain settings, such as airports. After all, we already give up many rights for the sake of security. If you don't want to give up those rights, you have many other travel options. (Although I can't see the airlines allowing complete strip searches to board aircraft, if they can figure out a way to profit by it, I'm sure they would consent.)
I like to consider myself a perfectly rational person, but this issue raises some fear in me. I am not saying to block the building of mosques but I do want to consider the problems that other nations with large Muslim populations are now facing. Are we being forward thinking with our actions or dismantling our own freedoms down the road? It is much harder to un-play the song once it has been sung.
Post a Comment