http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2010/09/the_fate_of_our_freedoms_impli.html
The fate of our freedoms: Implications of debating the NYC mosque
by HAMID ZANGENEH
Many of us have come to this land of the free to be what we want to be; to do what comes naturally to us; to be secure from harassment of government agents; to be free of religious persecution; to gather in a corner and praise whomever for whatever reason.
These are freedoms that define life in America. We must be vigilant and guard them, because what we have is slippery, and if lost, might be difficult to regain.
This is a crucial point to remember as we debate the building of the New York City Islamic cultural center and mosque, and it is worth repeating so it becomes part of the subconscious of every American. Although the debate is heated, it has potential to give way to our democracy’s growth and maturation. Future generations must take note of how insidiously our freedoms can be threatened and be cognizant as to how words can be used to sabotage our freedoms.
And, if we set an example of measured, methodical and fair examination of the issues, within the context of our Constitution, then we will set a standard for future generations in which the Constitution is upheld to support the rights of all Americans.
In this case, no one can or has argued against the explicit command of the Constitution, which ensures that individuals can choose their faith and, if they follow the rules, regulations and laws, can choose how and where to practice their faith.
So, given this constitutional foundation, and being a free nation, the opposition to this project has manufactured a line of reasoning that shifts the discussion away from what is indisputable to one based on fungible emotional considerations: “You have the right, but ...”
Proponents of this line of reasoning see building the center in the shadow of the World Trade Center as insensitive.
They forget, however, the many Muslims who died in those towers and the many Muslims who rescued and recovered bodies.
They forget the fact that many Muslims treated and cared for the victims in hospitals. And, even as of today, they ignore the many Muslims who are working at the site.
So, isn’t it insensitive on their part to assume that the 9/11 attack didn’t affect all people of all religions?
Many of us felt hurt and undervalued when Newt Gingrich likened the building of the cultural center in lower Manhattan to the building of a Nazi monument close to a Holocaust site and when a Fox anchor suggested the building could be a “Hamburg cell” next to ground zero.
For the mere fact that emotions are running high around this issue, and tend to do so instinctively when conversations turn to religion or politics, it’s important for us to set them aside to preserve our constitutional freedoms.
President Obama initially played his presidential role and reaffirmed the rights of the people to build a center wherever they choose.
However, the next day he damaged that stance by questioning the wisdom of placing the center on that Manhattan site. “You can, but ... ” It’s this word, “but,” that’s threatening to water down our constitutional freedoms.
Once we start making conditions for our rights, where do we stop?
Unfortunately this is not the first and, I surmise, it won’t be the last issue that populists and demagogues hijack and use to spark discord among the public. As history has witnessed, dismal economic conditions often are accompanied by increased intolerance, confrontation and perhaps even bloodshed similar to the recent stabbing of the Muslim taxi driver in New York City.
These are the days during which we Americans must lead the world by our deeds and not just by the power of our sword and strength of our economy. With our economy weakened and our military strained, what sets us apart as a nation is our pluralistic society guarded by a public armed with the living Constitution.
How we choose to uphold this document and support the freedoms of all Americans is in our hands.
HAMID ZANGENEH is professor of economics at Widener University in Chester and editor of the Journal of Iranian Research and Analysis.
Many of us have come to this land of the free to be what we want to be; to do what comes naturally to us; to be secure from harassment of government agents; to be free of religious persecution; to gather in a corner and praise whomever for whatever reason.
These are freedoms that define life in America. We must be vigilant and guard them, because what we have is slippery, and if lost, might be difficult to regain.
This is a crucial point to remember as we debate the building of the New York City Islamic cultural center and mosque, and it is worth repeating so it becomes part of the subconscious of every American. Although the debate is heated, it has potential to give way to our democracy’s growth and maturation. Future generations must take note of how insidiously our freedoms can be threatened and be cognizant as to how words can be used to sabotage our freedoms.
And, if we set an example of measured, methodical and fair examination of the issues, within the context of our Constitution, then we will set a standard for future generations in which the Constitution is upheld to support the rights of all Americans.
In this case, no one can or has argued against the explicit command of the Constitution, which ensures that individuals can choose their faith and, if they follow the rules, regulations and laws, can choose how and where to practice their faith.
So, given this constitutional foundation, and being a free nation, the opposition to this project has manufactured a line of reasoning that shifts the discussion away from what is indisputable to one based on fungible emotional considerations: “You have the right, but ...”
Proponents of this line of reasoning see building the center in the shadow of the World Trade Center as insensitive.
They forget, however, the many Muslims who died in those towers and the many Muslims who rescued and recovered bodies.
They forget the fact that many Muslims treated and cared for the victims in hospitals. And, even as of today, they ignore the many Muslims who are working at the site.
So, isn’t it insensitive on their part to assume that the 9/11 attack didn’t affect all people of all religions?
Many of us felt hurt and undervalued when Newt Gingrich likened the building of the cultural center in lower Manhattan to the building of a Nazi monument close to a Holocaust site and when a Fox anchor suggested the building could be a “Hamburg cell” next to ground zero.
For the mere fact that emotions are running high around this issue, and tend to do so instinctively when conversations turn to religion or politics, it’s important for us to set them aside to preserve our constitutional freedoms.
President Obama initially played his presidential role and reaffirmed the rights of the people to build a center wherever they choose.
However, the next day he damaged that stance by questioning the wisdom of placing the center on that Manhattan site. “You can, but ... ” It’s this word, “but,” that’s threatening to water down our constitutional freedoms.
Once we start making conditions for our rights, where do we stop?
Unfortunately this is not the first and, I surmise, it won’t be the last issue that populists and demagogues hijack and use to spark discord among the public. As history has witnessed, dismal economic conditions often are accompanied by increased intolerance, confrontation and perhaps even bloodshed similar to the recent stabbing of the Muslim taxi driver in New York City.
These are the days during which we Americans must lead the world by our deeds and not just by the power of our sword and strength of our economy. With our economy weakened and our military strained, what sets us apart as a nation is our pluralistic society guarded by a public armed with the living Constitution.
How we choose to uphold this document and support the freedoms of all Americans is in our hands.
HAMID ZANGENEH is professor of economics at Widener University in Chester and editor of the Journal of Iranian Research and Analysis.
