The recent example of the New Jersey judge who interpreted the religious law of Sharia to be of greater value than that of the law of the land is stunning (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html) and while the appellate court overturned this idiot's ruling, it opens the door to scary prospects. What about female mutilation? Honor killings? Stoning for Sharia-forbidden crimes? At what point is the line drawn between freedom from religious persecution, and respect for the most basic of human rights assured in the Constitution?
In point of fact, this question of human rights versus religious freedom has become a presidential affair, only with the president choosing a disconcertingly wrong side. (Note: I am using an absolute. This is beyond question or doubt.) The debate in which Mr Obama has so unwisely plunged is in regards to a proposed $100 million mosque to be built at Ground Zero. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/08/201081422058404426.html)His defense was faulty, "I believe Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in the country." There are more than 100 mosques in New York city at present. Muslims aren't hard-pressed to find a place to practice their religion.
What's more, Mr Obama went on to chatter about an unshakable commitment to religion because of our Americanism, or some such drivel. Unfortunately for his fatuous assertion that a mosque at Ground Zero will be a symbol of healing, this unshakable commitment runs headlong into one of the key assertions of the Declaration of Independence, one of the most important documents in human history, which predated the Constitution by some 11 years. "We find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (italics added)"
Wherein there is religious freedom, or more importantly, the right to do anything one wishes as long as one's religion countenances it, listed? In fact, as in the example of the Mormons and their plural marriage, the government has the right to place strictures on religious activity. Instead, the phrase "pursuit of happiness" catches the eye. This, then, is the keystone to understanding Mr Obama's failure to grasp the cause of anger for many Americans when he chose to endorse this mosque proposal. He ignored a greater precept for a lesser one. The one American whose sole responsibility is to "preserve, uphold, and protect" the Constitution of the United States chose to overlook a core principle in the drafting of the Constitution to make political hay.
Almost 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks. The entire city was in mourning, Jew, Hindu, Christian, Muslim alike. This event rippled across the country. If one simply assumed that every person that died had at least 100 people who knew them, either personally or professionally, this is an impact of 300,000. Add in a 'Six Degrees of Separation' dynamic, and this number can leap to 1.8M. And this number doesn't begin to truly capture the effect on the country and her citizens. While the 800,000 Muslims in New York would possibly benefit from the access to (yet another) mosque in the city, it is guaranteed that the 1.8 million who were directly affected by the events of 9/11 would have a thumb in their collective eye, a constant reminder of the most painful of national tragedies, and a symbol of Islam, the religion twisted to the point of martyrdom and mass murder.
This obelisk of pain would be a continual obstacle to this principle of the "pursuit of Happiness." How can one be expected to move on, heal, and begin to pursue happiness when there is a daily physical monument to the most emotionally traumatic event in one's life? Mr Obama had best bone up on his Constitution, his history, and his grasp on the American psyche, as this endorsement could prove to be the albatross to his reelection bid in 2 years. Of course, then again, he could just let the Mormons go back to multiple wives.
