Let the Mosque be built near Ground Zero

There are few things more important to the American experience than the freedom of religion.


Post New World England fought for hundreds of years about religion. It didn’t seem to matter that opposing sides were just a degree or two different in their religious view point. Suppression by one side or the other lead to violence and carnage. When the power shifted to the other side, they then visited the same on the other.

What kept that unrest from the New World shores was tolerance of each other’s religious point of view. In fact, it was so important that religion became an issue in the newly formed Republic, the authors of the constitution wrote into the document, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Of all the things the authors were vague about in the constitution, the words “no religious test shall ever be required” are as clear as it can get. It is clear the authors want no person in any position of authority in the country to make decisions based on a religious point of view.

Through the years, that belief in freedom of religion has been tested over and over. While we may not argue about some of the outcomes, in the long run, it came out right. We are still here, religion flourishes and people can feel free to worship just as they please, or not, depending on their point of view.

But, as a community of believers and non-believers we are now being tested. Our clear vision about the freedom of religion has be clouded by the violence the nation experienced on 9/11. The near complete collective thinking is that the violence was authorized by Islam. This is because a few powerful personalities have adopted Islam as their justification for all the violence they advocate. Responding to the call, a few hundred, arguable, a few thousand have taken up arms against the West in the name of Islam. But, there are millions of others that have taken no violent action against the West.

Near the now hallowed ground that we call Ground Zero, Muslims would like to build a mosque. It is a simple act of constructing a building were people of a like view point can gather to worship in the manner that is constitutionally protected. It would be right to allow it because it is just place that the Muslim community felt was right. It would be right to allow it because of the Muslims that also died in the attack. But, it would also be right to allow it because of the violence that happen there. That a visitor may find a place of their faith to pray that that it will never happen again, no matter that it be Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Islam or any other faith.

The building of the mosque near ground zero should be allowed.

-----

All Politics is local

All politics is local. We have all heard that and it is attributed to so many politicians. It is only partially true today and in the future it may become even less… unless we all do something about it.


In the past, it was the community that was the center of the political world. With the exceptions of world wars, most of the issues were about what was happening on main street in your own home town. The high school curriculum, roads, the mayor’s affair with the local call girl and if the old abandon church should come down to make room for the expansion of the lumber yard were the big issues.

Yes, that is a little simplistic view of the issues but what wasn’t simplistic were the solutions. The solutions weren’t based on the left or right or some extreme agenda on either side. Solutions had to make sense to the community and the people that lived in them. Extreme ideas didn’t get tried because people at ground zero could see that it wouldn’t work in their situation. Solutions also didn’t come out of a vague philosophy that preached a point of view that may work in the macro but not on main street.

If someone was about to lose their job but politicians tried to convince them that to help them out would not let the market work like it should, they were voted out. If the local banker lost the community’s money in risky instruments that if they paid off would have only benefited the banker, he would have been run out of town. (after his house was taken and sold)

Then came centralized politics with solutions that sounded good in abstract thinking but made no sense to those living the problems. Then came big money spent on marketing and advertising campaigns that convinced people that what was bad for them was really good.

Along with all of this came the centralization of economic power. This point of view believes that the only purpose of big business is to accumulate wealth. If the local community must suffer layoffs and plant closings to maximize profits, then that is what the CEO has to do. (I guess making ten billion in profit isn’t as good as 12 billion)

But the Responsible Community takes another view. It must view solutions from ground zero of the world, the place where people and families live. Government should be run by political parties that understand they are to help people live in a safe and secure environment. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to the community, it is there to provide jobs and support the community.

This is not a naive view, it is a practical view. It is a view that means people will do the responsible thing and expect government to be responsible to them not to political ideology or big business.

There will be problems but the solutions must keep real people in mind.

-----

Voters should make choices based on policy not on personalities or party

There is the republican that was once accused of stealing cars, not once, but twice. There is the democrat that is a felon that just got out of jail and wants to run for congress. There is a republican commissioner that is a felon and still holding office. There is a democrat that had sex with a campaigner worker – who wasn’t his wife.

When they say things, they will retract or apologize; depending on the response. They will change positions; sometimes it is for the better, sometimes for the worse. Sometimes they outright lie and when caught will say they forgot.

There are parties that think they have all the answers and trip over themselves to point out what is wrong with the other side while their side does the same thing. Parties take positions on the issues for election, but many members of the party don’t adhere to them (of course, not that they really should, but it seems odd that many times we vote for parties when the one we are voting for doesn’t support the positions).

Most of the time there are some just plain good people doing a great job for the community. But, we don’t hear about them because they don’t make news. They labor away in a faint obscurity working to improve the conditions of the people, places and environment in the community.

Do any of them sound familiar? They should because they are the stories we read every day about politicians and political parties from the pages of the news, real people. All of them have supporters and detractors, people that are out after them and others that think they walk on water and really didn’t do those things; good or bad things.

That is why no one should support parties or personalities. When we get mesmerized by a personality, it becomes too easy to take advantage of the believers. Or when we think a party has the answer, the answer is usually much too structured and doesn’t fit into everyday life in every community.

We should all support policy. Personalities and parties create policy to help solve problems that individuals and communities have. If we examine the policy based on the problem and the outcome, then we have a better chance of making the right decision. If we support personalities we run the risk of watching them fail. If we support parties outcomes could be so highly structured that they are inflexible to the wide variety of communities it is suppose to help.

During the day to day activity of government and during this next election cycle, examine the policies that are being discussed. Make a decision based on how those policies will solve a problem.

We will all make better decision.

-----

No second chances for Lewand

Detroit Lions president Tom Lewand was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) after attending a charity golf outing. In America today there is just no reason that should have happen, especially to someone with the resources that Lewand has at his disposal.


Lewand has issued a statement where he apologies for his action and accepts full responsibility. Team owner, William Clay Ford, has issued a statement that supports Lewand as an important asset to the team. The Lions head coach says that one of the reasons he came to the team was because of the outstanding job that Lewand is doing for the Lion’s organizations. Unless there are things publicly stated that didn’t get press coverage, the statements made where of full open support with no conditions attached. As of Monday, June 28, 2010 there is no mention of the incident on the team web site.

There are much less people driving while drunk in America then there was a generation ago. All of this thanks to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the organization that works hard to change the laws and behavior of Americans. (It should be disclosed here that drunk drivers have taken two members of my extended family. I have no sympathy for those that drive while impaired.) Culturally, it has changed from being something we laugh at to something that we view with disgrace.

But, we have a ways to go yet.

One thing that we can do to continue the fight, especially with high profile cases like Lewand’s is to openly illustrate the negative outcome of his actions. It is certain that there will be conversations between the owners and Lewand on this situation. Hopefully, as a result of those conversations, disciplinary action will be taken. This action should be made public. This will make it clear that driving while drunk or any other similar action does come with a down side.

Additionally, any support from family, friends and professional colleagues should come with conditions. It is good that those around Lewand came to his support. He will need it to take responsibility for his actions, not just publicly as he has, but also personally to learn how to prevent himself from making the bad decision to drive in the condition he was in. But, that support should come with conditions. Also, no support like he is currently receiving should ever come with a second chance. The support should come from this one chance and there should be no other chance. Period.

-----

Misunderstanding of the court’s ruling on the Christian group

A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hastings College of Law in California by supporting its ban on any group that does not allow all students to be members regardless of their religious or sexual orientation beliefs.


Hastings College of Law requires that any group that would like to be officially recognized by the school and participate in the governing board for students groups must accept any student that would like to join the group. The Christian Legal Society (CLS) requires members to sign an affidavit that states both, in short, they are Christians and they will not be involved in sexual activity outside of “Gods” will – including “unrepentant homosexual” activity. Since some members of the student body at Hastings would not be able to sign the affidavit honestly, they would not be able to join the group with fully active memberships. Therefore, the Hasting College of Law denied full membership status to Christian Legal Society, but did allow them to continue as a campus group without official recognition. CLS sued the school to accept them as members.

A line from the ruling of the Supreme Court goes a long way in explaining the decision in favor of Hastings.

“Hastings requires that [RSOs] allow any student to participate, regardless of [her] status or beliefs. For example, the Hastings Democratic Caucus cannot bar students holding Republican political beliefs.” … The all-comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the RSO forum; it therefore does not transgress First Amendment limitations. “

The Hasting College of Law’s policy doesn’t pick a religion or belief system to reject. It doesn’t even say that the group can’t be on campus. It simply states that to receive full status it must allow all students to belong if they would like.

Equality is the most important issue. Policy by any government function, such as Hastings which is part of the California school system, can’t deny any individual or groups equality in its treatment. Hastings’ policy is that all students must be treated equally by all the campus groups. As a side bar, one of the groups that Hastings does recognize is a Muslim lawyers association. That group didn’t not exclude Christians from joining.

This was a good decision by the Supreme Court.

-----

Applying the Fourteenth Amendment to gun rights may be a difficult victory

The US Supreme Court ruled that rights guaranteed by the constitution apply to not only the federal government but also to state and local governments. The court’s 5-4 decision struck down a City of Chicago law that banned hand gun ownership by private citizens in the city for any reason.

This is a setback to liberals’ misunderstood position in favor of gun control as a way to fight gun violence. The court said that the constitution under the 14th Amendment applies to everyone despite where they may live. As is clearly stated in the Fourteenth amendment the United States can’t “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This includes the right of gun ownership [but not necessarily the possession and use] as granted in the Second Amendment.

Conservatives, a long time supporter of gun ownership rights, are calling this a victory. But, this opens a much wider door for many other things that conservatives will find difficult to tolerate. This decision, because it uses the Fourteenth amendment to apply the Constitution to all levels of government, further supports many of the rights we all agree on. The right of free speech, assembly, protection against self incrimination and the protection of property rights are just a few. All of these freedoms can’t be limited by state laws, because the court has ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s intent was to assure that all citizens of the Untied States have equal protection.

This decision could, in the long run, be used to support more controversial issues. Gay rights, marriage, Miranda warning and much more. If this support for the Fourteenth Amendment continues, as it should, states will lose a substantive voice in all of them. States will lose the ability to limit an individual’s rights when those rights come from the Constitution as defined in the Ninth Amendment. This further erodes, as it should, the idea of “States Rights” as a basic understanding of the constitution. It may have been before the Fourteenth Amendment, but not after.

Consider this quote from Legal Information Institute, part of the Cornell School of Law. “If the Court sides with Petitioners Otis McDonald, et al. [as it did], it may reverse the Slaughterhouse line of cases and incorporate the Second Amendment—and possibly the entire Bill of Rights—against the States.” It is clear from the decision of the court and from the view of legal scholars that this case is a good decision for gun rights. But it can also be applied to both the many rights we all accept and those that are being passionately being argued in the community today.

To community members in good standing, this decision fully supports the individual’s right to live in a manner that is consistent with their own beliefs without fear of limits from the community. Unless the individual is engaged in activity that will harm someone or has the clear danger of harm, he or she can do what is best for them.

The community still has a heavy agenda to find a way to curtail gun violence and not limit the rights of individuals in good standing. While this decision may not fully help in that search, the support of the rights of any individual is the support of everyone’s rights.

Many of those rights that are preserved by this decision will help solve the community’s most pressing problems.

-----

Keep government open Supreme Court decides

A ruling from the Supreme Court on the keeping the names on a petition open to the public is one that the Responsible Community supported.

The United States Supreme Court supported the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and will allow the names of petition signers to be released to the public. “Protect Marriage Washington”, which organized a petition drive for a public vote to repeal the state’s “everything-but-marriage” gay rights law, asked the state of Washington to protect the privacy of signers of the petition. Petitions signers were concerned that they would be the target of a backlash from those that oppose the petition.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for 8 of the justices. Judge Roberts found, and the Responsible Community agrees, that it is “vitally important that states be able to ensure that signatures on referendum petitions” are authentic.

Excerpts from the Responsible Community post on May 3, 2010:

“The names should not be kept secret because people must be able to trust a citizen’s initiative. They are started by people that would like to ask the voters of a state if they think something should be changed. If enough people think the same way, the issue gets on the ballot. The people that sign the petition must be real and registered voters along with various other requirements depending on the state. If those names on the petition can’t be challenged how does anyone know they are real people?

“A similar issue to this came up in the last national election. An organization was registering people to vote. It was found, by people making challenges to the names on the list, that some were not eligible. Now the organization that did that, as well as other things, no longer exists. ACORN has closed its doors, partly because of the challenge.

“Responsible communities must operate in the open so that everyone can trust the process. Keeping names on a petition drive private only builds mistrust.”

The supreme court made the correct ruling with an 8-1 decision. This demonstrates a strong and very clear view on this issue. Open government is alive and very healthy in the United States.

-----