It's not Sharia Law it is Constitutional Law

A video playing on You Tube has raised the anger of some Christians because of apparent violation of First amendment directed by Muslims and carried out by the police in Dearborn, Michigan. In reality, when the facts are examined, it is the full exercise of the First Amendment right of assembly and as an extension, association.

In a video playing on You Tube entitled, “Sharia in the US” (1), two people, Nabell Qureshi and David Wood visited an Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. There, they found a booth with a banner that said, “Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers.” Qureshi and Wood approached the booth and picked up a pamphlet that stated that Islam promotes peace. When they read the pamphlet they found that they disagreed with the piece and Qureshi and Wood stated that they, “noticed… it was full of poor logic and errors.” They then returned to the booth with cameras running to ask them to defend the opinions in the pamphlet. At this, security from the festival approached them. As the video shows, they eventually are escorted off the grounds by Dearborn Police.

That would seem to be the end of the story. But, Qureshi and Wood assert unfounded assumptions about the reasons for being asked (escorted, forced) to leave the grounds. A statement associated with the video in part reads:

“We [Qureshi and Wood] ask you, is it a coincidence that the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States is the city where Christianity is not allowed to be represented (let alone preached) on a public sidewalk? Is it coincidence that in this city, people will say "No way!" when we say "This is the United States of America"? Is this what will happen when Islam takes over the United States?”

Qureshi and Wood’s assertion is that they were asked to leave because Muslims are forcing Sharia Law in the United States and they are supported by the Dearborn police department. The two say they are believers in the First Amendment right to free speech and the free practice of their religion. According to them, they should have been allowed to stay so they could preach about their religion.

The response by the Dearborn Police to ask Qureshi and Wood to leave was the correct response because of First Amendment rights for the Arab Festival organizers.

Let’s first take a look at the exacting reading of the First Amendment:

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.

In this case, the most important part of the First Amendment is, “the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” For whatever else can be assumed about the situation that is describe above, it is about freedom of assembly and as an extension of that, freedom of association.

The Constitution guarantees the right to peaceable assemble, that is clearly stated. Over the two centuries since those words were written, the courts have determined that you can’t fully enjoy the freedom of assembly if you can’t assemble with the people that are like minded. After all, the following statement after freedom of assembly in the First Amendment is, “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Groups can’t petition for a redress of their grievances if there are competing factions within the group. It would be confusing at best if at one time speakers were taking one position and then the next speaker was taking the opposite position.

This has been supported in the last few years by important Supreme Court decisions. The first is Hurley v. Irish American GLIB Association (1995 – No. 94-749). The St Patrick Parade organization in Boston was asked by the Irish American GLIB Association, a group that supports rights for gays, lesbians bi-sexuals, to include them in annual Boston St Patrick’s Day Parade. The St Patrick Day Parade organization refused on the grounds that to include them would not properly represent the organization. The Irish American GLIB Association sued. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that to force the parade organization to include them would, “be a form of coerced speech and violated the organizers’ First Amendment rights” of freedom of assembly. The reasoning was that if we have the right to assemble, it must be with like minded people. Since the parade organization had the required assembly permits, they were in control of who paraded with them.

The second ruling was in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000 – No. 99—699). A gay man wanted to be admitted to the Boy Scouts of America. The organization, as in the above case, refused on the grounds that it would be forced association and would not represent the organization in the way the membership intended. To do so, the court ruled, would, violate the private organization’s rights to freedom of association and expressive association.”

In both cases, the justices favored allowing members of an organization to chose the membership of their organization and participants of their events. To restate the clear intention of the First Amendment, it was to allow people to gather with like minded people to support their point of view. To allow those that would not fully support their point of view would be forced association, something the authors of the Constitution knew about and wanted to avoid.

In the video Qureshi and Wood assert that they were asked to leave because Muslims are forcing Sharia Law in the United states and they are supported by the Dearborn police department. The truth is, because of the Supreme Court rulings and a conservative interpretation of the First Amendment, is simply not the case. The Arab organization clearly had petition the City of Dearborn to assemble on public grounds. It is clear they filed the same paperwork as any other organization or individual would have had to that allow them to assemble with like minded people. This is the same thing that the St Patrick Day Parade organization does every year to march down the streets of Boston since 1762. It is also the same thing the Boy Scouts of America do every time they use public school class rooms for meetings.

The Arab group in Dearborn did not want others that were not like minded at the assembly, so they asked Qureshi and Wood to leave. When they didn’t they were escorted out of the area. The St Patrick Parade organization and the Boy Scouts of America had already asked the Supreme Court to not be forced to associate with people they didn’t agree with. The Supreme Court also fully supported their request.

What appears on the surface to be an infringement of the Qureshi and Wood’s First Amendment rights and that of all Christians, wasn’t. The Supreme Court in this case not only correctly supported the St Patrick’s Parade Organization and the Boy Scouts of America (which, by the way, state on the website of each organization is a Christian organization) and by precedent the Arab organizations right to assembly, but also would allow Qureshi and Wood to hold their own assembly and exclude who they wanted.

(1) http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

-----

Filibusters should end

The filibuster may come back into the news in the next couple of months. The senate is considering changing the rules of the senate for the next term, which would start in January after the upcoming election. The current filibuster rules were created to block legislation and appointments with no other reasonable purpose. Congress should abolish it.


The modern filibuster’s creation came out of the 80’s when republicans wanted to block some judicial nominations by then President Clinton. With the support of what could be called the “Super Majority Minority”, just 40 senators, legislation and appointments can be block. This means that a minority of senators can keep action from being taken that 59 senators, a near super majority, deem important.

Filibusters in a simple form have been with human organizations since the beginning of time. Up until the 80’s, it meant that someone who was granted the right to speak could do so until they couldn’t speak anymore. In most cases it stopped the organization from moving forward on all of its business until the filibuster was over. Since this usually lasted from a few hours to a day at most, it provided time for the opposition to gather their supporters or time for information about the decision to reach the constituents. The plan for the filibusters was that the opposition could change the outcome of a vote if they just had a little more time.

Pressure not only came from the both sides of the issue but also because no other business could get done. Everything stopped and people worked at finding a solution.

But, the modern filibuster in the U. S. Senate is different. Now just 40 people can oppose cutting off debate and no vote will be taken. As long as the votes aren’t there to cut off debate, the issues goes nowhere. No deadline for a vote. No debate of the issues. And 40 people can stop the will of the senate from being expressed. Other business that the senate needs to get done just continues.

It is completely legal for 40 senators to control the senate business in a United States. The Constitution says that the senate and the house of representatives can set their own rules with only a couple of exceptions. If it was the will of the senate, they could make it so that just 5 senators in support of legislation could pass it into law.

The senate should change the rules on a filibuster that it takes no more votes to stop debate and vote on an issue than it takes to pass. If it takes a simple majority to pass legislation, it should only take a simple majority to end debate.

-----

Senator Graham did the right thing

There doesn’t seem to be much that the Responsible Community and Senator Lindsay Graham from South Carolina have in common. But, just this week, Senator Graham voted to support the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a statement released later, the senator said that he has a constitutional obligation to honor President Obama’s choice, so long as she is qualified.

"I could give you 100 reasons on why I could vote 'no.' No one spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did, except maybe Sen. McCain," Graham said. "But I understood we lost."

For as long as there is a Supreme Court, the country will debate what makes a good supreme court justice. But the fundamentals are simple, under our constitution the president nominates the candidate, the senate provides advise and consent if they know the law. The senator admitted in the statement that President Obama won fair and square and that he could find no fault in her knowledge of the law.

This is clearly a politician that is supporting appropriate policy that the Responsible Community wrote about in a previous blog post. (Voters should make choices based on policy not personalities or parties) Politicians and other public officials should be supported for the policies that they propose or support. Personalities and parties often fail or have it wrong. But, if the specific policy they support will do good, it doesn’t matter who proposes it. In this case, the Constitution is clear and Senator Graham did the right thing.

It is time to rewrite the First Amendment

It is time to rewrite the First Amendment.

Sarah Palin, ex-governor of Alaska and former running mate to John McCain during the last presidential election, has entered the fight over the Mosque that is being built near Ground Zero in New York City. Palin, in an attempt to gain support from those that oppose the construction twitted that building the mosque was an “unnecessary provocation.”

Apparently, Sarah Palin doesn’t think that the founders got it right. So, based on what she and others have said, here is the rewrite to the First Amendment.

Here is the current amendment:

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.

Here is the amendment to the amendment to be inserted just after “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”:

Unless it is inconvenient for politicians and it is an unnecessary provocation to worship the way you want. We can then suspend the first part and throw out the entire idea of freedom of religion.

This would work well. As a politician you could condemn China for not allowing Christians to worship when and where they want but you could prevent Muslims here in this country from doing the same.

The Responsible Community agrees with the Federal Council of Churches of Christ with their position statement on religious issues. The position was adopted in conjunction with the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, who have a stake in assuring that religious houses can be established anywhere in the world. It reads:

“Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to [organize] with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.” (1)

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, likes the First Amendment just the way it is. (and so does the Responsible Community.) He takes strong issue with Sarah Palin interfering with New York City policy. He wants the mosque to be built, perhaps no matter where the congregation want it built. He said so in a news conference after Palin had started twitting about the issue.

Mayor Bloomberg is doing everything he can to heal the wounds caused by the 9/11 tragedy. It doesn’t mean he is covering it all up and making nice. It means that he is fully aware that the tragedy was caused by people that rationalized their actions with their perverse understanding of a religion, not the other way around.

By keeping the unfocused anger alive as Sarah Palin seems to be suggesting, we risk furthering the violence. But by being rationally focused on the people that caused the tragedy instead of their religion, we can seek out specifically those that we need to and not bring more violence to innocent people all over the world.

That is where the healing begins.

(1) Religious institutions In 1944, a joint committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America and the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, formulated a “Statement on Religious Liberty” “Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organise with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

-----

Hate and anger by the Tea Party Express we don't need

There is room under the big tent that we call democracy for all sides of the issue. Every challenge to any issue needs to have an airing.


But there is no room for hate and anger.

Over the weekend, Mark Williams leader of the Tea Party Express, posted a fictional letter from what he called “Colored People” during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. The letter, which he said was satirical, stated that those that were going to be freed by Lincoln didn’t want to be. Why would they not want to be? Read for yourself:

"We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!"

The national Tea Party organization, ask the Tea Party Express to order Williams to retract the blog post. When the group didn’t and Williams refused to, the national organization expelled the Tea Party Express. This action by the national Tea Party Organization was the right thing to do. Since they did it immediately, it indicates that the party had the good sense that it was clearly wrong instead of waiting to see how all sides came out on the issue. (As a side bar on the issue, Mark Williams later did take down the post. If he was so certain of his ideas and so comfortable with the way he expressed them, why did he eventually pull down the post?)

The Tea Party Express is the organization that traveled around the country visiting town hall meetings of politicians that they thought were supporting Health Care Reform. The group’s members, supported by the organization, disrupted plenty of what would have been useful and healthy debates about the issue. Instead, the issues could not be thoroughly discussed because of the hateful attitude from many members of the Tea Party Express.

Open and healthy debate on all issues is important to a democracy. Yes, even the ideas that the Tea Party Express has should be heard. But, when hate and anger is used by the proponents of an idea, they became blind to legitimate responses to their ideas. They then drive their followers well beyond a respectful and meaningful dialogue to one that dominates the discussion and borders on totalitarianism.

-----

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.

-----