The debate about the legality of the Ground Zero Mosque--which is quite a misnomer, given that it's not at ground zero and it's not a mosque--has been settled. Forbidding it's construction would be a textbook violation of our Constitution's religious clauses: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." All that remains is the debate over the advisability--or as Obama put it, the wisdom--of building the not-really-a-mosque.
But what's the point of having that debate, on a national level, right before a crucial midterm election? If it's going to be built, who cares whether it ought to be built? I'm nonreligious. I don't think that any religious buildings ought to be built. I think all that money should go to curing esophageal cancer or feeding the hungry or at least full-size replicas of notable science fiction spacecraft and weaponry. But there's nothing I can do about it, and it wouldn't benefit anyone for me to prance around announcing that I oppose the construction of every new church or mosque or Scientologist Starship Voodoo Temple. It's their money, and they can do what they want with it.
So why are politicians so determined to make their views on the issue heard? Clearly, they want to score political points with their supporters; they either want to show their great respect for America's tradition of religious tolerance and diversity, or their staunch opposition to the encroachment of radical Islamism on American society. Their obsession with the mosque is a cheap, petty scheme to drum up support the easy way.
No comments:
Post a Comment