The Right to Disagree

The building of a mosque, called the Cordoba Project, within two blocks of ground zero juxtaposes two American ideals: the ideal of tolerance for a diverse inclusive population and the equally American ideal of patriotism; the patriotism that says we honor those who have lost their lives as a result of foreign invasion or attack.

Somehow, by objecting to the construction, one is viewed as intolerant of Islam. Turning the argument into religious tolerance eliminates any further discussion. And any argument, any idea, any commentary that disagrees with a Muslim practice is immediately called religious intolerance. Disagreeing with ideas or practices does not equate to intolerance. It is not religious intolerance to oppose placing a large cross on the mountains over which the Japanese Empire flew planes to bomb Pearl Harbor. It is not religious intolerance to criticize members of The Westboro Baptist church who attend the funerals of military personnel proclaiming that America's violation of thier Biblical interpretation is the reason for the death of soldiers. It is not religious intolerance to argue against the lack of prosecution of Catholic priests who have molested the children in their parish. It is not religious intolerance to claim that the Mormon practice of marrying off young girls to old men is objectionable. It is not religious intolerance to arrest Christian zealots who murder doctors as a way of preventing them from performing legal medical procedures. Somehow, questioning anything related to Islam is characterized as religious intolerance. No sect, no religion, no political party should be exempt from criticism, skepticism, or interrogation.

In 1790 George Washington visited the Touro Synagogue, the first synagogue in the United States, rightly located in the colony founded by John Williams. He is the colonist who promoted religious tolerance and the separation of government and religion, unlike its neighbor, Massachusetts, whose laws prohibited the entrance of Quakers into the colony. The members of the Synagogue participated in and contributed to our fight for independence from the British Empire. Washington wrote to the synagogue after his visit saying: “. . . happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

It was a message that embodied everything that the Constitution ultimately reflected. The Framers in 1787 met to create a new Constitution, one that expanded the power of the Federal government from the Articles of Confederation. The final product included the ideas of John Locke and Rousseau and Montesquieu. These three men developed the idea that humans have natural rights that could only be guaranteed through a system of laws that were applied equally to the powerful and the less powerful. They believed that people must be governed in order to pursue their lives based on the natural rights. They further believed that the government can only govern those who agree to be governed. The social contract said that people would agree to abide by the laws established by their government in exchange for the protection of their natural rights.

Certainly, a level of “toleration,” as Washington called it, is required to live in a Republic that so ferociously protects individual liberty. More than tolerate, we should celebrate the powerful ideas demanded by our Constitution. Those who wish to reap the benefits of free enterprise, free speech, and the free exercise of their religious beliefs must commit themselves to the same level of tolerance that they are afforded.

Comedy, comedic sketches, satire, and parody live on the far edge of free speech. Yes, it is often vulgar, disrespectful, even heretical. Drawing the line between one’s individual liberty and another’s must be based on an understanding of America’s founding ideas. The president, the congress, the police force, and the judiciary all pledge to uphold the Constitution. They do not pledge to uphold the tenets of any religious belief.

The Constitution must take precedence not just in the courts of law but also in the way each citizen lives his or her life.

The Cordoba Institute, sponsors of the Cordoba Project, carries the tag line “Improving Muslim-West Relations.” By identifying its mission as religious, it has already framed any discourse in religious terms. Any project that receives objection is automatically religious intolerance. By the way, Cordoba is a city in Spain, the one European nation conquered by the Islamic Empire in the seven hundreds and remained strong until 1492. the Cordoba Caliphate (an Islami system of government based on shariah law) ruled Spain from 929 to 1031. The great mosque of Cordoba stands as one the architectural masterpieces of Islamic occupation.

The fact is that on September 11, 2001, Muslim militants hijacked American planes and managed to kill almost 3000 American civilians in less than three hours.
It is not religious intolerance to suggest that Americans, not just those who suffered directly from the attacks, not just New Yorkers, but all who experienced the misery of that day should be spared a discussion about advancing the interests of Muslims in America.

It is a recognition that we are still unclear about the future of America’s safety from Muslim fanatics. It is a recognition that this country continues to live under the threat of Muslim extremists expressing their beliefs in various parts of the country’s airspace. It is a recognition Muslim fanatics exercise 12th Century practices that feel so real that the comedy network cancelled a sketch on the stupid, completely non-influential comedy show "South Park." The freedom to speak is fundamental to the United States and no one’s life should be in danger for something he said. Don’t force religious systems on the people of America. It’s against everything America is about.

In 2003 I attended the Color Lines Conference held at Harvard University. At the conference on the growth of religion in American neighborhoods, the speaker for Islam stood and said with great force, “A Muslim will never vote for Jew.” I have always regretted that I did not speak more forcefully against such a statement. My feeble excuse is that I was shocked to hear such a statement at an academic gathering organized to affirm Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s statement that we must “one day judge others . . . by the content of their character.” I responded by reminding them that not far from there, at Salem, people were killed based on suspicion that they were not exercising their religion appropriately, I reminded them that even closer than Salem, in Boston, stood the statue of Mary Dyer, the Quaker killed because she would not practice her religion according to the Puritan criteria.

It is not acceptable to accuse people of religious intolerance because they disagree with someone who is a member of a religious sect. That was the whole point of the First Amendment. In America, if we keep the idea of the framers in mind, we are Americans first. We live by the Constitution first and that allows us to practice our faith without fear or prejudice. We also have the right speak according to our belief systems. We are Americans before we are any other organization be it religious or political or economic class.

Tolerance, celebration, and respect for diversity of opinion must flow in all directions. In a democracy, members of religious organizations must respect the rights of those who do not share the same religious belief systems, including the right to disagree.