Not a long post, but more of a thought. Is building a mosque near Ground Zero a good idea? Probably not. I did watch Keith Olbermann the other day. In the clip I watched online, he went on about how the place was not really a mosque and how it was not near Ground Zero. I am not sure what the facts are, but I will continue to call it a mosque and near Ground Zero because that seems to be a general consensus. That being said, it is not a good idea, but I do not see how government can keep someone from building a place of worship due to freedom of religion (1st Amendment), nor do I because of our right to property (Declaration of Independence). So, it is not a good idea, but government should not have the power to stop it from being built. It is private property, so whomever owns it should be allowed to build whatever on it. Don’t use the zoning issue on me on this one, because I don’t really see a constitutional power that gives government the right to override property rights by allowing zoning anyway. It is also a religious issue and as such, the government cannot make a law which would say a religious building cannot be built because that would be government making a law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
On the flip side of the issue, people have the right to disagree with the mosque being built. People are given the right to protest (1st Amendment — right to assembly). If government were to step on this right, they would be as guilty as any government official who might want to stop the building of a religious worship place. Both are clear violations of the First Amendment, however Nancy Pelosi is just that person. She thinks government should bully people who disagree and investigate those naysayers. In a release, she cites the First Amendment as a reason for the right to build the mosque, but then she wants to shred the First Amendment to go after critics. Amazing, isn’t it?
Now, onto Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Dr. Laura is quiting her radio show later this year over a firestorm that erupted following her usage of the “N-word.” Rightfully so, citizens called her out and called for sponsors to pull their sponsorship. That is part of the right to assembly mentioned above. This is not pseudo-anger as is applied in many cases by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, but this is a problem that she created on her own. I am not saying she is racist or anything except that she used very bad judgement. I don’t think she should be fired, but she should have known better. Now, she is not being fired. The kicker is, she says she is quiting because she wants to regain her First Amendment rights. I assume she is talking about her right to say what she wants. She did. The First Amendment does not guarantee that people won’t take a stance against what you said. It simply says that government cannot make a law that takes away your right to speech. It didn’t. People just didn’t like what she had to say. Seems everyone is misunderstanding what the First Amendment acutally says.
