by VorJack
As an upstate resident, I generally ignore the goings-on downstate, so I’ve never really formed an opinion of Michael Bloomberg. But the recent speech that Daniel quoted is pitch perfect and historically grounded. Here’s a selection:
Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.
In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780′s – St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.
[...]
Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said ‘no’ to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.
For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime – as important a test – and it is critically important that we get it right.
That is a great speech. It is disheartening that with opinions expressed that eloquently and factually, that people’s opinions are still as likely informed by Sarah Palin’s tweets on the topic. :^(
If Bloomberg actually wrote his speech he is brilliant. Nonetheless, I agree that speech was great.
“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.”
I honestly don’t know if I would prefer a government that could choose and chose no worshiping of spiritual entities as its stance. I think if a country was founded with that statement in its constitution I might prefer to live there.
It was a decent speech, and decent of him to voice those sentiments. It’s too bad the guy is kind of a tool otherwise.
I don’t have a problem with them building a mosk. Just where they want to put it. I think it is a slap in the face of the survivers and the ones that died. We couldn’t put up a cross because it might ofend someone. I think they should put thier church in a better location so there isn;t a problem. They know if they build there it will be vandilized. I believe in freedom of religion but I’m told I cann’t pray in school or a lot of places. So whats the difference?
You can pray in school. You can’t be led in prayer by an administrator. Where couldn’t you put up a cross that might offend someone?
I think opposition to this mosque is a knee-jerk reaction on behalf of victims and their families, and an unreasonable reaction to whatever those icky Muslims must be up to to locate it so near the tragedy that happened almost 9 years ago. It’s not ON the site or across the street from it, it’s in a neighborhood with enough Muslims to need somewhere to go worship to their god, just the same as you would want the freedom to go somewhere and worship yours. It’s not as though the WTC was midtown, but Manhattan is small enough I wonder how far away Muslims have to go to worship to be far enough away for your comfort.
“Where couldn’t you put up a cross that might offend someone?”
To make a joke in bad taste – I think it depends whether you set light to it first.
We couldn’t put up a cross because it might offend someone.
Huh?
I think they should put their church in a better location so there isn’t a problem.
Or, perhaps the better idea would be for them to put their mosque where they want to put it, rather than what would make people who don’t go there feel more comfortable.
They know if they build there it will be vandalized.
Let that be their problem.
I believe in freedom of religion but I’m told I can’t pray in school or a lot of places.
You shouldn’t believe everything you are told. You can pray in school (except during class when it might disrupt, you know, school), you can pray out loud *anywhere* except someone else’s private property (in which case it is up to them). And you can pray to yourself absolutely anywhere at any time; isn’t a prayer for the benefit of God (who can hear you even if you are not speaking) and not for the people standing around you?
You couldn’t “put up a cross”?
Where? When? Are you just making things up?
You’re told you can’t pray in school?
BULLCRAP
You can pray as much as you want in school. You just can’t have the school force other people to pray with you.
This is private land owned by a religious institution; it has nothing to do church/state separation.
Standard right wing debate tactic, extrapolate out to a different debate all together then make crazy appeal-to-emotion claims based on that.
“We couldn’t put up a cross because it might ofend someone.”
have you been to ground zero? They eft part of the structure – in the shape of a cross – up on the actual site.
“but I’m told I cann’t pray in school or a lot of places”
Please tell us who has told you this? They are flatly wrong.
I was going to reply to this comment but damn everyone seems to have completely cover her comment. I would bet it was her preacher or other christians who told her she wasn’t allowed to pray in school.m I hear this type of comment from many here around where I live and I always ask what is keeping them from saying a prayer silently in school? They tend to not have an answer,.
Catherine Dresow:
Why do you think you have any business telling Americans where they can and cannot build buildings, based solely on your sensitivities?
If Muslims told you that they don’t like the place where your house (or apartment building, condominium, etc.) is located, and that you should live somewhere else, would you move?
Why? Many of the victims of the September 11 attacks were Muslim themselves. Why is a mosque and community center located blocks away from the WTC site a “slap in the face of the surviv[o]rs”? Do you think the Muslim community attempting to build the center is responsible for the attacks?
Would you be opposed to a Christian church being built a few blocks from the federal building in Oklahoma City that Timothy McVeigh, a Christian, bombed? Would that be “a slap in the face” of the 168 people he killed, or those who survived the attack, or those who love them?
You are mistaken. There is nothing preventing you, or any other believer, from “put[ting] up a cross because it might of[f]end someone.” We who are not enamored with crucifixes have no legal right not to be offended. Millions upon millions of crosses have been erected by Christian organizations in this country, whether they offend people or not.
The separation of church and state, a concept it appears you do not understand, does not amount to preventing the establishment of religion “because it might of[f]end someone.”
Why should they care what you think? (Especially given that you call their house of worship a “mosk” and a “church”?) What right do you have to dictate that to them?
So you’re arguing that the blame for vandalism falls on the victims of that vandalism? Why shouldn’t they be able to expect that their neighbors will follow the law?
Clearly you don’t, if you think that your sensitivities ought to govern where mosques can and cannot be built.
By whom? Who told you that? Or was it just your imagination?
Actually, you can pray in (public) schools. You just can’t demand government endorsement for that prayer, or for other religious activities. If a school official has actually told you, as a blanket statement, that you can’t pray in school, that person is wrong; indeed, he or she is violating your right to free exercise. However, I doubt that any school official has in fact told you that. I would bet heavily that you’re actually voicing your confused misunderstanding of the Establishment Clause. Preventing you from acquiring government endorsement is a very different thing from preventing you from praying, but you appear not to understand the difference.
The difference is that a government policy preventing this Muslim community from building their mosque and community center would violate the First Amendment. The rules preventing you from praying in school are imaginary; they don’t actually exist. It’s a pretty big difference.
Wow, so thoroughly and eloquently addressed. Bravo.
Agreed.
dito
I have no opinions about Bloomberg either way, but this speech was very well done (at least on paper).
When Saudi Arabia or Iran decides to allow Baptists and Jews to build churches and synagogues in their major cities, I will be happy to see the U.S. return the favor here.
Actually, as far as I’m concerned…a pox on all their supernatural beliefs.
When Saudi Arabia or Iran decides to stop stoning people to death, I will be happy to see the U.S. return the favor here.
Sounds rather stupid doesn’t it?
Both countries execute people in horrible ways and have inhumane prison regimes which harshly punush minor crimes…. So…. Not really, dude ;-)
Oh come now Custy … no one is saying that the good ‘old USA is perfect but to equate it with Saudi Arabia or Iran is just plain daft. Here’s a quick question which goverment would you rather live under? As a secondary question list the capital crimes for each country and determine which one you would say is “fairer” … and last but not least a number of executions per-head of population would be interesting.
I dunno about execution rates, but for incarceration rates per capita:
Iran: 226 per 100,000 people
US: 715 per 100,000 people
And I seriously doubt the shortfall is made up in executions.
And here we go…
Iran: 0.970331 executions per 1 million
US: 0.229936 executions per 1 million
So quite a bit higher execution rate, but nothing like our incarceration rate. Hm.
@Elem
The USA’s incarceration are IIRC correctly one of the highest or the highest in the “developed” world which I would agree is a problem … but, but, but … the real problem I have is the argument that country X does this so it’s ok that country Y does this. As I’ve already said there are problems that can be levelled at American but these are nothing compared to those for either Saudia or Iran. This is not to dismiss the problems but to put them in context.
I absolutely agree. I was merely inserting myself in this lovely tangent.
Apropos.
I know many American christian fundies get a hard on when they think of the US turning into a theocracy but most sane people don’t consider Iran or Saudi Arabia to be good role model for how to run a country.
Saudi Arabia still carries out beheadings and chops off limbs. Iran would have stoned a woman to death had there not been such an international outcry.
Her attorney had to sneak out of the country.
(See Huffington Post article)