Somehow, this story continues to have legs.The "ground zero mosque" issue was all over the Sunday news shows and still dominates cable news. Talking heads cynically want to know one thing from any elected official they can corner: are you for it, or against it? Never mind that the law would seem to bar government from doing anything about it; and never mind that there is no legal dispute in the first place – the Islamic community center asked for permission to build and the City has said OK.
Setting aside any question of law or government action then, many skillful politicians are still finding a way to offer an opinion on this culturally divisive issue by vaguely complaining about the "propriety" of the mosque's future location. Most recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has tried this technique, arguing that he's all for the First Amendment and believes in the right of religious freedom, but that the mosque "should" be built elsewhere. It's an appeal to the developers themselves, I suppose, to withdraw the project, or at least a way to register disapproval with the public, without suggesting government has any role to play in intervening.
So, is there anything wrong with that? Is it ok for government officials to simply offer an opinion about what's a good idea and a bad idea when it comes to the location of a house of worship?
Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), debating Rep. Peter King (R-NY), said it well on CNN Sunday, and I couldn't agree more: elected officials should stay out of the conversation.
CROWLEY: Would you like them to [move the site]?
NADLER: I am not going to comment on that, because I don't think it's proper for any government official to pressure them in any way. And if I were to say that I think it's a good idea for them to do it, since I am a government official, that would be government pressuring them. But it's up to them. If they want to do that, they're certainly free to do it.
…
I hope that people will understand that government has no role in this. Peter has now said this. Many of the people who have been saying this — who have been on the other side have not been willing to say that. Peter has, I appreciate that.As to whether the imam wants to have the mosque somewhere else, that's up to them, and government should not pressure them one way or the other.
For a government official to offer an opinion about the propriety of a house of worship is to put the weight of the state in uncomfortable proximity to freedoms we hold dear, and is serving to escalate religious and cultural division in the process. Religious liberty works in America because we assure equal treatment for all faiths, including the misunderstood, the minority, and the unpopular ones. You need not wage war to practice your faith in the United States. But you shouldn't have to win a shouting match or a PR battle with a member of Congress either. We ought to keep it that way.
