“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” That is the opening clause of the First Amendment. Originally the Amendment only prohibited such action by Congress but in 1925 the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extended the protection of the First Amendment to any local or state government action as well.
The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. It was forged by the descendants of those who fled the religious tyranny that permeated 17th century Europe. State sanctioned religions were the rule. Those who sought the opportunity to follow a different religious path were shunned and oppressed. These early religious pioneers endured hardship on the path to freedom. Theirs was such a compelling force that the framers of the Constitution adopted religious freedom as the first of the Bill of Rights.
Equally as important is the concept of the separation of church and state. The evolution of case law underscoring this concept has, at times, been difficult for many to bear. Debate has focused on prayer in schools and the celebration of traditional religious holidays like Christmas and Easter. The vocal minority has dictated to the religious majority, as those who worship no God have been the architects of most court challenges.
Now the conservatives and Tea Party types have taken up the fight to prohibit the construction of an Islamic studies center in the neighborhood of Ground Zero. While voicing concern that radical Islamic fundamentalists were responsible for the horror of 9/11, these well meaning people have lost sight of the true meaning of the First Amendment.
Confusing a murderous fringe sect with a religion practiced peaceably by a large segment of the world’s population is too reminiscent of the tyranny of the Anglicans who forced our early forefathers from the comfort of their homes and families to the uncertainty of life in the New World. What the Newt Gingrich’s of this country fail to realize is that if they can succeed in prohibiting the exercise of Muslim prayer and study because of its proximity to Ground Zero, what happens when their religion of choice becomes the minority? 
The entire rationale underpinning the First Amendment is that no government should sanction one manner of worship over any other. The current controversy surrounding the plan to build the Islamic Study Center has raised the passions and ire of many Americans. One argument I read asked whether Muslims would tolerate a Christian church or a synagogue in Mecca. The writer argues that they would not. Perhaps that is true, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that this country exalts the concept of religious freedom. That is what distinguishes us from so many countries that only tolerate state sanctioned religions. It was this type of small minded thinking that led to the internment of Japanese-American citizens following the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
It is not a proper restriction on the First Amendment to say that Muslims are free to exercise their religion, just not in a location that reminds us of the horror that religious zealots can inflict. Nearly one quarter of the world’s population embraces Islam. Arabic-Americans were no less devastated by the terror of 9/11 than any Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Jew or any other of the dozens of sects that peacefully all worship the same God, just in different ways.
Newt, it isn’t freedom of religion if you and others of your ilk can dictate where it can be practiced. We need to understand that those of the Muslim faith are primarily good people like any of the rest of us who simply wish to worship in peace. It is not an insult to the memory of the 9/11 dead to allow this project to move forward. Rather it is a strong statement that terror will not dictate how this country protects and honors it’s freedoms.
Rich Meehan is a senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com
Dear Richard:
I read your article in the Norwich Bulletin and found it very interesting. I don’t know if you are writting this as a member of the Democratic Power machine or as an individual. When you try to stick this criticism on the GOP, I assume you have got this from the Democratic Talking Points in that corrupt city in Washington.
You see I know that both Democrats and Republicans are repulsed by the thought that the Islamists Terrorists who control the Muslim religion are trying to build their temple near ground zero. You see, that would be an affront to both Republican and Democratic Firefighters, policeman, office workers and business men who were cowardly attacked by Muslims. Or do you think that all those people killed and wounded were Republicans.
Your spin on the Constitution was also great . . . you stated that the first amendment says “Congress . . . . exercise thereof”, but gee, you left out the rest where it says “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacebly to assemble . . . etc.
It seems that you object to American Citizens to exercise their right to freedom of speech against this evil mosque. And you are a lawyer.
When you go after conservatives and tea party types – you no longer are talking as an individual, but you are attacking, as a politician, the rights of people to speak out against what they (and I) think is something that is down right wrong.
You really go after Newt Gingrich (my hero). He must really make your shorts feel real tight. You said what happens when the majority become the minority, well that is already happening. My parents knew right well what happens when Christians live under the cruel rule of Muslims as part of their country was under Turkish muslim control until 1911. You have no idea what they will do to those who do not submit to their intolerable religion. They consider everyone else “cattle” and infidels.
You are pretty smart in law, but have no idea when you say “perhaps not” when asked if they would allow a Christian church in Mecca.
Again, you are doing a great disservice to America by trying to tag this as a Republican issue. You are dead wrong, ask the families of those who lost loved ones from the sneak attack by the Muslim terrorists.
Comment by Tony Petros — August 22nd, 2010 @ 8:43 am
Mr. Meehan, good to see your legal mind at work. Amazing how you can just brush off the tensions that are generated by what I believe to be a provacative act by the Mosque’s sponsor. After all there are 30 some Mosques nearby, but not abbuting the 9/11 site. What the sponsor says is a mosque, you lable a “study center.” That was clever of you wasn’t it?
You say that Muslims “were no less devastated by the terror of 9/11.” When around the world Muslims were dancing in the streets with joy. Can you, Mr Meehan, name one Inmam in America who expressed sympathy to those injured, or the relatives of those who died? To this date, I have not read of one. You are well aware I am sure of the tenants of the Islam faith which stipulate the death of infidels. Which of the other religions you mention pledge harm to nonbelivers?
Mr. Meehan, I don’t know if you have practiced before land use boards. However, you should know that there are other issues land use boards face when dealing with the appropriateness of a proposal coming before it. You did not address them in your piece, limiting your arguments to religious freedom and tolerance and coming to the conclusion that there is no just basis for opposition.
I do not follow Newt Gingrich closely, but I am of “his ilk.” You characterized him as “dictating” where religion can or can’t be practiced and that he faces dire consequences “when he is in the minority.” My conclusion, then, is that you have an underlying agenda in your mind which colored how you see this issue. If that is true, then you issued a polemic, rather than sharing your legal thoughts.
Again, I thank you for sharing. May God richly bless you.
Comment by Paul G. Littlefield — August 22nd, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
It appears from the outside that we are not in Mecca, hence the argument whether Muslims would allow a church in Mecca is not relevant to this discussion. I did survive 9/11 attack and I know firsthand how horrible it was to be there and witness the attack and the death and destruction that followed. I don’t hold any grudge against Muslims or Islam. Despite the fact that African-Americans represent large chunk of prison population, somehow I doubt that either commentator would claim that African-Americans are inherently criminal. Neither are Muslims. If you don’t like Muslim just say it and don’t pretend that 2 blocks or 50 blocks make difference or create extra sensitivity. Maybe you should demonstrate Christian values and take it a step further: instead of banning their mosque just build camps, intern people, maybe even deport them. Maybe that is the extend of your tolerance? Or does it only work when you are a victim of some sort of discrimination? Fortunately, the First Amendment was not written for Christians only and that what makes this country unique.
Comment by Alex Meyerovich — October 29th, 2010 @ 9:28 pm