Religion & Law

Like Rob, I received an e-mail asking why I (like others at MOJ) had not posted anything about the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy.  I suppose part of the reason is that -- like Rob -- I think the legal and constitutional questions are not particularly hard or interesting.  (It is "open and shut", explains Eugene Volokh.)  Yes, it seems to me that it would not be consistent with our traditions, or with the relevant doctrines, to prevent the construction of a mosque -- because it is a mosque -- on a particular site. 

That said . . .

First, I think a lot of the commentary by those who agree with me (and Rob, and Eugene, etc.) has been off-puttingly preening and condescending in tone, as if all of those who have raised concerns about the proposal are doing so because they don't know or care about religious freedom, or toleration, or the Middle East, etc.  To say -- and I am not saying -- that this particular project ought not to go forward in this particular place (even if the law allows it) is not (necessarily) to deny or question the religious liberty or patriotism of American Muslims or the importance of inter-faith engagement. 

Second, I agree entirely with those who have pointed out that the failure of nearly every Muslim political community to afford religious liberty to their own citizens (including Muslims!) is not relevant to the content of our own commitment to religious freedom.  The religious liberty of Muslims in America is (thank God!) not contingent on Saudi Arabia respecting the religious liberty of Christians (or anyone else) there.  But, let's not forget:  This failure is a huge problem.  I do hope that those who are (appropriately) sensitive to the importance of religious liberty here -- including the President, and Imam Rauf -- will not forget, once this controversy dies down, to focus on the serious threats to religious liberty that exist, and are in many instances worsening, around the world.  (See here the work of Thomas Farr.)