In the USA we have a written constitution. That constitution contains amendments. Included in those amendments as of primary importance are the first 10, called collectively The Bill of Rights. Amendment #1 specifically states that there will be an unhindered right to worship as we choose. So long as this amendment is in place, muslims have the right to worship without fear of retaliation or interference.
What we here in the USA must note is that the first amendment protects more than just religious observance. The same amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press. The website we're on now is protected by the first amendment. We can state our beliefs without fear of reprisal because of the first amendment. We can even debate each other without having to worry that someone on this website has a powerful friend who can, and will, arrest us for nothing more than having a different viewpoint.
This amendment, as well as the other nine amendments included in the original Bill of Rights, was written by men who had personally witnessed what happens to a society that does not have these rights 'set in stone'. They had known men who considered it their duty to deprive others of these rights. They had stood in the presence of men who considered themselves as the elite caste and all others as their servants. They had seen these same men gradually become ever more tyrannical. These amendments were the product of having seen that tyranny go berserk. And then that tyranny had come for the colonials.
There are those in the USA today who are trying to say that the U. S. Constitution is antiquated, and needs to be replaced by a more modern plan of government. They say that the constitution was written by landed gentry in the 18th century who had no concept of how far this country would go in its industrialization and scientific discoveries. It is to be seen as the product of an age-gone-by, and relegated to a niche in a museum alongside other documents that are no longer of any importance except as historical curiosities. They would replace it with a document that is more in tune with modern-day scientific knowledge, industrialization, and power structure. They would give the rank-and-file americans the 'order' and 'security' that they need.
Now, is anyone so naive that they honestly trust any present-day group of people, especially if those people have political aspirations, to write a document that does not transfer all power to that specific group? The original authors of our constitution knew that all too well. They had just fought a war as a direct result of a certain group entertaining the notion that all must obey them in abject subservience. And with that war still fresh in their minds, they wrote a constitution which would guarantee that there would never be another group of men with that much power again. No group could ever say that because another group had a different way of living than their own, they had the right to crush that group.
Also, we need to take a long,hard look at what is really being targetted by some who would have us alter, or even repeal, certain parts of the constitution, and especially those who would 'scrap' it altogether. The ultimate outcome of this, including the formation of a new governmental foundation, would of course be decided by the political leadership in the house of representatives, The senate, and the executive branch. And what would they want to have absolute control over?
No, it's not firearms. Nor is it religion or the right of an accused person not to incriminate himself. These may be used as diversionary targets in order to rally popular opinion and support for their wanting to replace the constitution. But they are not the target that many politicians want to destroy. The target they are really going after is Freedom of the Press.
And how could they accomplish this? It's actually very easy. Attorneys appear in federal court to argue against a certain part of the constitution. It could be gun rights, or the right of criminals not to reveal essentail information conerning their activities, or certain groups who may be controversial being permitted to assemble. But the common thread will be that the part of the constitution under attack will be in that part of the constitution written by the founding fathers personally.
But the argument as presented in court will not be against that part of the constitution that they claim to disagree with. It will target the men who wrote that part, who would just happen to be the founding fathers who wrote freedom of the press as part of the first amendment. After they have finished arguing that the founding fathers were out-of-touch with today's reality; that they were landed gentry living on estates, with some even owning slaves; that they could not have foreseen the massive strides we have made in science, technology, and industrialization in the 200 years following their time; that they originally adopted a policy of isolationism, a policy which in and of itself is now null and void due to modern travel; after arguing their case in this way, then they will call for a decision from the court.
But that decision will not be on the particular part of the constitution which they claim to be arguing against; that is merely a 'plug-in', which can be taken out and replaced by any other part of the constitution that was written by the founding fathers. It will be a decision as to whether any and all works written by those founding fathers should be seen as still viable, or instead should be seen as the work of men declared incompetent to decide the structure of our society in the modern world. If the court rules in favor of the argument as it has been presented to them, they have automatically 'pulled the plug' on freedom of the press without ever once mentioning that they were even after it.
When we start trying to get around the U. S. Constitution in order to satisfy grievances that we have, we run the very real risk of opening a 'Pandora's Box' which is better left closed. There are those who would like nothing better than to have an excuse to attempt to undermine our constitution. On 9-11 there were muslims running for safety alongside those of other religions in New York. They also had to flee as the Towers fell. They were running right beside christians and jews as they hurried to get to safety. They had to endure the suffering that was common on that day. If they now want to have a center nearby, that is their right. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them go there to thank God that he permitted them to survive the horror of 9-11.
