David Bromwich, writing on Huffpo about the mosque near Ground Zero, explores American political tradition before focusing on two unlikely heirs of the tolerant spirit:
The language of the American founders contains not one word about sensitivity. "As to religion," wrote Thomas Paine in Common Sense, "I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith." But did Paine and others mean to extend such toleration to Muslims? They did, and they said they did. The question was openly debated whether religious liberty ought to be extended to such outliers as Catholics, Muslims and Jews. In the debate on the Constitution, for example, in the North Carolina convention, on July 30, 1788, Henry Abbot wondered if there were not considerable danger in granting a federal government the power to make treaties. Could not a treaty be made "engaging with foreign powers to adopt the Roman catholic religion in the United States, which would prevent people from worshiping God according to their own consciences." Abbot pursued his anxious challenge:
The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious tests required, Pagans, Deists and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the Senate and Representatives might all be Pagans.A conclusive reply to Abbot was given by James Iredell:
How is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always in the right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened....American Christians in 2010 (if they are white) cannot easily call on memories of persecution to support a commitment to toleration. Even Catholics, who now have six judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Jews, who have three judges, may find that such fears hardly seem to apply in America. Yet a lively horror of persecution by Americans, thinking about America itself, seems a moral necessity for those who have to imagine ills that have never befallen them. And we all turn unimaginative -- and therefore morally lazy -- when the tracks of a prejudice favor our fortunes for long enough. We can truly secure ourselves against persecution only by binding ourselves against the privilege of being persecutors.
...It has been said that liberty is a political good that is easier to win than to maintain; that the habits necessary for its maintenance are easier to unlearn than to learn. To judge by events of the last three months, we have gone a long way toward unlearning the habits of religious freedom. Yet at this moment two Americans in public life have had the nerve and sense to remind us of the simplicity of the principle. Michael Bloomberg said in a radio address in June:
If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it, and we shouldn't be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can't. I think it's fair to say if somebody was going to try to on that piece of property, build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming. And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it too....Ron Paul said in a statement of August 20:
The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.The comparison is worthy of Paine -- and yields not a pious inch to the new apologists for prejudice. There is hope in the fearlessness of Bloomberg and Paul, a hope that derives from their common source. Nothing that any crowd can offer is better than the unhallowed liberty of life itself.
Paul is popular among the teabaggers, I hope they heed him.
unlikely, though so far his I/P stance is intriguing, given his association with the teanutters.
The Tea Party movement wasn’t started by Ron Paul, it was started by Dick Army and his ilk. At least, the Tea Party that we’re shown on TV.
Though, I think Ron Paul can easily and handily reclaim the Tea Party — certainly better than the Democrats or the Progressives have demonstrated they can keep from being railroaded by Zionist and neoconservative machinations.
Speaking of white American Christians, Ali Abunimah makes the point that the first Muslims in the US were those who came as slaves from Africa.
Phil Weiss wrote:
“Nothing that any crowd can offer is better than the unhallowed liberty of life itself.”
Well that’s what us chronically depressed libertarian types say, so it sure is lovely coming from a Progressive.
Maybe there’s hope then: recognizing the problem of trading security for freedom here … who knows what other trades for same might get similarly recognized as a bad deal ultimately?
Regardless, all honor to our host Weiss here: The brains to recognize the generic nub behind this issue, and the reckless bravery and honesty to just come out and say it without regarding his other politics and without some crappy, mincing hedging like so many other “big-name” policy bloggers would.
Refreshing listening to a political commentator today who actually talks like a human being you’d like personally.
Actually, that was David Bromwich, but I agree with you about Phil, Adam, and Bromwich.
And just a note in case anyone else but me was confused by quotations above:
James Iredell–one of the “Founders”– asked “How is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always in the right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened.”
Bromwich points out the next fact, following the elipsis,
“…American Christians in 2010 (if they are white) cannot easily call on memories of persecution to support a commitment to toleration.”
Here’re my favorite lines:
“And we all turn unimaginative — and therefore morally lazy — when the tracks of a prejudice favor our fortunes for long enough.”
“The worst damage of the crowd actions of the summer has come from the faintheartedness of those who knew better, but declined to denounce them.”
What could be better homage to this site, as well as to Bromwich, than that they–Phil, Adam, David, and other thinkers, as well– and you all too, have great consciences and refuse to be morally lazy? Thanks, Friends.
You know, if someone had predicted a couple years ago that I’d been even remotely considering voting for Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate, I would have been incredulous.
But right now, Progressives and Libertarians have a lot more in common with each either, than either does with Democrats and Republicans respectively.
Phil, Great job on the Doha debate on PBS at 1:00pm est. Just saw the last 15 minutes of it. I remember it was months ago, but it’s a surprise to see it on PBS.
Chu, thanks for mentioning it:
link to thedohadebates.com
yeah, excellent job. If I didn’t know who Weiss was, I would have said who is this guy, and why have I never heard of him…
It’s strange,
nobody asked about the role of negotiators in brokering peace.
If Dennis Ross is involved, with his cynical attitude towards the Palestinian leadership, and the uncertainty around Rahm Emanuel’s stance regarding Israel, … and George Mitchell, how much clout would he have in this process?
I don’t know. I mean, it seems to me that Barack, not unlike Clinton, would probably defer to his negotiating team, biased or unbiased though they may be, and Netanyahu would do his damnedest to filibuster or not prepare his public to the compromises that Israel would have to undertake, or …..
Again, I see a repeat performance. Barack Obama is not weak, but his team…I don’t know how “honest” one can expect them to be. IDK.
Those who suggest that the Cordoba project should be pushed further away from Ground Zero because that would appease its anti-Muslim opponents’ “sensitivity,” is no different than feeding a pack of hungry wolves just a little meat with the expectation that the wolves will then go away.
Paul is probably the most principled politician I’ve ever come across. I don’t agree with some of his views, but can’t help respect him immensely (the only bit I strongly disagree with is his flip-flapping on civil liberties – especially of homosexuals).
His supporters founded the tea-party movement, back when it was a sane, respectable movement.
His spawn, unfortunately, is a raging Beckite.
spawn trying to win a senate seat in Kentucky. See what happens, he may be a Fulbright eventually.
RE: “Paul is popular among the teabaggers” – potsherd
MY COMMENT: Ron Paul is only popular with “teabaggers” on one side of The Great Divide™.
SEE – link to rawstory.com
Yeah, well how does he expect to keep this “free, democratic, republic” of his afloat without shaking the red, white and blue cat-o-nine-tails in everybody’s face?
Ron Paul merely questions whether our government should continually insure any foreign state, write a giant blank check for it, especially when a very reasonable case can be made doing so harms the US economically and strategically:
Here’s the link: link to ronpaul.com
The link doesn’t work, but here’s it’s content:
Ron Paul: ‘Neocon influence’ is infiltrating tea parties
By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 — 10:06 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!
In the face of several electoral challenges from tea party-connected candidates, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul cautioned in a recent interview that “neocon influence” is “infiltrating” the movement he is often credited for creating.
Speaking to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Tuesday night, Paul first took up for the tea parties as a natural reaction of the people when they are unhappy with government. What they are not, he explained, are entirely adherent to his ideas. Paul suggested that the group only “sometimes” represents his views.
“My message is somewhat different,” he said. “The message gets somewhat diluted” with large movements of this nature.
“Everybody likes to join what looks like a popular movement, then they want to come in and influence that movement,” Paul continued.
His core issues, such as creating transparency at the Federal Reserve, recalling overseas soldiers and ending the drug war, are “not what is generally heard from the Republican party,” he said.