The question to the Washington Post On Faith panel this week asks about the “religious freedom vs. wisdom” of building an Islamic community center near Ground Zero and questions the impact of public opinion polling.  The following is my response, cross-posted from the Washington Post On Faith forum:

As a proponent of religious freedom who early on stated my support for the construction of Cordoba House, I was proud to see President Obama’s strong endorsement of religious freedom last Friday – and was quite disappointed when, on Saturday, he seemed to walk back his comments. That disappointment deepened as I saw a statement from Senate Majority Leader Reid’s office saying he respects religious freedom but that the mosque should be built somewhere else.

It has been disheartening to see Members of Congress and other national leaders cite public opinion polling as a reason to stop the project. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of the First Amendment knows that religious freedom exists in part to protect the rights of the minority from the whim of the majority. In fact, it would not be a stretch to say that if the Founding Fathers had relied on polling data, the First Amendment might not exist at all. On issues of religious freedom – and let me be clear, this is one of those issues – Congress and the President should not be wavering.  In my experience, any sentence that begins “We recognize that this is a religious freedom issue, but…” is usually followed by an attempt to circumvent the guarantee of religious freedom on the basis of discomfort and bigotry. Arguing that we should overlook religious freedom in favor of taking the road less controversial is, in essence, an argument for not taking action on any significant religious freedom issue in this country; most all of them have been controversial.

Cordoba House is a project that shows the American Muslim community’s commitment to democratic values, interfaith dialogue, and civic engagement and is, in many ways, a slap in the face to the extremists who sought to destroy those values with the September 11th attacks. Please understand that Hamas’ recent statement of approval of Cordoba House is not an endorsement the initiative’s founders sought – or, I suspect, want. Imam Feisal Rauf, a voice of progressive and peaceful Islam, has long been respected as a leader in interfaith issues; he and his wife Daisy Khan have repeatedly condemned radical Islam and have taken pains to disassociate themselves from extremists. Opponents must stop intentionally mischaracterizing the motives of those behind the Cordoba Initiative, conflating them with the impure motives of extremists who defile the religion of Islam by committing acts of violence in the name of their faith.

To oppose this project because Islam is involved and Muslims are sponsors of it is a violation of the religious freedom guaranteed and protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution – period. Whether the construction of such a building is “appropriate” is not for us to decide (though I do think an institution dedicated to education, fostering mutual understanding, and facilitating reconciliation is appropriate); rather, it is for us to recognize that the founding documents of our nation permit this project to move forward as a presence whose purposes include healing. The president and Congress should remember that they have sworn to defend the Constitution. Neither now nor ever is there a time to waver from that commitment.

Share on Facebook

Rev. Gaddy joined Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on Blogginheads.tv for a discussion about Cordoba House, islamaphobia, and the role of faith in the United States.

Share on Facebook

In yesterday’s landmark decision, Judge Vaughn Walker of California’s District Court struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.  Unsurprisingly, there have been strong reactions from the religious community both in favor of and opposing the decision.  State of Belief host and Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Welton Gaddy welcomed the decision as a positive step for California, the nation as a whole, and religious freedom.  In his statement, Rev. Gaddy said:

“We are pleased to see that Judge Vaughn Walker was sensitive to the concerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage. America’s diverse religious landscape leaves room for a variety of theological perspectives on same-gender marriage; indeed, some faiths enthusiastically support it and others vehemently oppose it. Under this ruling, as with any constitutionally-based marriage equality law, no religion would ever be required to condone same-gender marriage, and no member of the clergy would ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony not in accordance with his or her religious beliefs.”

The separation between institutions of religion and government in America was not an accident, it was by design—for the good of both religion AND government.  Our First Amendment makes it constitutionally wrong to deny an individual certain rights because of a religion’s theology concerning what is moral, ethical, or correct.  Divorce is not recognized by the Catholic Church, but it is still the right of an American citizen to dissolve a marriage legally in the eyes of the state.   Judge Walker’s decision takes same-gender marriage out of the religious sphere and into the legal one; his judgment is grounded in law put in place to serve the best interests of this country.  His decision articulates that one couple’s same-gender marriage does not pose harm or threat to another person’s existence or religious beliefs, thus does not warrant its banning.

As I write this,  Rev. Gaddy is continuing our work on same-gender marriage as he is preparing to speak at the Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the importance of shifting the conversation on LGBT equality from a place of “problem” to “solution,” from a scriptural argument to a religious freedom agreement.

For other reactions to Judge Walker’s decision, click here.

Share on Facebook