Muslim group files complaint against mayor of California town who said, “we’re a Christian community, and we’re proud of that”
But, under currently established liberal understandings that even conservatives don’t challenge, are the Muslims wrong to complain?
The story is in the Los Angeles Times:
Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris drew criticism from a leading Muslim group today after saying in his annual State of the City address that the high desert town was “growing a Christian community.”On reading this story, most conservatives will automatically condemn the Muslim group CAIR for charging a civil rights violation and making trouble. I don’t condemn CAIR, because they are only doing what our liberal society tells them is the right and proper thing to do. They are doing us a favor, by revealing to us the true nature of our current system. Under blatantly false constitutional interpretations that have been set in place by a series of revolutionary—but at present uncontested—Supreme Court decisions stretching back over many decades, no local or state government (not just Congress) shall have an “establishment of religion,” and “establishment of religion” is mis-defined as ANY expression by government that promotes a religion for religious purposes as distinct from cultural or civilizational or moral purposes. For a mayor to boast that his town is a “Christian community” arguably violates that perverted but now entrenched view of the First Amendment, and CAIR is simply applying that view. If you don’t like what CAIR is doing, don’t complain about CAIR, complain about the outrageous distortions of our Constitution which are now accepted as constitutional by the entire American political system, and which at present no one in mainstream society, least of all the “conservatives,” dreams of challenging.
The mayor was on TV last night and handled himself ably. He came across as thoughtful and reasonable. What was interesting is that the lead-in babble mentioned Moslem grousing, but the story itself said nothing of Islam or CAIR. They treated the story fairly I thought, without the usual reporter’s vocal intonations of melodrama and fear.LA replies:
The answer to your question is the principle of interpretation I discussed in the initial entry. References to God and religion pass constitutional muster if the intended message is not religious per se but embedded in a broader civic and cultural message. Thus in the Ten Commandments case in Alabama a few years ago, a large stone with the Ten Commandments was held to be religious in intent and was not allowed. But in other instance, in which the Ten Commandments and other religious motifs have been included in a painting or bas relief that featured various civic themes of our civilization, that has been accepted. If you’re presenting the Ten Commandments as a basis of our civic law and customs, that’s permissible. If you’re presenting the Ten Commandments as … the Ten Commandments, that’s not permissible.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 01, 2010 12:55 PM | Send