Post by msguide on Sept 7, 2010 14:37:33 GMT -8
I think the Constitution outlines free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and a whole lot more.
These are *individual* liberties. At no point does the Constitution ever address *group* rights.
If an individual wishes to burn a book, he does so as an individual If an individual wishes to build a building, he may do so. The Constitution provides for that. The Constitution does not recognize the right of a religious group to *do* anything. I do not necessarily think a religious group has the right to bypass local codes and regulations because the thing they wish to do is *religious* in nature. When Mayor Bloomberg talked about the Constitutional right of Muslims to build a house of worship at Ground Zero, he did not know what he was talking about. The Constitution does not address the point he made, and you don't have to look too closely to see that New York City violates private property rights as much or more than any other place. Example: Rent Control. An owner of a building should be able to charge what the market will bear for the use of his space and increase rent if it does not violate the terms of the lease.
And if an individual chooses to exercise his liberty, he must be willing to accept the natural consequence of his behavior. If the pastor goes ahead with his decision to burn a copy of the Koran, he should expect to be personally responsible for a legal defense if a Muslim decides to sue him for libel. The pastor should not make such a statement for his church unless they have voted that he do so (he's praying about whether to do it or not, so it doesn't seem there has been a vote), and he should not expect that his church will shield him from repercussions of his choice.
These are *individual* liberties. At no point does the Constitution ever address *group* rights.
If an individual wishes to burn a book, he does so as an individual If an individual wishes to build a building, he may do so. The Constitution provides for that. The Constitution does not recognize the right of a religious group to *do* anything. I do not necessarily think a religious group has the right to bypass local codes and regulations because the thing they wish to do is *religious* in nature. When Mayor Bloomberg talked about the Constitutional right of Muslims to build a house of worship at Ground Zero, he did not know what he was talking about. The Constitution does not address the point he made, and you don't have to look too closely to see that New York City violates private property rights as much or more than any other place. Example: Rent Control. An owner of a building should be able to charge what the market will bear for the use of his space and increase rent if it does not violate the terms of the lease.
And if an individual chooses to exercise his liberty, he must be willing to accept the natural consequence of his behavior. If the pastor goes ahead with his decision to burn a copy of the Koran, he should expect to be personally responsible for a legal defense if a Muslim decides to sue him for libel. The pastor should not make such a statement for his church unless they have voted that he do so (he's praying about whether to do it or not, so it doesn't seem there has been a vote), and he should not expect that his church will shield him from repercussions of his choice.
