Wednesday, August 18, 2010

When Minority Trumps Majority

2nd Grade. Mrs. Jensen says "Raise your hand if you want to play dodgeball." Okay, I raise my hand, along with a few other kids. She continues "Now raise your hand if you want to play basketball." In 2nd grade I was a pretty wiry, spastic kid. Perfect for playing dodgeball, but not basketball.

More hands were raised for basketball than for dodgeball. Despite our valid arguments that basketball had been played in both of the previous PE sessions, Mrs. Jensen's simple response was: "Sorry, majority rules." Lesson learned. If you want to play your game, get the majority to agree with you. Such a concept is the cornerstone of democratic government. The system is designed to have the supreme power bestowed in the people, and exercised through their voice, or through the voice of officials which the people have elected. Whether electing officials, passing law, or ratifying The Constitution, a majority is required at some level. Sometimes "majority" means the highest percantage of the votes. Sometimes it means that at least 2/3 of the voters agree. Regardless, majority rules.

In a recent poll from CNN, 68% of responders are opposed to the building of an Islamic mosque near ground zero. In addition, some democrats (according to some sources a majority of 54%) oppose the construction, among them is Majority Leader Harry Reid. So there it is, plain and simple. Majority rules and so the mosque should not be built.

The problem is, it's just not that simple. Naturally, the first argument for a mosque being built is likely going to be the First Amendment to The Constitution, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Of course, at this point, congress has not come out and tried to pass a law that will prevent the construction of the mosque/cultural center. Harry Reid's statement is that "The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley in a statement. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.” This sentiment seems to be shared with most of those that oppose the construction of the mosque, i.e. They have the right to build it, just build it somewhere else. As Sarah Palin puts it in a recent Tweet "We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?"

Apparently, building a place of worship and a center that is designed to improve cultural and religious interaction and understanding is not acceptable because the general public is still under the delusion that Muslims are the enemy and the culprits in the 9/11 attacks. It wouldn't be fair to the victims of the attacks; it defiles the "hallowed" ground where they died.

In contrast, there are many supporters of the proposed Islamic center. President Obama made the statement "...as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country." Likewise, the political and social activitist, Fareed Zakaria, was so adamant about supporting construction that he returned a prestigious award to the ADL after they came out against its construction. These people, however powerful or well-known, still constitute a minority of the population.

So who is right? Does the majority always rule, or are there some cases when the minority trumps? As a member of a religious group, this one hits close to home. I think of the 11th Article of Faith:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Not only are we required to allow all people to worship what and how they want, but also where they want. I personally feel that some of the impetus for this Article came from the discrimination experienced by the early (1800s) church in Independence, Far West, Nauvoo, etc. Opposition for the early church stemmed in the economic influence and ideological differences. The culmination of the intolerance came in the "extermination order" issued by the Governor of the state of Illinois at the behest of the majority. "[For their]
open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made war upon the people of this State ... the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description." Majority rules, and the Mormons were expelled to another location. Apparently the citizens of Illinois and Missouri that opposed the establishment of Mormonisms cared about the "how" "where" and the "what", and therefore used the power of the majority to remove them. Perhaps there is evidence somewhere that demonstrates that a few radical members of the LDS church were responsible for certain crimes; however, the Church has never supported illegal activity or hostel treatment of others.

Should the rights of the minority trumped the desires of the majority in the case of early Mormon history? Was it acceptable to prevent a religious group from building places of worship in "your backyard" because the majority of citizens were ignorant or biased?

Should the rights of the minority trump the desires of the majority in the case of Muslims present-day? Is it acceptable to prevent a religious group from building a place of worship in "your backyard" because the majority of citizens are ignorant or biased?

10 comments:

Scott Pug said...

I don't believe that the poll states anything contrary to the 11th Article of Faith.

Specifically, from the link the article says A CNN/Opinion Research poll this month showed that 68 percent of Americans opposed the planned mosque, while only 29 percent favored it, although a majority did support the actual right of Muslims to build it.

I fall into the same category as the latter. I don't believe they should be prevented from building their place of worship, or exercising their rights to practice their religion.

I do believe that it's not the right location to do so.

An example of the same idea with a different context is the Westboro Baptist Church. Having served in our nation's military I do believe what they do while exercising their rights is disgusting, insensitive and distasteful. I also recognize that I dedicated multiple years of my life defending their right to do so.

Just like the poll stated, I'm against the idea in general because I find it distasteful but I defend their right to build it because I believe in the sanctity of disallowing government from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

I don't believe my stance is in conflict with the 11th AoF.

Jacob S. said...

The problem, as I pointed out before here, is that by saying that it is inappropriate for the mosque/cultural center to be built there we are blaming all Muslims for 9/11, which is both wrong and insensitive in its own right.

The vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and reject terrorism. Only the most radicalized condone terrorism and the 9/11 attacks. It is absolutely wrong to condemn the entire religion of about one billion people based on al Qaeda's actions.

If we were to adhere to this line of thinking we would not allow Mormon buildings in Arkansas because of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We would never allow Catholic churches anywhere because of the Inquisition and the sex abuse scandals. We shouldn't make decisions about religious practices and freedoms based on the worst minority elements of the religion or we'd simply have to ban religion generally.

Most Americans, according to the polls, believe the Constitution protects their right to build the mosque where they want, which is correct. But as Americans I think we need to go a step further in defense of the freedom of religion and support the building near Ground Zero. It would show that we don't condemn all Muslims because of al Qaeda, we are more interested in healing and coming together than holding grudges and xenophobia, and that we embrace pluralism and religious freedom beyond just lip service.

Shawn O. said...

Thanks for the comments Scott. I really like the recent Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0

Although it may be extremely difficult to get past prejudices, I agree with Olbermann - anytime freedom is challenged, or discrimination raises its ugly head, we must speak up.

Scott Pug said...

Jake,

The way I see it, is supporting their right to build it is not calling it inappropriate at all. In fact, I see it the opposite way. Supporting their right to build it is actually deeming it appropriate to do so.

I don't believe that thinking it's distasteful to build it there is attributing the act of terrorism to all Muslims either. It's simply recognizing that something terrible happened, by some crazy people done in the name of a very large religion. I actually think those of the very large religion should realize why many people are emotionally opposed to it, and be empathetic. Seeing as how the ill effects from that day have been affecting the rest of the Muslim world on some level as well.

I don't think that we need to eliminate the emotion from people's response as a people, yet. It's a real tragedy, with real consequences and it's pretty recent in people's minds. I mean, not only are we talking about thousands that died and were injured that day, but there are thousands of servicemen, that have died, come home deformed physically and mentally, left families behind for multiple deployments for months and years etc that all are consequences that are a direct result of that day.

Not a direct result of the actions of the terrorist, but a direct result of that day.

I empathize with the emotional response, and believe it's not inappropriate to emotionally oppose it. To the minority that don't even support their right to build the mosque, I give them the middle finger of both hands because I believe that cheapens the losses and sacrifices that have come about since that day.

To leverage the over-used meme, if we maintain that line of thinking where we strip people of their rights then the terrorists have won.


Shawn,

I agree with nearly all of what Olberman says, only I don't believe that an emotional opposition does anything to stoke enmity between me and the Muslim world.

I think that when news outlets sensationalize things to the point where the majority of Americans emotionally oppose the action while recognizing and supporting their right to perform said action is being reported as nothing more than "opposition".

Clearly their are various levels of opposition, and conflating them all as if they were equal just for the sake of headlines does more to stoke enmity than anything else.

One thing I find ironic about Olberman's special comment is in the first few minutes he goes out of his way to specify this isn't a mosque, but a community center that will have a location dedicated to prayer.

I lived about two blocks away from the "community center with a location dedicated to prayer" that a good number of the 9/11 hijackers used for their religious worship.

Does that mean the same thing will happen in New York? No, not even close but I do believe it should help people understand that the "it's just a community center, not a mosque" argument really means nothing in terms of real content in the discussion.

Scott Pug said...

Jake,

The way I see it, is supporting their right to build it is not calling it inappropriate at all. In fact, I see it the opposite way. Supporting their right to build it is actually deeming it appropriate to do so.

I don't believe that thinking it's distasteful to build it there is attributing the act of terrorism to all Muslims either. It's simply recognizing that something terrible happened, by some crazy people done in the name of a very large religion. I actually think those of the very large religion should realize why many people are emotionally opposed to it, and be empathetic. Seeing as how the ill effects from that day have been affecting the rest of the Muslim world on some level as well.

I don't think that we need to eliminate the emotion from people's response as a people, yet. It's a real tragedy, with real consequences and it's pretty recent in people's minds. I mean, not only are we talking about thousands that died and were injured that day, but there are thousands of servicemen, that have died, come home deformed physically and mentally, left families behind for multiple deployments for months and years etc that all are consequences that are a direct result of that day.

Not a direct result of the actions of the terrorist, but a direct result of that day.

I empathize with the emotional response, and believe it's not inappropriate to emotionally oppose it. To the minority that don't even support their right to build the mosque, I give them the middle finger of both hands because I believe that cheapens the losses and sacrifices that have come about since that day.

To leverage the over-used meme, if we maintain that line of thinking where we strip people of their rights then the terrorists have won.

Scott Pug said...

Shawn,

I agree with nearly all of what Olberman says, only I don't believe that an emotional opposition does anything to stoke enmity between me and the Muslim world.

I think that when news outlets sensationalize things to the point where the majority of Americans emotionally oppose the action while recognizing and supporting their right to perform said action is being reported as nothing more than "opposition".

Clearly their are various levels of opposition, and conflating them all as if they were equal just for the sake of headlines does more to stoke enmity than anything else.

One thing I find ironic about Olberman's special comment is in the first few minutes he goes out of his way to specify this isn't a mosque, but a community center that will have a location dedicated to prayer.

I lived about two blocks away from the "community center with a location dedicated to prayer" that a good number of the 9/11 hijackers used for their religious worship.

Does that mean the same thing will happen in New York? No, not even close but I do believe it should help people understand that the "it's just a community center, not a mosque" argument really means nothing in terms of real content in the discussion.

Kelly said...

As I’ve talked to people locally, I’m a little surprised to find that most of the people I know who witnessed 9/11 firsthand support the building of this mosque. I’m not naive enough to think my acquaintances constitute any kind of valid sample, but find it interesting that the people I would think have the most emotional right to be opposed to this weren’t.

Architect said...

After reading that the planned $100 million dollar complex has not raised a million dollars, hired an architect, purchased the property, or done any of the normal things one does when planning development of a property, I am starting to wonder if this issue is about religion. I think that it may actually be about development.

A colleague of mine illustrated this with an example that follows:

How would you like it if your neighbor's home was replaced with a gas station?

Gas stations are legal edifices. Your neighbor has private property.

Remember Kelo v. New London - the city/state can take property from one owner and deliver it to another because the planners think they can get more tax revenue out of the second owner.

If we truly had liberty, no one would have to ask permission to build on land that they own. Use of building codes to some extent would be voluntary.

Architect said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jill said...

I'm a New York Mormon who works at a Muslim school, so I feel kind of invested in the issue. Thanks for writing this!