A U.S. district judge recently made an initial ruling regarding this case in January and ordered the City of Horn Lake to grant approval for the site plan and mosque located in the city. The decision also stated the board of alderman must also “consider, process, and act upon -- without any unusual delays and free from and illegal discriminatory intent or affect -- all other applications associated with the construction and operation of the mosque.”
Since this decision, there has yet to be an appeal of further legal action. However, I believe that if the supreme court were to look at this case there would be many additional laws and precedences available to take into consideration when making the right decision. In 2000, congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The goal of this was to protect houses of worship and religious institutions from being discriminated against in zoning and landmarking laws. In addition to this, the 14th Amendment states that all individuals, no matter what, must be protected by laws in the same manner. Islamic Society of Basking Ridge v. Bernards is a similar local case in which the Township of Bernards denied the Basking Ridge Muslim congregation the right to build a new mosque. As a result, they went to court and the district court ruled in favor of the mosque's right to build citing both free exercise and the right for all religious groups to be treated equally as their main reasoning.
After analyzing this case, it is clear to me that yes, the city’s actions definitely violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution along with many other laws. The Constitution clearly states that citizens have the right to practice their religion as they please. Building a mosque as a place of worship allows for the Muslim community with Horn Lake and its surrounding area to do so in a sincere way. The development of a mosque, on land that had already been designated for religious use, in no way imposes any form of a substantial burden on the city or the individuals living in it as designated by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Not to mention the fact that under the 14th Amendment, all citizens of Horn Lake must be treated and protected in the same manner. I find it hard to believe that if the plans submitted were for a religion that was more common in the area, the ruling of the city aldermen would have been the same. Like the similar cases expressed above, religious minorities are discriminated against too often and laws like the free exercise clause are built to protect them. Thus, we should ensure that it fulfills its purpose.
If the situation was different, and Abraham House of God was asking for government assistance or funds for the building of the mosque, I could see how the action of providing direct aid might not be permissible. An action like this would have the possibility of leading to a slippery slope and other religious groups looking for similar aid. The founders and members of Abraham House of God, on the other hand, are doing no such thing. Instead, they are merely practicing their constitutional rights as both members of a religious community as well as individuals in society. I believe this is a case of true discrimination which has no business being tolerated in any capacity.
7 comments:
I agree with Peyton on her stance regarding this case. The mosque has little to no effect on the people in the surrounding area. This case exemplifies the question of neutrality with religion. In addition, it can be viewed as a slippery slope, as Peyton said, if it sets a precedent. In this case, the land was dedicated for religious use. I don't see an issue, especially because of that.
This is a perfect example as to why we need the free exercise clause, to begin with. religious minorities, Muslims in particular given the history of Islamaphobia in the US, will constantly be at odds with majoritarian religions. Peyton has played out the case well here and I agree with her assessment of it. I appreciate especially her bringing in the idea of the slippery slope. This is a pretty cut and dry case but it is important to understand the implications of decisions like this if they aren't overturned. This ruling is a blatant disregard for free exercise and signals to any other court that holds similar prejudiced views that they can do the same. Precedent and therefor consistency is foundational to the justice system and here it has failed.
I agree with Peyton evaluation of the case and was reminded of our in class debates regarding the religious freedom of George Reynolds and the Amish. When reading this case, I think it's essential to recognize the location and historical roots of Horn Lake. Horn Lake is a small town located in Mississippi whose population is dominated by white, conservative Christians. It's also important to note the persistence of racism in the south and the south's cultural values that emphasize devotion to tradition and conventionality. I think the demographics of Horn Lake was the primary reason why the Mosque's construction was halted. What if a Catholic Church petitioned to establish a place of worship in the same spot? Would they be denied? Similar to the ways in which New Religious Movements are treated with skepticism and scrutiny by the court, the House of Abraham had to combat paralleled sentiments because of Islamaphobia and racism. This case in contrast with the Reynolds case reveals how court decisions are derived from cultural and social constructs that compose our reality and our understanding of the "truth".
It seems like Peytons argument is the only constitutional option here. The group followed every regulation they had to, and were building on land that was allocated for religious places of worship. If the state were to rule against this group, is would be clear and obvious that neutrality towards all religions was being ignored. It is also a fact, that in this area, Muslims are a religious minority. Allowing direct discrimination would not only be unconstitutional for its own reasons, but the state would also be failing to protect a religious minority that is aiming to practice a religion in which (1) its followers are extremely sincere in their faith and (2) a religion which is the second oldest in the world.
I hate to sound like a broken record here, but I agree with Peyton and all of the comments above. Abraham House of God followed every regulation necessary to get approval for the building of the mosque and there is no reason the council should turn it down. To me, this is a clear violation of the 1st amendment free exercise clause. The only reason I think they could have struck this down is if there was a substantial burden or compelling state interest to do so. However, there is no evidence of that here. Instead, the council is directly discriminating against Abraham House of God based on their religion and the court was correct to overturn the council.
I completely agree with Peyton's take on this case. This is a clear violation of the right to practice religion. The city's decision is based in discrimination. It is unfortunate that today, we still have discrimination against religious groups-even coming from government organizations! The Muslims planning the Mosque did everything they needed to do to follow the government's ruler for the building of their mosque. They should be rewarded with neutrality and equality to be able to build their mosque.
Post a Comment