
This is my hometown. If you go to the link for this article, you'll see the faces of good people. I know most of them. We greet one another at the local farmer's market. We bump buggies at Wal-Mart. Many of them sing hymns of praise and peace at the church we attend. I hear their love of God in their voices and see the joy on their faces as they worship. These are kind, loving, and supportive people, bringing my family fried chicken and casseroles, friendship and prayers, when Harvey died. I love these people in the photograph. One of them has been my friend since 5th grade.
I'd like to believe that they so love their local churches and their country's Bill of Rights that they were all there to see that freedom of worship matters, that the parking variances that are in place for other local churches would be extended to Somalians who wished to exercise their rights to worship.
I'd like to believe in my city council's initial decision, which supported the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights legislation detailed below.
I'd like to believe that this decision by the City Council is only about a parking variance decision. A car driving by yelling "Get 'em out of here!" is something else entirely. A declaration to protest wherever the mosque may be established in the future is something else entirely.
I'd also like to believe that I'm a good citizen of my community. I'm not. As a local resident, I was so ill informed that I didn't even know a second meeting had been called. I didn't attend the meeting or call a council member to voice my thoughts. I didn't even know about it.
But I do know this:
Where there is hatred, let there be love. As a local Christian, I wasn't there to mention the two great commandments that we as followers of Christ have been given:
1. To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength.
2. To love your neighbor as yourself. Our neighbors are the beauty shop owner who's concerned about her elderly customers, the florist who's worried about his customers' access to his business, and the Somalian who wants to enjoy the religious liberties that make America admired throughout the world.
We have to love all our neighbors, not just the ones who look like us or think like us or worship like us. We have to listen to them.
Where there is hatred, let there be love. As a local Christian, I wasn't there to mention Jesus' position on the relationship between government and the church.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." (Read the actual Title 42 legislation below the second bar).
I believe in the teachings of Christ. I believe in our Constitution and civil rights laws. I believe that we all need prayerfully to consider this decision and our subsequent actions, to sow peace and love instead of division. I believe that everyone at that meeting has a right to his or her opinion, and I know that everyone at that meeting, from councilman to church-goer to chair-warmer, understands
liberty and justice for all, which has been in the Pledge of Allegiance since its inception.
I know what Harvey would have thought. As my husband, and according to our religious beliefs (the ones we've chosen for ourselves), he was the spiritual leader of our household. Harvey loved Jesus. He loved America, too--its freedoms, its open arms, its innovations and adaptability. He would have supported the Somalians' right to worship in Mayfield. He would have sung these lyrics, from one of his favorite songs:
If I have not charity, if love doesn't flow from me, I am nothing. He would have gotten mad.
I'm not mad. I'm saddened and ashamed of myself for my ignorance and solipsism.
And I'm praying: For forgiveness for myself for being inert during this process, for understanding of other viewpoints, for peace and comfort, for the members of our community.
And I'm glad that my prayer is legal. And I'm glad that no group is telling me how to pray. And I'm glad that there's a God who hears my prayer and offers me forgiveness, who sends me peace.
Where there is hatred, let there be love. ============================================
Kentucky: Crowd Cheers as Mosque Voted Down by City GovernmentResponsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) supports our universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship for ALL people — without exception.
In Western Kentucky, a Mayfield city government board reversed an earlier decision and voted down a request on August 24, 2010, to build a new mosque, as a crowd of 250 individuals “cheered,” according to the Paducah Sun and WPSD-TV. In a 30 minute meeting on the issue, a crowd that “packed into the hearing” room prevented supporters of the planned mosque in Kentucky from even getting into the hearing room to speak. Kentucky residents at the hearing told the city government board that they did not want Muslims worshipping there in Mayfield, although the city government board said that it made its decision based on parking issues.
According to WPSD-TV news, “religion dominated the meeting.” If the Mayfield area Muslims chose to seek to build a mosque in another part of Mayfield, according to WPSD-TV reporter Lauren Adams, “as for the hundreds of people who showed up here today, they told me they are ready to come back here and fight this all over again, so it really seems that parking is not the issue.” On August 23, 2010, WPSD reported that “Early Monday morning, a car drives by the proposed site of a Muslim mosque and shouts, ‘Get ‘em out of here.’”
The Mayfield City Planner Brad Rodgers says the Mayfield area Muslims have 30 days to appeal the decision.
WPSD-TV reported that “A motion was made to deny the request and passed unanimously. Loud cheers erupted and Commissioner Richard Wright said later, ‘We clearly made the right decision.’” Richard Wright said it was not a first amendment issues, but a matter of parking.
WPSD-TV also reported the comments of one businessman Dick Conner, owner of Mayfield Florist and Greenhouse: “I don’t want to keep them from worshiping, I just don’t want them there.”
Previously, on August 20, 2010, WKMS reported that the Mayfield city government had previously approved the mosque, before Dick Conner and others objected to the city government ruling. WKMS stated that “Dick Conner says he’s partly responsible for bringing the mosque issue to the public eye. Conner says the zoning board originally ruled on the permit in a meeting two weeks ago.” Dick Conner told WKMS that “The public was not invited to that meeting, which they should have been. And the thing passed to where they could put it in. Well, I told them I’d just stop paying taxes too, because they don’t pay taxes, and then the mayor came over the next day and told me that meeting had been nullified.” WKMS reported on August 20 that “City Planner Brad Rodgers says officials erred in not allowing Conner and another person to make comment at the previous meeting. Rodgers says to his knowledge, the Somalis do pay taxes. Conner says he will be at the zoning board meeting Tuesday, and he expects others that support his position to come too.”
After pressure from Mayfield, Kentucky residents, the Mayfield Board of Zoning Adjustment held a public hearing where the the city government apparently reversed its decision and denied the zoning request to allow the mosque. Previous permits have been issued for churches in the area.
During the August 24, 2010 public hearing, however, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal, “No one representing the mosque was in the meeting room — which was packed to overflowing — to discuss the project.” WPSD-TV’s video report showed that attendees were given a “red card” to allow them in the meeting for crowd control. None of the mosque supporters apparently were given such a card.
WPSD-TV reported that “While comments were heard from neighbors and business owners, the Muslims who had petitioned did not have an opportunity. Turns out, the petitioners were turned away because the meeting was so crowded. Overflow crowds nearing 100 were allowed in the hallway and outside City Hall, but the group of Muslims simply returned home.” Mayfield Board of Zoning Adjustment Commissioner Richard Wright reportedly told WPSD-TV that it was unfortunate that the mosque supporters were not available.
A local Muslim family, the Choudhurys, expressed shock at the Mayfield Board’s decision, one of which was “ashamed” of Mayfield in that decision.
Many Facebook readers provided comments on the story on the WPSD Facebook page.
WPSD also provided a video link online about the news report.
The Louisville Courier-Journal reports the American Civil Liberties Union is investigating the matter, and was quoted as being concerned about “anti-religious sentiments voiced by members of the public immediately prior to the committee’s decision.”
WKMS reported that “First United Methodist Church pastor Joe Hansen says he’s had several people come to him concerned about the Somalis and the mosque. ‘I think the feeling a lot of people in Mayfield have is they were just sort of brought to town and . . . here they are. I think it’s been kind of a surprise to people. And we don’t know how to deal with it.’”
Jeff Keith, youth pastor at the First Baptist Church in Mayfield, told the Louisville Courier-Journal that some residents may be impacted by the debate over the 51 Park Place Islamic Center in New York City.
The same day as the Mayfield, Kentucky Board of Zoning Adjustment denied the application for a Muslim mosque for Somali Muslims in the area, WKMS reported that Muslim Yusuf Hassan was arrested and accused of “kidnapping” a girl. Hassan was identified out of a line-up. Hassan’s lawyer states that he is completely innocent and views the arrest’s timing “highly suspicious.”
Mayfield, Kentucky maintains a Confederate memorial on its courthouse steps, and during the Civil War, was very supportive of the Confederate States of America. Mayfield, Kentucky was also the site of the 1896 “race war” during the Christmas season, which resulted in the killing of Will Suett, an 18-year old black American traveling home to spend Christmas with his family, as well as burning down four homes, and the lynching of a black American Jim Stone.
============================================
For those who are unaware, here is the full text of United States law, Title 42, Chapter 21C, according to the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/housing_rluipa2.php
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002]
[CITE: 42USC2000cc]
TITLE 42–THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21C–PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE IN LAND USE AND BY INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS
§2000cc. Protection of land use as religious exercise
(a) Substantial burdens
(1) General rule
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(2) Scope of application
This subsection applies in any case in which—
(A) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability;
(B) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
(C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.
(b) Discrimination and exclusion
(1) Equal terms
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.
(2) Nondiscrimination
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.
(3) Exclusions and limits
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that—
(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.
§2000cc–1. Protection of religious exercise of institutionalized persons
(a) General rule
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(b) Scope of application
This section applies in any case in which—
(1) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance; or (2) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes.
§2000cc–2. Judicial relief
(a) Cause of action
A person may assert a violation of this chapter as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
(b) Burden of persuasion
If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of section 2000cc of this title, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether the law (including a regulation) or government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff’s exercise of religion.
(c) Full faith and credit
Adjudication of a claim of a violation of section 2000cc of this title in a non-Federal forum shall not be entitled to full faith and credit in a Federal court unless the claimant had a full and fair adjudication of that claim in the non-Federal forum.
(d) Omitted
(e) Prisoners
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (including provisions of law amended by that Act).
(f) Authority of United States to enforce this chapter The United States may bring an action for injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce compliance with this chapter. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to deny, impair, or otherwise affect any right or authority of the Attorney General, the United States, or any agency, officer, or employee of the United States, acting under any law other than this subsection, to institute or intervene in any proceeding.
(g) Limitation
If the only jurisdictional basis for applying a provision of this chapter is a claim that a substantial burden by a government on religious exercise affects, or that removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, the provision shall not apply if the government demonstrates that all substantial burdens on, or the removal of all substantial burdens from, similar religious exercise throughout the Nation would not lead in the aggregate to a substantial effect on commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes.
§2000cc–3. Rules of construction
(a) Religious belief unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.
(b) Religious exercise not regulated
Nothing in this chapter shall create any basis for restricting or burdening religious exercise or for claims against a religious organization including any religiously affiliated school or university, not acting under color of law.
(c) Claims to funding unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall create or preclude a right of any religious organization to receive funding or other assistance from a government, or of any person to receive government funding for a religious activity, but this chapter may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.
(d) Other authority to impose conditions on funding unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall—
(1) authorize a government to regulate or affect, directly or indirectly, the activities or policies of a person other than a government as a condition of receiving funding or other assistance; or
(2) restrict any authority that may exist under other law to so regulate or affect, except as provided in this chapter.
(e) Governmental discretion in alleviating burdens on religious exercise
A government may avoid the preemptive force of any provision of this chapter by changing the policy or practice that results in a substantial burden on religious exercise, by retaining the policy or practice and exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, by providing exemptions from the policy or practice for applications that substantially burden religious exercise, or by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden.
(f) Effect on other law
With respect to a claim brought under this chapter, proof that a substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise affects, or removal of that burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, shall not establish any inference or presumption that Congress intends that any religious exercise is, or is not, subject to any law other than this chapter.
(g) Broad construction
This chapter shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.
(h) No preemption or repeal
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preempt State law, or repeal Federal law, that is equally as protective of religious exercise as, or more protective of religious exercise than, this chapter.
(i) Severability
If any provision of this chapter or of an amendment made by this chapter, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this chapter, the amendments made by this chapter, and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.
§2000cc–4. Establishment Clause unaffected
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the “Establishment Clause”). Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. In this section, the term “granting”, used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
§2000cc–5. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) Claimant
The term “claimant” means a person raising a claim or defense under this chapter.
(2) Demonstrates
The term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
(3) Free Exercise Clause
The term “Free Exercise Clause” means that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution that proscribes laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
(4) Government
The term “government”—
(A) means—
(i) a State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created under the authority of a State;
(ii) any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of an entity listed in clause (i); and
(iii) any other person acting under color of State law; and
(B) for the purposes of sections 2000cc–2 (b) and 2000cc–3 of this title, includes the United States, a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of the United States, and any other person acting under color of Federal law.
(5) Land use regulation
The term “land use regulation” means a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant’s use or development of land (including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest.
(6) Program or activity
The term “program or activity” means all of the operations of any entity as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2000d–4a of this title.
(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
(B) Rule
The use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose.
============================================
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) supports our universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship for ALL people — without exception. We reject protests against houses of worship, and we reject violence and attacks on houses of worship.
On September 11, 2001 – nine years ago, America was attacked by those who killed Americans of every identity group and every religion – and who sought to divide and terrorize the United States of America. New York City and Washington DC were attacked, but also one plane, Flight 93 that was hijacked to attack the White House or the Capitol building – was stopped – by Americans that refused to give in to fear and terror. Today, there are those who once again seek to spread fear and divide Americans on September 11.
In Florida, one group seeks to burn Qur’ans on September 11, 2010. We have seen from coast-to-coast, from California to Florida, a series of protests against those who seek to freely worship in Islamic mosques, in California, in Tennessee, in Wisconsin, in North Carolina, in Kentucky, in Florida, in Connecticut, and throughout New York. In Florida, we have seen a pipe bomb attack on a mosque, in Texas a children’s playground in a mosque was burned down, while children are harassed, in Tennessee mosque properties have been vandalized and people have been convicted of arson attacks on mosques. On our national airwaves and media, we see and hear those who call for bomb attacks on mosques, and those who seek to spread open intolerance and hatred.
Responsible for Equality and Liberty (R.E.A.L.) supports our universal human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience for all people of all faiths, including the freedom of religion supported under Article 1 of the United States Constitution. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
We are deeply concerned about the escalation of intolerance and hate that we seeing growing around the world, including in America today. We will be inviting the public to join us in a freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience event on September 11 at 2 PM in Freedom Plaza in Washington DC to give Americans an opportunity to publicly show their support for such freedoms.
There is more information at 911Freedom.com — see also Facebook Event: Public Rally for Freedom of Religion, Worship, Conscience.
We urge those who promote hate and intolerance to unburden the hate from their hearts.
We urge all to Choose Love, Not Hate. Love Wins.
============================================