58 thoughts on “Blog #1 – Freedom of religion, Puritan-style”

1. Hannah Katz September 22, 2010 at 11:11 am

   1. When we lump Islam together with its radical elements, we closely resemble the Puritans. They too believed that everyone whose belief system didn’t parallel theirs were intolerably radical and should be punished. For example, the Quakers who tried to convert Puritans were subjected to intense punishment, including but not limited to cutting off their ears and being put in solitary confinement. The Puritans also exiled Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson for their radical beliefs and condemned them. Because of these people that they viewed as radical, any differing opinion was viewed with suspicion. Just like the Puritans, America has discriminated against Islamists just because they are different, and many people have been suspected as “terrorists” simply for believing in a religion that doesn’t even promote acts of terror.

   2. A modern day equivalent of the Puritans doesn’t exist because it would cause religious persecution, and the Constitution has established freedom of religion. The Puritans exiled who they felt like persecuting, including Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, and encouraged physical punishment. In America today, there are rules against cruel and unusual punishments, and groups like this are limited. Religious intolerance is still prevalent today, but groups that openly support it are not as popular.

   3. The establishment of a mosque near Ground Zero is by no means a popular idea, but the government has no right to prohibit it. The people who will attend the mosque in New York, a block away from Ground Zero, have no affiliation to the terrorists who bombed the Twin Towers. They are Americans; Americans being persecuted for their religion, something our Bill of Rights strictly prohibits. The American people should be intelligent enough to realize that their country has grown up since 1610, and just because a radical claims to be following their religion doesn’t mean all followers of that religion should be discriminated against. The last thing America needs is more intolerance; the citizens supporting the restriction of the mosque may not be chopping off peoples’ ears for their beliefs, but they are trying to do the modern equivalent.
2. Austin The Kue September 22, 2010 at 11:20 am

   1. I believe that when we, Americans, collectively lump together a religion such as Islam with its worst radical elements, the colonial group, or colonial individual, that we most resemble are the new settlers when dealing with the Indians (Native Americans). I believe that when the Jamestown settlers were attacked by Indians (Native Americans, specifically those in the Chesapeake Bay area) when they landed, they were terrified and such. This traumatic experience, as well as tales told from the Spanish, led them to come to the general conclusion that Indians were not to be trusted, savage and evil, when in reality, some, like the Iroquois, who were settled mainly in what is now northern and western New York, had advanced, civilized and functioning communities, featuring innovations such as longhouses, matriarchal society, military alliances and close knit communities
   2. A religious community such as the Puritans (or a modern day equivalent) cannot be allowed to exist by itself, choose its own members, and have the freedom to do what it wants in America because of several reasons. First of all, as Americans, they must obey American laws and customs. Furthermore, this violates the separation of Church and State, for a religious settlement such as the Puritans no doubt would have a government that governs with heavy influence of religious doctrine. Also, a closed religious community would find difficulty surviving, for most areas do not provide the resources necessary for a sustained settlement. Another reason is that of currency. Very little money would enter and exit the society, meaning that the original amount of purchasing power in the society would remain practically unchanged over the years. This could conflict with outside world intrest rates and such economic factors, meaning trade would be very difficult to pursue. A way around the problem of not enough currency to support growth is that of establishing new currency, but, that would make trade even more difficult. The only remaining solution would be that of becoming comies, which is the worst policy option of all, because the commies hate America.
   3. I believe that opposition to the placement of a mosque, or any other place of worship does not violate the first amendment to freedom of religion. This is because freedom of religion dictates that one is free to practice one’s own religion and cannot be made otherwise by the governments. It does not say that the opposition of a religion and dislike of the site chosen for the place of worship is not allowed. In fact, the first amendment protects this right to freedom of speech, which, of course, what the opposition to the mosque functionally is.
3. Morris Fabbri September 22, 2010 at 11:21 am

   1. When we lump a religion like Islam together with its worst elements, we resemble the Puritans. In fact, the Puritans believed the worst of every faith (other than their own), and feared that these “undesirables” would “corrupt” their new society. In doing this, the Puritans made unfair generalizations about all people of other faith, viewing them negatively due to their religion, not who they were as a person. When we depict Muslims as violent and evil, we tend to act like the Puritans, and group all Muslims as “undesirables,” regardless of who they are as a person.

   2. If a closed-minded religious community like the Puritans existed by itself and had free reign, all those of other faith would be at a disadvantage. The desires of religious communities like the Puritans can sometimes come in conflict with the good of people of other faiths; if these religious groups gain too much power or too many members, they can shape parts of society according to their own beliefs. This would obviously leave other groups at a disadvantage, as the closed-minded religious groups’ beliefs are discriminatory against all other groups.

   3. If a religious community acquires the proper permits and goes through all of the paperwork needed to build a mosque/church/etc., it should be able to do so. Opposition to the mosque on Ground Zero does violate freedom of religion; in the Constitution, it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In making a law preventing the construction of a mosque (an establishment of religion) on Ground Zero, the 1st amendment rights of the Muslim people are violated.
4. Timothy DeWitt September 22, 2010 at 11:21 am

   1. In my opinion, when Americans lump all members of Islam together with their radical elements, they act very much like the pilgrims did. As separatist puritans, these pilgrims at first didn’t even want to tolerate anybody but a “visible saint” in their church. This goal was unachievable, but heavy persecution of religious dissenters occurred and continued for many years. They grouped all non-puritans and especially radical movements such as the Quakers into one group of “filth” and “the damned”. They punished religious dissent with harsh punishments or forceful removal from the colony (direct or indirect). The treatment of both non-puritan settlers and modern Muslims in America show a great degree of intolerance and discrimination.
   2. Religious communities cannot exist in America because they inherently include religious bias in political affairs. If an exclusive religious community like the Puritans were to exist, the separation of church and state would fall apart. As a consequence, the freedom of religion, one of the basic liberties that most Americans agree upon, would suffer. The laws of the society would be incongruent with the rights guaranteed to all citizens of the country, so it cannot be allowed to remove itself from the rest of the population.
   3. The opposition to the placement of the Ground Zero Mosque does certainly violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The first amendment clearly states that the government cannot impede on any citizen’s right to the free exercise of religion. The mosque in New York City only seeks to serve as a place of worship and gathering, necessary elements in the Muslim community’s exercise of their beliefs. Just because members of the same massive religion (with over a billion members), who live thousands of miles away and are in no way connected with the mosque, carried out an act of terrorism does not allow any power to disrupt Muslims in New York City from practicing their religion anywhere they please.
5. Colette G. September 22, 2010 at 11:22 am

   1. When we collectively, as Americans, lump a religion like Islam together with its worst elements, we most resemble the Puritans. The Puritans persecuted more radical individuals, and resultantly grouped them all together. Anne Hutchinson was sent away from her home and to Rhode Island for simply questioning a doctrine. Roger Williams was continually pressured to stop questioning the Puritans and ended up escaping the oppression of the Bay Colony. Likewise, they disliked the Quakers, and believed them to all have a love of martyrdom, although this was only applicable to a few extremists. The goal of the Puritans was to push these groups and individuals out of their area, similar to how Americans are trying to push away Islam today.

   2. A religious community like the Puritans (or a modern day equivalent) cannot be allowed to exist by itself, choose its own members, and have the freedom to do what it wants in America because such a group would be in constant conflict with the rest of the country. As long as there are people with different or “radical” ideas, there will be an opposition to them.

   3. The opposition to the placement of a mosque near Ground Zero, violates the First Amendment right to the freedom of religion. There would be no opposition to the building of a church in the same area; so why is a mosque a problem? People have associated the few radicals responsible with 9/11 with the entirety of the religion of Islam. That would be like associating all Christians with the atrocities of the Crusades. A religion is not responsible for the actions of people that claim to follow it.
6. Lukas Nicola September 22, 2010 at 11:23 am

   1. Which group are we, collectively as Americans, acting like when we clump Islamics together with their most radical elements and why?
   -I’d say that we as Americans act most like the Puritans because we persecute everyone we do not agree with. The Puritans exiled Anne Huchinson to Rhode Island, along with her family, only because they didn’t agree with her “radical” ideas. Radicalism is a judgment bestowed upon an individual or group of people whose ideas are significantly different to the judge’s. We as Americans tend to judge Islamics as a whole by the actions of a small percentage of the group. We as a whole have that thought in the back of our minds that all those who practice the Islamic religion are terrorists, or those who seek the destruction of our way of life. Puritans tended to act aggressively against non Puritans. They regarded those who did not follow their religion to be sinners or to be possessed by the devil. We do not necessarily publicly convey our feelings, but at least in our minds, we persecute and categorize a perfectly acceptable religious group by the extreme acts of a small sect of that group.
   2. Why can’t a religious community (like the puritans) or a modern day equivalent be left alone to worship as it chooses, select its own members, and essentially out itself from society?
   -Seeing that the nations today are just as, or more so, linked together than the human body, we cannot simply let a section break off. The nations are constantly spying on each other, and privacy on a large scale is nearly impossible to find in our world today. Look at the Amish people, despite their refusal to enter our society; they have slightly integrated, using some of our machines to ease their work. We have built around their society, and they are surrounded. They eventually will need to expand, but there will be nowhere to go that isn’t complete “techno-fied”. Any society that wants to be left alone will eventually come in contact, and in turn conflict, with an outside force that wishes integration. People are naturally in each other’s business, it’s who we are. The Puritans were left alone for a time, but those who did not agree with them, and those who wanted to interact with them, wouldn’t leave them alone. It happened back then, and it will always continue to happen, and regrettably, that will never change.
   3. Does opposition to the placement of the mosque near Ground Zero violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion? Why or why not?
   -Yes, I believe this conflicts the first amendment because there is no logical reason behind the opposition, only racism and discrimination. The Mosque will cause no harm to people in the vicinity, and it is perfectly legal to be erected. People who practice the Islamic religion desire a place to worship, the location might be ironic, but there is no issue. Those who have a problem with the establishment of a Mosque at Ground Zero can get over themselves. People need to learn that society is integrating at an alarming rate. People will need to change, and people will need to learn to tolerate change.
7. Mark Melendy September 22, 2010 at 11:23 am

   1. We most resemble the Puritans of the times. This is because when the Twin Towers were destroyed, and found out that extremist Muslims were responsible, it immediately meant that all Muslims were the cause of all the loss of life that day. The Puritans went after all of the Quakers because they didn’t like some of them just coming into their villages and trying to get them to convert so they persecuted them just as the majority of Americans are prejudice towards all of the Islamic folk.

   2. If only one religious group existed by itself and there was no opposition then the concept of the separation of church and state would not exist. This in turn would cause anything that the particular religion does not like or bans to become law in the community and won’t let any other religions in that believe otherwise. In the instance of the Quakers vs. the Puritans, the Quakers ran the town and there was no separation of church and state so all Quaker practices that were bad or not liked by the Puritans, put the Quakers in jeopardy of being persecuted and subject to any punishment that the community feels they deserve.

   3. I feel like the placement of a mosque, no matter where it is, does not violate the First Amendment because the people that want the mosque were not the ones that destroyed the Twin Towers. It doesn’t make any sense why people think they can block a non radical group of Muslims from building a mosque.
8. Michael Schwartz September 22, 2010 at 11:26 am

   1. As a group America most resembles Rodger Williams. As America lumps Islam together with its worst elements, Williams grouped all of the puritans as sinners and said they were condemned just because they still considered themselves part of the Church of England. He said that unless they “publicly apologize for having ever worshipped in [Anglican churches] back in England” they were damned. Just as many bigoted Americans group all Islamic people as terrorists, Williams unfairly grouped all puritans as sinners.
   2. A religious community like the Puritans cannot exist by its self in modern America because people have the freedom of speech and can speak their opinions with no penalty. In puritan society people would be banished for speaking out against the community (Roger Williams, Ann Hutchinson, etc.) Another reason is that in America u cannot discriminate against certain members of the community and deny them the right to live there, as the puritans did.
   3. The opposition to the placement of a mosque completely violates the first amendment right to the freedom of religion. I understand the delicacy of the situation of ground zero and think that the building of a mosque near their might offend people, but constitutionally they have every right to build a mosque where they want.
9. Will T. September 22, 2010 at 1:17 pm

   1. We are acting most like Roger Williams, because he believed that anybody who wasn’t a separatist was a horrible person, just like we are saying that every person of the Islam faith is radical. Although a small group of people that weren’t separatists may have done bad things, a majority of the people that were non-separatists were good people. Just like how being of the Islam faith doesn’t make you a terrorist.

   2. A religious community should be able to worship whatever religion it wants, as long as it isn’t negatively impacting others. But, anybody essentially should be able to choose whatever religion they want. It defiantly can’t cut itself off from society because then it might start breaking the law which would probably end up affecting others negatively.

   3. Yes it does. I can see why people could get the idea that it would be “rude” to place it there, because the people that did cause 9/11 were part of the Islam faith. But saying that would be saying that if you’re Islamic you are a terrorist, which is extremely incorrect. The people worshiping at that Mosque would most likely be 99.99% non-radical. You can’t go and group people based on what previous people with the same religion did. This is completely violating the first amendment.
10. Brandon Walling September 22, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    1. I feel that we, as Americans, are most like Roger Williams in the way that he lumped together the Puritans and the followers of the Anglican Church. Williams believed that all Puritans, unless they publically apologized for having ever worshipped in the Anglican Church, were sinners, because they still considered themselves followers of the Church of England. He revolted against the Puritan leaders to the point where the leaders wanted to shut him up. He eventually escaped to Rhode Island to try to set up his own religious community, building the first Baptist Church in America. He thought of all Puritans to be sinners because of the English claiming the land that was already being used by the Native Americans. This action was only the idea of key leaders in England, and he was wrong to judge all Puritans because of that action.

    2. A religious community like the Puritans cannot exist by itself because there are always going to be other opposing forces that feel that the Puritan’s beliefs are wrong and that their own ideas and beliefs are correct. These beliefs cannot co-exist and therefore there will always be conflict. With groups like the Puritans, who desire a close government-church relationship, it is especially not possible for them to exist by itself because not everybody in a community is going to support the government having such close ties with the church.

    3. Not really, because the first amendment says that it is prohibited to make any law that impedes the free exercise of religion. If they are not allowed to place a mosque on ground zero, it is not violating the first Amendment because it is just prohibiting the building of a mosque in that location. They can still exercise their freedom of religion anywhere else, just not on ground zero.
11. meghan furton September 22, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    1. When we lump Islam together with its most radical elements we are acting most like the Anglicans with respect to the puritans in the early seventeenth century. Puritans consist of all people who disliked the catholic aspects of the Church of England, but different groups within the puritans had different degrees of beliefs—the separatist pilgrims and the anti separatists. The pilgrims represented the extreme groups who wanted to separate from the church completely and start over, while the more moderate anti-separatists simply wanted some reform from within the church. Unfortunately, king James viewed all puritans as dissenters, fearing they wouldn’t respect his authority as a king if they didn’t follow him as a religious leader, and persecuted them to the point where they were forced to leave England.
    2. A religious group can’t be left alone to worship as it chooses and completely cut itself off from society because the rights of people in the society need to be protected. A religious doctrine can’t interfere with the ability of the government to protect its citizens. Therefore, a religious group cannot isolate itself but must promote tolerance for all religions so it can operate peacefully within an established society. William Penn did this when he advocated religious freedom in Pennsylvania to protect his fellow Quakers and allow them to worship.
    3. Yes, public opposition to the placement of the mosque near ground zero violates the first amendment because we have no authority to tell people what religions they can and cannot practice. If plans had been made to construct a church instead, I doubt that people would voice the same complaints. Freedom of religion doesn’t apply only to the religion that people are comfortable with and accept, and it is just ignorance that promotes this intolerance. Even if people question the choice to build a mosque based on the idea of religious equality and the right of all peoples to worship there, they don’t understand that the mosque is exclusively for Muslim use. Mosques are sort of like community centers, and all people are welcome to pay their respects to the memory of the people who lost their lives on September 11th.
12. Angelique Harrison September 22, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    1. I believe that collectively as Americans we are most like the Puritans. The Puritans believed that that any other religion then their own was bad. They didn’t really tolerate anyone who believed in any other religion other than theirs. When they first came to the new world they wanted to start a society with only Puritans but as seeing that they would need people to help they with the essentials, such as carpentry, so they allowed others to journey with them to the New World. The Puritans really had no tolerance for the Quakers. They would do anything possible to keep them from coming near their Puritan town. I feel that like the Puritans we don’t accept people that don’t have the same beliefs that we do, and when we find those people we tend to want them out of our area.

    2. A religious community like the Puritans wouldn’t be able to have the freedom to do what they want because all the freedoms we enjoy as a country now would vanish. By law we are allowed several freedoms and right, such as freedom of religion and speech. If we allowed one religion to be free to do what they wanted in America our freedom of religion would banish altogether because for a religion like the Puritans any other religion shouldn’t rightfully exist. By their standards what others believe is false and a belief like that in the minds of people allowed to do as they pleased would lead to a place without freedom, which is what America was built on.

    3. Yes the opposition to placement of a mosque does violate the First Amendment law of the right to Freedom of religion. If the Constitution states that we, being the people of the United States, have a right to practice our religion freely then that also means we have the right to place our place of worship anywhere we want regardless of what people think is appropriate. There is no reason for this mosque not to be built other then the fact that people feel like it is disrespectful to the 9/11 site.
13. Angela Mercier September 22, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    1.) I feel we are most like Roger Williams because he lumped the puritans together as sinners. He did this because some of them (the non-separatist puritans) still considered themselves as part of the Anglican Church. Williams felt that all of the Puritans were damned unless they apologized for ever worshipping the English church. It’s like how the U.S. lumps the Islamic people with terrorists because both are unfair representations of the religion as a whole.

    2.) Separate religious groups can’t be allowed to rule themselves in America because of the threat they could pose to power. Even though the group’s intentions might be purely for religion, some radicals in that religion could become tyrannical and attempt to change or take over some government positions through elections. People are still allowed to pray, meet in holy places, and express their religion in public, but they need to be regulated to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to do so.

    3.) Yes, I believe it does because the 1st amendment gives the right to freedom of religion, which includes holy places to worship. There are churches around ground zero that are unopposed and I think it’s unfair that a mosque should be denied. The mosque should be able to be put anywhere without people finding it controversial.
14. Cheyenne Stone September 22, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Cheyenne Stone

    1.When we lump together Islam with its worst elements, we resemble the puritans. The puritans were not accepting of other religions or people who were not like them, including Quakers and Catholics. They made laws to keep these other religions off of their land because they believed that everyone who did not have the same religious views as them should be punished. For example, they exiled Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams because they had different beliefs, and weren’t afraid to let their ideas be heard. Today, that is exactly what we are doing in America. We are looking at the Islam Extremists as the majority of the religion, and condemning the rest of the Islam people as dangerous people.

    2.A religious group like the Puritans would not be allowed to do these things because in America, although we have Freedom of Religion, forming their own community and them being able to do whatever they want would at some point come in conflict with the American constitution, they may have rules such as ones the puritans did like solitary confinement with no food or drink. In America, it is illegal to not give a prisoner food or drink. A group like this existing by itself would seem like they were their own nation, and it would violate the Separation of church and state because a religious community would most likely have a religious based government.

    3.I don’t think that opposition to the placement of a mosque violates the First Amendment right to the freedom of religion. Freedom of Religion gives all American citizens the right to practice whatever religion they want. The constitution does not condemn an opinion of being opposed the building of a place of worship. Opposition might even be a safer decision if opposition is in the majority of the peoples best interest.
15. Aaron Yost September 22, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    1.) As Americans, we are most like Roger Williams. Williams spoke out against the church of England, and considered any non Separatist Puritan to be just as bad as the worst “sinners” in the church of England. This is similar to deliberately confusing the worst radicals with the Peaceful groups of Islam. People are blind to what is before their very eyes. The Puritans, Separatist or non-Separatist, left England to get away from the oppressive religious atmosphere, similar to how Muslims come here to practice their religion the way they want to.

    2.) A religious community such as the Puritans could not survive today because of an inherent mistrust of small, isolated groups. No matter its intentions, any isolated group would come under suspicion and there would be no one there to defend the group from rumors or blatant propaganda. Any group that didn’t that felt it had to practice its ideas in secret would also be seen as un-American. Outsiders would wonder why they felt a need to practice in secret and not trust freedom of speech under the constitution.

    3.) Opposition to the mosque is in direct violation of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means all people have the right to worship and practice in peace. The location of the mosque is an unfortunate coincidence that has nothing to do with the radical fringes of an otherwise peaceful religion. To claims anything else ensures that the terrorists are really the ones who have won.
16. Sam Cusimano September 22, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    1. When we as Americans lump all of Islam together with its most radical elements, we are acting like Roger Williams, the radical Puritan preacher who founded Rhode Island in 1636 after being exiled from the Massachusetts Bay colony. Williams was strongly opposed to what he saw as the deep-seated corruption of the Church of England, and as such denounced the Puritans he lived with as “sinners” for remaining loyal to the church. Even though only a minority of members of the Church of England was actually corrupt, Williams lumped all members together as evil, including the generally pious Separatist Puritans.
    2. A religious community like that of the Puritans, self-governed and cut off from the rest of society, could never exist in America today. For one, such a community wouldn’t be able to legally pass, much less enforce, laws putting restrictions on religion. If this community did attempt to punish people for exercising unique religious beliefs in ways that the Puritans often did (hanging, drawing and quartering, etc.), they would likely be convicted of murder and sent to jail. In addition, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for members of this society to separate themselves from the government completely. Being citizens of the United States (unless they immigrated illegally), they still would have to pay taxes and submit to law enforcement.
    3. Public opposition to the placement of the mosque near Ground Zero doesn’t violate anyone’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion. In fact, those who oppose the mosque are actually exercising their own First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. People in America are allowed to have their own opinions, no matter how bigoted or misinformed. While I personally believe that opposition to this mosque undercuts core values that we as Americans purport to uphold, such as religious freedom and cultural tolerance, it would be even more un-American to deny critics of the freedom to express their views.
17. Jessica Turner September 22, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    1. When Americans lump a religion like Islam together with its worst elements, we most closely resemble some of the earliest New England colonists, such as the Jamestown colonists. These Englishmen encountered a people and culture completely new to them in Native Indians, and an ingrained sense of fear and anxiety accompanied their lack of knowledge. Similarly, Native Indians knew nothing about the explorers, and reacted to European expansion and aggression onto Native territory as any other established people would-with reciprocated violence and aggression. This logical response was seen by the arrogant Europeans as unwarranted, primitive, and savage. Therefore, Native Indians received the all-encompassing label of uncivilized and incapable of “development”, and this label was rarely challenged by any Europeans, even those who had never come in direct contact with any Native persons. Much like this past situation, Americans in present day perceive, most often negatively, all persons of the Islamic faith as having the same (wrong) beliefs and standards, regardless of their personal knowledge or experience with Islamic followers and beliefs.

    2. A religious community like the Puritans (or a modern day equivalent) cannot be allowed to exist by itself, choose its own members, and have freedom to do what it wants in America because history shows that such groups are unable to coexist with others, and will instead become violent and intolerant towards dissenting peoples within and outside of their isolated communities. The Puritans, for example, were a group that settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in an attempt at escape from religious prosecution by King Charles of England. Over time, however, the Puritans displayed a strong hypocrisy in that they harassed, banished, and even tortured those who expressed different values or beliefs than those of the Puritans. Victims of this hypocrisy included Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and the Quakers. These actions display an inability of an isolated group that feels empowered to use their power and freedom in constructive ways, and in ways that do not conflict with others’ freedoms and liberties.

    3. Opposition to the placement of a mosque, regardless of where it is, violates the First Amendment right to the freedom of religion. It is completely within the laws of the government for any religious group to build a place of worship or congregation where they desire. However, there is a huge difference between questioning the legality of opposition and questioning if the erection of a mosque only two blocks away from Ground Zero is “morally right”. Personally, I do not believe it is morally or ethically right for this mosque to be built at this specific site, due to the delicacy and history of the situation. Much like Jewish and Christian traditions, Muslims build monuments or memorials in places where martyrs died, or to acknowledge the site of a great victory in the name of Allah. I believe the proposers of the mosque’s construction will find it difficult to defend their reasons for building as pure and unrelated to past events.
18. Kiara Moore September 23, 2010 at 7:38 am

    1. We resemble the Puritans when we lump a religion like Islam with its worst elements. The Puritans punished people for not going to church. Those who didn’t agree with the Puritans were kicked out or brutally punished so they would leave. Some punishments were being beaten, having no food, getting whipped, becoming imprisoned, etc. I believe this because as they
    2. The Puritans were not allowed to come to North America (New World) and express their values because everyone did not agree with them and what they believed in. The Puritans also turned to punishment as a result of those who do not agree. Other religions and outside forces were trying to push their values and religious system on people, which made the Puritans not be able to develop their own religion because others religions were dominating them.
    3. No, the opposition to the placement of the mosque does not violate the First Amendment, that is their personal opinion. The First Amendment said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. They should be considerate to where they place their mosque because other churches might be in that area and they should respect other religion establishments.
19. Adam Green September 23, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    APUSH Blog #1
    Adam Green
    9/22/10
    3rd Hour
    1. When we stereotype all Islamic people to be associated with terrorism, we most closely resemble the actions of Roger Williams. Just as some Americans now think that all Islamic people are terrorists, Williams was a radical Separatist, and thought that all non-Separatist Puritans that lived among him were sinners that should be damned because they still considered themselves part of the Church of England (The Anglican Church). He also was very adamant in preaching his radical ideas, just like how Americans are very vocal in their stereotypes.

    2. Religious communities cannot be allowed to worship as it chooses, select its own members, or cut itself from society because, as groups like the Quakers did for a while in the 17th century, because then those groups can become too radical in the implementation of their ideas, and start forcing them on other groups. For example, since the Quakers basically cut themselves off from society, they did not understand how to consider the beliefs of the Puritans, so they just went into the Bay Colony, trying to “save Puritan souls”. In order to stop this, the Puritans had to pass some laws that would inflict a brutal punishment on any Quaker who broke into the Bay Colony. This is just one example proving that without some control over how a religious group runs itself, that group can begin to forget the unwritten rules of “live and let live”.

    3. Protesting the location of a mosque does not violate freedom of religion. Although some may argue that placing a mosque close to Ground Zero is offensive, those people aren’t forcing the mosque to be taken down, they are just protesting against it, which is another right guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution. Forcing Americans to stop protesting would be impeding freedom of speech, which would be a major crime against America. It is unfair to say that a few people saying that a certain act by the Muslims is impairing their freedom of religion.
20. Lucy Mailing September 23, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    1. When we group a religion like Islam together with its most radical elements, we strongly resemble the Puritans. The Puritans set up the Massachusetts Bay Colony in New England, intending to set up a society closely based on their religious beliefs. People who opposed or questioned their religion were seen as threats to their idealized society and were not allowed to stay in Massachusetts. For example, many Quakers who tried to come to Massachusetts were whipped, jailed, and exiled from the colony. Anti-Quaker laws were even passed against anyone of the Quaker religion, regardless of whether they were trying to spread their religion or simply wanted to pass through Massachusetts. When we lump Islam with its most radical people and actions, we are just like the Puritans that discriminated against all Quakers, when in reality only a small fraction of them gave the Puritan colonists trouble.
    2. A religious community can surely be free to worship as it chooses, and select its own members; however, outing itself from society could have disastrous effects. The Puritans, for example, disliked all other religions that even questioned their faith. They even took violent action against groups such as the Quakers and went to extremes of cutting off their right ear or hanging them. The consequences of absolute power by the Puritans, or any religious group for that matter, could mean the downfall and even annihilation of all other religious and communal groups that conflicted with its ideas.
    3. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Therefore, the prohibition of the building of a mosque near Ground Zero would clearly violate the right to freedom of religion. Public opposition, however, does not violate the First Amendment whatsoever. Under the First Amendment, Americans also have freedom of speech and press. As a result, any American is free to oppose the building of the mosque near Ground Zero and express their opinion on the subject, but the members of the mosque itself can make the choice as to where they want to build it.
21. Cameron Blum September 23, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    1.) As Americans, we resemble the Anglicans for assuming that a section of a religious group is a proper example of the entire group. In the words of Aasif Mandvi, “A few good apples like you could ruin it for the rest of us.” He was investigating the building of a mosque in Tennessee, where a citizen claimed, “50% of Muslims are terrorists.” This is an example of Anglican-like typecasting. The Anglicans thought that all Catholics were immoral and completely shut them out from their society.
    2.) A group such as the Puritans, or a modern day equivalent, wouldn’t be able to exist by itself, choose its own members, and have the freedom to do what it wants in the U.S. because many American citizens were raised to be bigoted by watching movies. In this day and age, many Muslims are called terrorists because of the stereotypes created in this society since 9/11. That’s like thinking that all Japanese people are Kamikazes because of Pearl Harbor. I think that due to these stereotypes, people won’t let peoples that they’re afraid of assemble because of the imaginary repercussions of letting them assemble.
    3.) I believe that opposition to the placement of a mosque does violate the first Amendment right to freedom of religion. People are calling mosques centers for terrorists, just because a few terrorists have been Muslim. There are many Christian terrorists also, such as the Christian Militia, but nobody is putting up an opposition to the placement of a church anywhere. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and we need to accept that and let it prosper. The first amendment says freedom of religion, not freedom of Christianity. People let their assumptions influence their decisions too much.
22. Beth Mansueti September 23, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    1.I think we most closely resemble the Puritans when we lump Islam with its radical elements. The Puritans were intolerant to anyone who objected their views, especially those who took an extreme opposition. Anne Hutchinson was one example of what the Puritans saw as extreme because she didn’t believe in pre-destination, one of the Puritan’s strong beliefs. She went as far as to say that those who were “truly saved” didn’t have to follow any laws, including God’s. When faced with such different views, the Puritans reacted by sending Anne away to Rhode Island. Roger Williams also presented alternate views on Puritanism by claiming the Puritans should break away from the Church of England all together. The Puritans, being so intolerant of these views, made Roger feel so unwelcome he had to flee to Rhode Island. The Puritans saw anyone who didn’t share their beliefs as completely wrong. The sent away non-Puritans and persecuted peaceful Quakers. In this way we are much like the Puritans because anyone who is associated with the beliefs of Islam we clump together and treat them as if they’re all extremists.
    2.In America today a religious community can’t be left alone because we have religious freedom here. People can choose for themselves who and how they want to worship. All people in America are under the same laws and rules so if a religious group wants to have any of their goals to succeed, they can’t isolate themselves. To have an effect in society they need the support of as many people as they can.
    3.I believe it does violate the First Amendment right to the freedom of religion because people have the right to worship any religion they want, in any way they want as long as their practices are within the laws of the United States. As long as the people intending to build the masque have ownership of the land they want to build it on, they have a right to. If the land isn’t theirs to do what they please with it, regardless of what religion they are, then they have no right to build on it. A mosque shouldn’t be forbidden from existing somewhere just because its the place of worship for Islam.
23. Katie Burke September 23, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    1.When we lump Islam together with its worst elements we are acting like the colonists did towards the Indians. The colonists had preconceived notions before they even arrived in the new world about what the Indians acted like and were all about even though they had never even interacted with them before. Most of the colonist’s opinions about Indians came from stories that previous explorers to the new world had shared with everyone. They didn’t even give the Indians a chance to act in a different manner before they made their judgments about them. All the Indian tribes were very different and had different values and opinions so it was unfair for the colonists to come up with this story about the Indians being horrible, savage, and crazy people when they had not even encountered all of the Indians yet. So it is the same story with Islam they may have some crazy people that practice their religion, but we can’t say that everyone is as radical as those few because that wouldn’t be true at all because we don’t know all of them so we shouldn’t lump them all together.

    2.A religious community like the puritans cannot be allowed to exist by itself, choose its own members, and have the freedom to do what it wants in America because Americans have to follow the laws of the constitution. People do have the freedom of religion granted to them by the constitution but to have a group doing whatever they want may encroach on other peoples freedoms granted to them by the constitution. So if that group is doing things that only make other people mad and everything that they do encroaches on other people’s constitutional rights then a problem starts to develop. No matter how much this group is trying to just keep to themselves in this present day society people would still make judgments about how what they are doing is so different then what the normally excepted practice in society is.

    3.The opposition to the placement of a mosque does not violate these peoples first amendment right to freedom of religion. Islam is not the most common religion that is practiced in America and people feel weird excepting something that is not their normal religion as something that is okay even though it may be. The opposition to the mosque is not telling them that they can not practice their religions it is just saying that they have a problem with them practicing their religion in certain places. The only reason they have a problem with them building their mosque in certain places is because building a mosque in some of those areas would completely go against the delicate memory of some of those places. I think when these people are opposing the building of a mosque in certain places they are not saying that they shouldn’t be practicing Islam. Instead they are saying that they just want them to respect the history of certain building sites.
24. Leah D. September 23, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    1. When we group Islam with its most radical elements we are most like the Puritans. The Puritans persecuted radical individuals such as Anne Hutchinson and Mary Dyer. They believed that all radical people of other religions would cause harm to Puritanism and therefore harshly punished them. We as Americans today act the same way. When we think of Islam, we automatically associate it with its most radical elements and do what the puritans did, push them out. Although it may not be as harsh as what the Puritans did, we have still become intolerant and discriminate against Muslims.
    2. A religious community like the Puritans (or a modern day equivalent) cannot be able to exist by itself. An intolerant, closed minded group like the Puritans existed then rights guaranteed to citizens of America could be violated. Also if such a group existed by itself, it would become a big controversial issue in society.
    3. People are entitled to their own opinion and Americans have the right to oppose the placement of a mosque regardless of where it is. The government on the other hand has no right to oppose the placement of a mosque. If the government did so, it would be a violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech, which includes symbolic speech, is guaranteed to all American citizens. No matter the placement of the mosque, the government has no right to oppose.
25. Jasmine Acharya September 23, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    1. In the treatment of Islamic people, Americans closely resemble the very exclusive Puritans. The Puritans were determined to keep their society solely Puritan– and so they passed brutal measures to restrain the very persistent Quakers. Since they could not seem to keep the Quakers away, they resorted to passing laws instating brutal, torturous punishments for invading Quakers. These policies were intended to convey to the Quakers that they were quite unwelcome in a Puritan society. Today, inhumane punishments and torture cannot be used as a method to deter “undesirables”, but Americans are skilled in isolating minority groups and making them feel very unwelcome indeed. The debate about the mosque exposes a stark example of discrimination in a supposedly free country. By their attempts to forbid the construction of a mosque near ground zero, Americans are openly associating all members of the Islamic community with a radical terrorist organization consisting of only a small number of Islamic people. There is no reason to believe that the beliefs and principles held by this exclusive group of fundamentalist radicals are shared by all Islamic people. It is, plainly and simply, an example of the intolerance and religious discrimination that the Puritans projected upon all outsiders during the Colonial era.
    2. An exclusive religious community like that of the Puritans cannot exist in a country that promises freedom and liberty to its entire people. A society such as this is inherently intolerant, and would close off their community to all other people, some of which may desire to live in the community. In the United States, people are granted the right to religious tolerance and should not be excluded from any society based on their personal religious beliefs.
    3. Opposition to the placement of the mosque does not in itself violate the first amendment, for people have a right to feel and express their opposition to anything, but if the mosque’s construction were indeed forbidden, it would be a blatant violation of the first amendment. Americans do not have a right to declare an “anti-Islam” zone around Ground Zero. People of any given religion should have a right to practice their religion peacefully anywhere in this country, regardless of past acts perpetrated by radicals on nearby soil. The Islamic people also should not have to suffer being forever associated with the terrorist attack as if it were some sort of mass-Islamic conspiracy against the United States. It is a ridiculous display of intolerance, ignorance, discrimination, and hate to suggest that the mosque cannot be built.
26. Emma Salter September 23, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    1) When we lump together a religion with its most radical elements, we resemble Roger Williams. Williams spoke out avidly against the Anglican Church, and even though he did not physically harm anyone of a different religion, with his words, he caused great damage. In the intensity of his speeches, he essentially criticized the Puritan’s way of life, and although he later apologized for all he said, the damage had already been done, and Williams had changed people’s way of thinking. How does this concur with present day? Well, after 9/11, Americans way of thinking, like the non-Puritans, had changed radically against the Islam, because of a few people in that religion that had made a bad choice. Whether some American people mean to or not, there is a part of the mind that judges, and the Islam people feel the prejudice.

    2) The reason why some religions are not left alone to worship is because there are so many different cultures in this great country, and wherever you go, there will be other religions; therefore, it is virtually impossible to exist by itself. Furthermore, people do not like to operate in a way that isn’t their own. There will always be people wanting to change someone else’s point of view.

    3) The situation of the mosque near Ground Zero is tricky. Some Americans believe that the mosque is sending the wrong message: placing a Muslim place of worship near a place that was utterly destroyed by Muslims. Others believe that it would stop the judgments against the Islamic culture in the US. Personally, I agree with the latter. I think that refusing to put a mosque near Ground Zero most definitely violates the First Amendment; refusing to put a place of worship anywhere in America would. I also believe that if people opened their mind and hearts, this could even bring us together as a people after the horrors of 9/11. After all, why punish the Muslim people in general when only a few of them were involved in the tragedy?
27. Maxime Lawton September 23, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    1.When lumping Islam together with its most radical factions, particularly terrorists and extremists, I feel that we as Americans have regressed back to the level of social tolerance and understanding of that of the 17th century Puritans. I believe this mainly for the reason that the majority of Puritans living in the 17th century were very oppressive towards those of other faiths when in power as well as assuming that people of those faiths were all alike; Quakers were all pacifistic nuts, Catholics were idol-worshiping basket cases etc. This assumption by the majority of Puritans that anyone who practiced any other faith than their own, regardless of individual persons beliefs, directly correlates to the current assumption by Americans that all Muslims are extremists.
    2.A religious community like those of the Puritans and Pilgrims cannot exist by itself in isolation, creating its own codes and choosing who can belong and who can’t, because such a secluded group of people would inevitably discriminate against others who don’t share the same views. This eventual discrimination by the community would go against most, if not all, American values and rights. This refusal to accept the outside world and its different beliefs would also have a hard-hit impact on such a community’s economic situation; its supplies and food would have to be fabricated or grown in the community itself because of lack of interaction with the outside world. Such a community would inevitably fall back to a standard of living 100s of years in the past.
    3.The opposition to the placement of the mosque/community center, regardless of its location, does violate the 1st amendment. This country was founded on the principle of the right to own and protect one’s property, and as long as the builders of the mosque/community center own the land they wish to build on and they have been cleared by the city to build a building of specific dimensions, it should not and does not matter what they plan to do with their building provided it is not illegal, which a community center can hardly be called. Opposing the building of this mosque/community center as opposed to a YMCA, which are Christian community centers, is clearly a mark of prejudice and the violation of the right of any religion to build a house of worship.
28. Jasmine Berger September 23, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    1. By grouping Islam together with its most radical elements Americans are acting like The New England Puritans. The Puritans of New England established The Bay Colony so they could practice their own religion but had no intentions of allowing others to practice anything other than Puritanism. The Puritans were very intolerant of other religions and narrow minded they only cared about their own religion and rejected anything different. Americans as a group are also very narrow minded when it comes to religion, anything thing different or foreign to what we know is judged by its worst elements. Instead of trying to understand we automatically judge Islam by its most extreme elements that we see on the news. The Puritans we very much the same in their colony they refused to get to know or give others a chance, if people within their colony disagreed with their views they were kicked out of the colony like Rodger Williams.
    2. According to the constitution religious communities should be able to exist by themselves choose their own members and have freedom to do what they want because of freedom of religion. But because religious communities aren’t the norm in America they would be heavily judged by others, also some religious beliefs contradict the law. For example Mormons believe having more than one wife is ok while the law says that polygamy is illegal, in these cases it is hard to make a decision either by saying they can’t have more than one wife you are infringing upon their religious freedom and by letting them have multiple lives you are allowing the law to be broken. This is why having a religious community would be difficult to have in modern America.
    3. The opposition to building a mosque anywhere doesn’t violate the 1st amendment, because being opposed to the construction of the mosque is a form of freedom of expression. No one’s rights are being infringed upon if people are opposed to the building of a mosque, because the people aren’t physically doing anything to prevent them from worshiping in the way that they want. Islamic people can still practice their religion and safely believe what they want, even if people don’t want a mosque to be built, they aren’t actually stopping the construction or harming believers of the Islamic faith, therefore the 1st amendment isn’t being
29. Hassan A. Saleh September 23, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    First Question:
    Which group (Anne Hutchinson, Puritans, Quakers, and Roger Williams) are we, (collectively as Americans) acting like when we lump Islam together with its most radical Elements?

    First Response:
    The way Americans act when they lump Islam together with its most radical elements is no different than the way the puritans acted… We treat Islam and Muslims with very little respect or understanding, sometimes even forgetting that we are all humans and created by God, regardless of whether we call him God, G-D, Yahweh, Allah, or any other names people may have for Him. In a country founded so that people can escape from religious persecution the idea of any group of people, let alone a religious institution, to come together to burn another religious group’s holiest book. Nor should it even have ever happened where someone would walk into a holy house of God and relieve themselves right there, or commit arson TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP, etc. the list goes on, but no matter how you look at it this is religious persecution to the max, similar to how the Puritans wouldn’t allow people of other religions to share a town with them. The only difference is that the legal system isn’t the one discriminating against Muslims, it is these “righteous ” citizens taking things into their own hands because they think that is the “Right” thing to do, oftentimes harassing innocent citizens who have just as much right to be in this country as anyone else, yes I’m talking about people harassing American citizens because they look like Middle Eastern; for example once me and my sisters, I was about 8 years old, my sisters 10 and 3 years old each, and we pulled into Toys ‘R’ Us, we got out of our car and this IGNORANT, RACIST white man and his wife, come up to us and start disrespecting my mom and cussing her out, in front of me and my sisters, because she “should just go back to her country” and ignorant comments like this, all because she wears a scarf on her head. Then when we went inside they keyed our car and drove off…

    Second Question:
    Why can’t a Religious community (like the puritans or a modern day equivalent) be left alone to worship as it chooses, select its own members, and essentially cut itself from society?

    Second Response:
    Religious communities can’t be left alone to worship as they wish while staying away from persecution by the media because we tend to be ill informed of peoples customs and way of life so we tend to think all that is different must be wrong. As a result of this we tend to approach things with a rather close minded view. Therefore we would never be okay with a group gathering. If we let a group select its own members we would start to come up with all these little conspiracy theories about what these groups are really doing and about how they are secretly conspiring to do (insert preposterous claim here). This is basically what happened to the freemasons and why there are all these people who scream about New World Order and conspiracies like that.

    Third Question:
    Does opposition to the placement of the mosque near Ground Zero violate the First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion? Why or Why not?

    DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PLACEMENT OF THE CULTURAL CENTER SO CLOSE TO GROUND ZERO, I FEEL IT IS DISRESPECTFUL AND UNNECCESSARY, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE OTHER MOSQUES IN THE AREA AND GROUND ZERO IS SUCH A SENSITIVE PLACE FOR MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD, HOWEVER MY COMMENTARY BELOW IS BASED ON A FACTUAL STANDPOINT BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION.

    Third Response:

    Opposition to the placement of the mosque near Ground Zero does violate the first amendment because by denying the building of this mosque they would be “Interfering with the right to peaceably assemble” you could also be “ impeding the free exercise of religion”. It would be interfering with the right to peaceably assemble because you would be interfering between the followers of this mosque and their right to build this mosque on PRIVATE PROPERTY so that they can FREELY EXCERCISE their RELIGION.
30. Sarah Blume September 23, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    1. As an American, I believe most Americans opinions today about the Islamic religion are similar to the way the Puritans viewed other religious groups during the seventeenth century. Today, many Americans perceive the controversial mosque in Manhattan as a link to the radical element of Islam, which the terrorists of 911 supported. Just like the Puritans in the New World believed, we are collectively starting to not accept the Islamic culture [as we fuse the radical sect with the tolerant religion]in fear of something horrible happening—like another terrorist attack—just like the Puritans thought that anyone not supporting Christ would go to Hell. When they would persecute Quakers, Separatists, and other people opposed to their strict teachings, like Mary Dyer, they believed they were “protecting” themselves from those who didn’t fully worship their God because they could harm their community. This fearful ideology draws many parallels to today because several people assume that we are not protecting our country from the harmful terrorists by building the mosque and are comparing these dangers to the radical religious sect of Islam.

    2. There is no modern day equivalent to the Puritans today because present day society would never allow/accept such an extreme group to exist. If an entire community based on the religious laws and attitudes similar to the Puritans existed, there would be major political and social corruption. The Puritans are so famous today, because of their extremely forceful belief system. The reason why they held so much power in Colonial America was because of their violent acts and extreme measures they took to protect their beliefs. If a group so extreme like the Puritans existed today, many of those religious leaders would push their way up to such a powerful position in our country; our political and social system could easily suffer many negative consequences.

    3. The opposition to the placement of a mosque certainly violates the First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion. The first amendment clearly states that people have the right to worship freely regardless of his/her religious preference. Building the mosque in Manhattan should not be a controversial issue, because not only will it allow more practicing Muslim’s a place to worship, but it is also being established by a group who promotes improving relations between Islamic and western cultures. What has made America an image of “hope” is because of our tolerance for all types of people and religions. The freedoms in this country are what helped establish our roots—so why should a building of a mosque be so controversial? This debate Americans are arguing over is clearly contradicting our values of Freedom.
31. Mia Orlow September 23, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    1. We, as Americans, are acting most like the Puritans when we lump Islam together with most radical elements, because the puritans did not except any other religion but their own. They thought anyone who wasn’t a puritan wasn’t pure, and that they were not children of God. In some cases, some puritans would even harm others who did not share the same puritan faith and belief in God as they did. American people not allowing the mosque to be built are showing that they do not have religious tolerance for a religion besides the one they practice, which is just like how the puritans acted when they came over to America, because they thought the English Church was not pure. We are so intolerant of the Islamic religion because of what happened on 9/11.

    2. A religious community can be left to worship as it chooses, but this just does not always happen. Some people think that their religion is right and everybody else’s is wrong, so they will go out and attack people of other religions, either trying to convert them, or taking away their rights to practice their particular faith. I don’t think a religious community should select its own members because they should not turn anyone away from their church if they are willing to practice the faith. Also, they should not try and force anyone into believing in their religion. The religious community should be open to whoever wants to join it and practice the same faith. If the religious community wants to be shut off for the rest of the world, we should let them because it’s what they want.

    3. The opposition to the placement of the mosque does violate the first amendment. The first amendment states that every American has the right to freedom of religion and people who are opposing its placement near ground zero are denying the people who want the mosque there of their rights.
32. Alexis Barkin September 23, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    1) The action of Americans lumping a religion around its worst elements is a lot like the situation which occurred between Roger Williams and the Puritans. The Puritan society (who resemble the Americans in this scenario) physically engulfed Roger Willam’s own beliefs with negative responses. Many Americans link negative attitudes with the Islamic religion because of the terrorist attacks which occurred in past years even though the Islamic religion isn’t behind terriost attacks in the least. In response to these attitudes many Americans find themselves frowning upon the Islamic religion or isolating themselves from it. Although the way some Americans treat the Islamic religion is disgraceful this tactic of surrounding a religion with its worst elements has occurred many times in history. For example the Puritans (who resemble the Americans) and how they acted toward a radical by the name of Roger Williams (people of the Islamic religion). In this scenario Williams was punished for his radical views on the Bay Colony Charter, the Church of England, and the separation of church and state he was treated as an outsider, much like Islamic people, just because he had different ideas and opinions. Eventually he was banished from the Bay Colony altogether.
    2) A modern day equivalent to the Puritans would be unable to survive in modern day America. In the late seventeenth century Puritans were able to set up their own settlements, make their own laws, and practice religion as they wished. In America a settlement like the Puritans wouldn’t be allowed to have the type of government they used to. For example, the Puritan society used to have a government based on their religion. Today, state and church have to be separated. The Puritans also created their own set of laws and punishments. In today’s society Puritans wouldn’t be able to come up with their own religious persecutions, because the constitutional bill of rights protects freedom of religion.
    3) According to the first amendment congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of a religion. Denying a mosque to be built a few blocks down from the 9/11 site definitely prohibits Islamic people the right to pray where they wish. People may think that a mosque being placed near ground zero is tasteless. The fact that some people find this morally wrong shouldn’t effect whether or not a mosque can be built there. Many of the Islamic people are Americans. The fact that some terrorists are Islamic doesn’t mean that all Islamic people are terrorists. The mosque should be built wherever they want it to be built; the constitution grants all citizens the freedom of practicing their religion. Islamic Americans should not be denied to the first amendment and build their mosque where they wish to. Just because terrorists from other countries happened to be Islamic as well doesn’t mean Islamic religion supports terrorism or their actions.
33. William Hudson September 23, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    Blog #1
    William Hudson
    Hour 3

    1. I feel as a group, we Americans associate closely with Roger Williams, excluding how radical some of his general ideas were; we as a country approach issues in a similar fashion, in that we react in extremes, (patriot act, questionable wars, etc.) we have been known as a nation to: profile, over react, act out, merely due to someone’s religious or racial affiliation, Roger Williams condemned all the church of England, we as a group have condemned the entire church of Islam.

    2. Modern day religions can’t act like the puritans and isolate themselves from society and choose their own members because realistically were a group to be able to isolate itself and set forth its own rules that supersede those of the country, there would be chaos, and as such the country as a whole would reject this mere concept. Additionally, (though it’s a pity), every group, religious or otherwise always needs money -usually lots- be it from taxes or otherwise, yet a isolated community would have no source of this, and while arguably a group could make it without the luxuries of money to burn, the group would still have to pay taxes, which unfortunately would burn through any stockpiles of capital they do have in the beginning.

    3. While I can understand why there might be opposition to erecting a mosque on ground zero, I would still say that it is indeed a violation of our first amendment to block such a mosque. Because while it is very human to feel anger towards a group you feel that has wronged your country, the law system was designed to be based off of idealistic values, there should be no room in court for emotion, emotion should not guide legislation; ideals should. (also it should be mentioned its rather ridiculous and sad to see America viewing a religion as entirely tainted due to atrocities committed by only a few, radical members)
34. Tanguy Crosnier September 23, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    1) Which group are we (collectively as Americans) acting like when we lump Islam together with its most radical elements? Why?
    Americans today when they lump together Islamic people with its most radical element are much like the Puritans in the colonial age. Puritans at that time believed they had the absolute faith and they were right and not others they were not accepting toward others and kicked out any other individuals who had a different faith. In this I believe they are like us, primarily because the puritans put all the other faiths in one group and thought they were all “un pure” in some way.

    2) Why can’t a religious community (like the puritans or a modern day equivalent) be left alone to worship as it chooses, select its own members, and essentially cut itself from society?
    A religious community cannot be left alone or be left to worship as it chooses because firstly if they live in the united states for example they have certain duties to perform like pay taxes, rent, jury duty…. But also certain ancient religions performed human sacrifices and some sects still do and you cannot let them do that and perform atrocities.

    3) Does opposition to the placement of the mosque near ground zero violate the first amendment right to freedom of religion? Why or why not?
    Yes it does. I believe that the opposition does violate the first amendment because there is no reason they can’t build a mosque near ground zero. Just because the responsible where Islamic radical does not mean that all Islamic people are bad and most of them are horrified at what that group of individuals did. In fact I believe it would be a good thing so it can promote understanding and peaces.
35. Stephen McShane September 23, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    1. When we collectively as Americans lump a religion like Islam together with its worst elements, we resemble the Puritans and/or the Pilgrims. This is because both present day Americans and colonial Puritans both viewed a certain group of people as evil without serious reason. The Puritans proclaimed that all people who had not had a “conversion” and who were not “visible saints” were dammed to eternal suffering in Hell. They assumed that unless you were a Puritan (and thus, saved, for in order to join the Church you had to first have a “conversion” experience) you were inherently evil and nothing could be done to save you. This unfairly grouped together the most evil of murderers with the most innocent of children, assuming that nearly everyone was a drain on society. These attitudes are very similar to our present day views of Islam. We assume that every time we see a Muslim on the street, they must be a terrorist and therefore should be feared, oppressed, and avoided. This is baseless, and obviously untrue, but we chose to blind ourselves with our own prejudices, which is almost exactly what the Puritans and Pilgrims did with the rest of the world.
    2. A religious community today could not be left alone to worship as it chooses and cut itself out from society because American people are too preoccupied with others and how their lives compare. They would be so concerned with what the isolated community was doing and whether or not it conformed with the “accepted” ideology of what was normal and proper that they wouldn’t be able to resist intervening to exert some measure of control over the community. People are much too concerned with power to ever find the humility to allow a group to live free from their direct control.
    3. With regards to the public, opposition to the placement of a mosque, no matter what the circumstances is not a violation of the right to freedom of religion. This is because coupled with religious freedom is the provision protecting the freedom of speech for all people to express themselves as they see fit, no matter how base and ignorant their expressions may be. As long as it is not inciting violence, people can say what they want, and it would be hypocritical and damaging to the legitimacy of the federal government to attempt to stifle that. However, if the opposition is coming in the form of governmental policies directed against a mosque placement, then that is indeed a flagrant violation of the first amendment. Though we are many centuries removed from early colonial governments like Massachusetts, we, as a people united, still must stay vigilant in order to guard against the kind of prohibitory thinking that led to violent and oppressive policies of the past: like the hateful anti-Quaker laws.
36. Justice Echols September 23, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    1. When we lump a religion like Islam together with its worst elements, we resemble the Puritans who didn’t accept the Quakers and treated them with cruelty because of their differences. On a less extreme level we are doing the same thing to the Islamic people. Just like the Puritans and their relations with the Quakers who spoke out against the religion, we are doing things to make the Islamic people so uncomfortable, just to get the point across that they aren’t welcome. It might even push Islamic to move somewhere else where they are more accepted.
    2. If a religious community like the Puritans were allowed to exist by them and do as they please, they would become a separate nation from America. They would probably appose most things that don’t benefit them. There would be discrimination toward those that are not “worthy” of practices the Puritans religion. They would not be acceptable of other religions and would probably kill those that they didn’t find “worthy” to live. It would also be hard for the Government to control the Puritans in their extremist ways.
    3. The opposition to the placement of a mosque does violate the First Amendment right to the freedom of religion. Neither the American people nor the Federal Government has the right to deny religious practices. By telling the Islamic people that they can’t worship in a specific place is denying them of their legal right to practice their religion as they please. The first amendment was created to protect the many different beliefs and religious practices we have today in America. The controversy with the placement of the mosque can only go as far as opinion but the Islamic people are protected by the Constitution.
37. Danny Cohen September 23, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    1.) When we lump a religion like Islam together with its worst elements, we most resemble the Puritans in the 1600’s. The Puritans believed that all Quakers were radicals and deserved to be punished when this was not actually true. Although there were some radical Quakers who decided to disobey the Puritans laws, they were not all like that. Because of the few radicals, the Puritans exiled all the Quakers and made harsh laws against them. This is almost exactly how some Americans view the Muslims. Just because of some of the terrorists who have attacked the U.S. have been Muslim, people are discriminating against the religion as a whole and all of its members when in fact, most of them are a peaceful people.

    2.) A group like Puritans can’t exist today because today, we have freedom of religion, which would prevent the Puritans from prosecuting, exiling, or punishing anybody solely because of their religion. The rules against cruel and unusual punishment would also apply to preventing something like this.

    3.) The opposition to the mosque at ground zero is in no way unconstitutional. The citizens can be opposed to whatever ideas they feel like; that in itself is expression of the first amendment. However, once government becomes involved in opposition or the citizens begin using violence or illegal methods of opposition, it becomes unconstitutional. The government cannot tell the citizens what to believe in or what to say but the citizens themselves have every right to express themselves in a non-violent manner.
38. Evan Slon September 23, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    1. In my (professional) opinion, I think the uproar surrounding the (legal) mosque in New York to be an example of the plague of intolerance that has infected American psyche since the Puritans. I believe that the puritans thought that they had the most superior society in the new world and kicked any one out who expressed an opinion to the contrary. We have a habit of believing all the unknown to be fearful, and Islam being a minority in America, we believe that all the most famous examples of Islamic extremism (9/11, terrorism, etc.) to be the norm of Islam. Despite the repeated message of peace in the Koran, we believe that, like the puritans, all those under the category of different are wrong.

    2. If you’re talking a modern day society, then people can’t cut themselves out because we rely too much on modern technology, which we receive from society, and because we would be violating the separation of church and state. However, back in the days of puritans, pilgrims, and Quakers, it’s because they were too infuriated with each other’s different views, and refused to leave each other alone because they thought their ideas were correct.

    3. Yes it blatantly violates the first amendment, and the fundamentals of our founding principles. The phrase “freedom of religion” is in every Americans vocabulary, and we all know what it means; the freedom to worship where, when, and how we choose within reason. In addition, the constitution clearly has written that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Essentially separation of church and state. If we were to prevent the construction of a mosque, we would be violating the rights of American citizens.
39. Gretchen Weed September 23, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    1.
    In America, when we lump a religion like Islam together with its worst elements we closely resemble the Puritans. The early Puritans believed that anyone unlike them were unworthy of stature or respect. They mistreated Catholics, Jews and Quakers. In the Quakers case, they imposed brutal punishments such as lopping of ears; hot ironing tongues and public hangings, all because of their different ideals/faith. To the Puritans, the multitudes of different religions were lumped into one, without it’s own identity. They wrongly assumed that all religions beside there’s were dissenters and unworthy of god.
    2.
    Although in the constitution several freedoms are guaranteed, a religious community cannot completely alienate oneself from the United States Government and have complete liberty to do what they please. This country is founded on secular principles. In other words the lawmakers are also, not the preachers, rabbis or priests. Each religion most follows in the guidelines of the United States government. Their traditions and actions must concede with laws and statues created by the non-religious government to peacefully exist and thrive in America. If every community were allowed to form their own rules then the United States of America would vanish leaving America, with no binding connection between each community.

    3.
    The public opposition to the placement of a mosque near 9/11 does not violate the first amendment. Everyone is entitled to an opinion whether or not it is well supported. As long as bias laws are not passed to hinder the construction/practice then the first amendment is not violated, for it is guaranteed only by the United States Government that one religion will not be favored in government affairs or not be permitted to practice. This does not guarantee that the private sector or common people will not favor one over the other and publicly denounce a certain faith/the practices of it.
40. Michael Aughton September 23, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    1. By lumping together a religion such as Islam with its worse elements, particularly with negative stereotypes associating terrorists with Islam, Americans almost resemble the Puritans of the 17th century. Both of these groups had extreme negative assumptions about other groups. The Puritans commonly excluded and ridiculed people of other religions and thought of them all as equally dangerous, especially the Quakers, who they established cruel punishments for (including whippings, expulsion, and even death). In a similar manner, Americans commonly stereotype and act racist towards Muslims despite the fact that only an extremely small number of Muslims act in the way that some of us sometimes associate them with, just as only a small number of Quakers acted in the fashion that the Puritans commonly associated them with.

    2. A religious community such as the Puritans cannot act so independently due to several factors. The main reason for this is that the community could cause terror on other groups with conflicting interest, as history has shown us with the Puritans. Should any other group with different interests try to coexist with such an exclusive community, violence and mayhem would be sure to break out. Other factors preventing the community’s isolation include the illegality of such an action within the United States and the dependence the community would build on other communities for supplies and trade.

    3. Opposition to the placement of a mosque is a violation of the right to freedom of religion in the First Amendment. The prevention of placing such a religious place of worship is a restriction on the practice of the religion, which is strictly a violation of the First Amendment. It should not matter the location of the mosque, even if this location should be near Ground Zero, unless it is violating somebody else’s property or intentions.
41. Keely Nowland September 23, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    1) When Americans collectively lump a religion like Islam together with its worst elements, we resemble the group called the Puritans. The Puritans persecuted radical individuals and eventually grouped them all together. Roger Williams was basically attacked for asking questions about the Puritans and he eventually escaped cruelty of the Bay Colony. Anne Hutchinson fled her home to retreat to Rhode Island for merely questioning a doctrine. The Puritans hated the Quakers; they believed all of them had a love of martyrdom, although this was only valid to a few extremist. Quakers started to push their views and “save” the Puritans, they couldn’t keep them away so they made brutal punishments against the Puritans. As Americans we clump the Islam Extremist with the peaceful Islamic people, we then associate them with violence. This in the end creates hostility.
    2) A religious group like the Puritans would not be allowed to commit these actions in America because although we have Freedom of Religion, sectioning them off and doing whatever they wanted comes into conflict with the American constitution, they may have regulations like the puritans had. Solitary confinement with no food or drink. In America, it is illegal to not give a prisoner food or drink. This seems like a private nation which would violate the Separation of the church and state because a religious community would most likely have a religious based government.
    3) The placement of a mosque near Ground Zero is not the most popular idea, but our government doesn’t have a right to prohibit it. The people who will probably attend the mosque in New York, a block away from Ground Zero, have no affiliation to the terrorists who bombed the Twin Towers. The people who will attend are citizens; American citizens. In a way we judging and trying to stop them for their religion, something our Bill of Rights strictly prohibits. American people should look back to realize that just because a radical claims to be following their religion doesn’t mean all followers of that religion should be discriminated against. Many Americans suffer from intolerance and this is just creating more. The Americans that are protesting against this are creating this intolerance and judgment.
42. Olivia Reader September 23, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    1. When we associate Islam with its worst elements, we strongly resemble the Puritans, specifically William Bradford and Roger Williams. William Bradford believed that non-Separatist puritans might “corrupt is godly experiment in the wilderness.” Similarly, Roger Williams considered the non-puritans sinners because they still considered themselves a part of the Anglican Church. Both men thought their views were the only way, and were intolerant to anyone else who thought differently. Comparably, many Americans are opposed to the building of a mosque on ground zero. They’re assuming that all believers in the Islamic faith are either terrorists or sympathetic to the terrorist cause. However, every religious group has some radical fringe, that if taken exclusively, would terribly misrepresent the religion as a whole.

    2. Since American was founded on religious freedom, technically any religious group can form, organize it’s members, and worship within the confines of the law. Obviously, the Puritan’s persecution of the Quakers would violate several laws today. America remains a melting pot for many religious groups, and for the most part they operate within acceptable social norms.

    3. I think that opposition to the placement of a mosque on ground zero does violate the right to freedom of religion because no matter what religion it is, the members should be allowed to worship wherever they want and publicly declare their faith as long as they don’t harm anybody else.
43. Mark Melendy September 23, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    Blog #1

    1. We most resemble the Puritans of the times. This is because when the Twin Towers were destroyed, and found out that extremist Muslims were responsible, it immediately meant that all Muslims were the cause of all the loss of life that day. The Puritans went after all of the Quakers because they didn’t like some of them just coming into their villages and trying to get them to convert so they persecuted them just as the majority of Americans are prejudice towards all of the Islamic folk.

    2. If only one religious group existed by itself and there was no opposition then the concept of the separation of church and state would not exist. This in turn would cause anything that the particular religion does not like or bans to become law in the community and won’t let any other religions in that believe otherwise. In the instance of the Quakers vs. the Puritans, the Quakers ran the town and there was no separation of church and state so all Quaker practices that were bad or not liked by the Puritans, put the Quakers in jeopardy of being persecuted and subject to any punishment that the community feels they deserve.

    3. I feel like the placement of a mosque, no matter where it is, does not violate the First Amendment because the people that want the mosque were not the ones that destroyed the Twin Towers. It doesn’t make any sense why people think they can block a non radical group of Muslims from building a mosque.
44. Andrew Gordner September 23, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    1.when we lump religions such as Islam together with its worst elements, it very closely resembles how the Puritans treated those who held different beliefs then theirs. A good example of this is the puritan treatment of the Quakers. The views of the new Quaker religion went against the ideas involved in Puritanism; therefore, Any Quaker that landed in the Mass. area was subject to very harsh punishment including whipping jail time all the way up to death. Quakers were seen as dangerous to the way of life of the puritans so they exiled the Quakers from Mass.. This is the same way some people in our society see followers of Islam an quickly make the leap to the most radical faction of Islam or “terrorists”

    2. A religious community such as the puritans can be left alone to worship as they choose as long as they act in a way that disagrees with the beliefs held by other more powerful groups. This is because the more powerful group will always hold the opinion that their way of doing things is superior to the ways others act. Therefore, they will always be trying to bring everyone else over to their way of thinking.

    3. The idea of building a mosque a block away from ground zero is not a popular one and it deeply offends many people because of obvious reasons. With this being said the first amendment grants freedom of religion therefore it is the constitutional right of these people to build their mosque wherever they’d like. In addition I think it is unfair for us to lump the people that will worship at this mosque together with those that bombed the twin towers. The people that will come to this mosque will be Americans and therefore of course have the right to worship anywhere and anyway that they choose.
45. Laurel Cerier September 23, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    1. When we lump a religion like Islam together with its worst elements, we as Americans most resemble 17th century Puritans, who were convinced that any individual who was not a “visible saint,” or did not share their religion, should be banned from their society or else severely punished. They especially wanted to push out the Quakers just as we now want to push out people of Islam. The Puritans forced Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts and harassed Roger Williams to the point where he felt the need to escape to Rhode Island, simply because these individuals spoke out against Puritan beliefs. Although today we are basing our prejudice on terrorism rather than an outspoken differing opinion, like the Puritans, we are scared of group because of a few actions that we consider extremely threatening.

    2. An exclusive religious community like the Puritans cannot be allowed to exist by itself because religious biases would easily leak into political policy, creating unjust laws that discriminate against differing religions. In order to stay within legal boundaries, no such group can have the power to whip prisoners, cut off people’s ears, bore holes in one’s tongue, or execute people of other religions as the Puritans did. The practices of a society like this would go directly against the Constitution, and there would be far too much opposition of these immoral actions.

    3. The opposition to any “establishment of religion” is a violation of the First Amendment, so of course, this applies to a mosque. Although choosing a location near Ground Zero may seem ironic to some, land is land. Americans who wish to legally place a mosque in that particular location have the right to that land without being discriminated against. It is a place of gathering to celebrate and understand a religion, just like any church or synagogue. To argue otherwise is a violation of the First Amendment because the Amendment did not refer to any specific religions. It was meant for ALL religions.
46. Anisha Glanton September 23, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    . Modern day Americans have a resemblance with the Puritans in the respect that they only viewed a religion with their radical elements in mind and chose not to see any other part of their purposes or motives. The Puritans hated the Quakers for a few reasons: the Puritans felt that the Quakers were hindering their chances of being saved by God from Hell, and that they were traitors of the colony because they did not practice the official religion of New England. Quakers also believed that individuals could uncover God’s will by looking within their own consciences, and Puritans were highly offended at this belief; they were taking away the need for ministers and other clergymen to interpret the Bible and God’s wishes. The Puritans looked past the fact that Quakers were some of the original pacifists, and that they opposed sexism, war, racism, the death penalty, and sexual intolerance. They also treated the Native Indians with respect and did not try to capture or force rule over them. Americans don’t acknowledge other aspects of the Islamic faith because we hold truth to the common ideology that they’re all extremists and terrorists.
    2. A religious community of that sort can’t be allowed to have the freedom to do what it wants in America because laws have been put into place just so that can’t happen. Our rules and regulations have boundaries and those cannot be broken for one group of people.
    3. The opposition to the placement of a mosque does not violate the First Amendment because it is just a freedom of expression; the opposing people are merely stating their opinion and have the right to object to something they don’t believe is right. If they were to pass a law stating that the mosque could not be built, they would be infringing on the rights of the people who want to build it. The constitution doesn’t say anything about opposition to a religious establishment; Congress just cannot pass a law that restricts the exercise of one’s religion.
47. Nathan Krasnick September 23, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    1) As Americans today we tend to resemble the Puritans of the 1600s. The Puritans in the 1600s did not treat all religions equal, but instead believed that all non-Puritans such as the Quakers, Pilgrims, Catholics, ect., were radical. The Puritans had their own communities and did not allow religious freedom within these communities. The Puritans even pressured their own radicals, such as Roger Williams, to leave their Puritan communities. Those who believed in a separation of church and state were seen as radicals who could not live within Puritan communities. When Americans lump all Islamic people together we are creating are being ignorant of the individualism of Islamic people.
    2) Today a religious community like the Puritans could not exist within America for several reasons. In then 1600s, there was no such thing as an independent American nation. With a strong, modern, national government that believes in the separation of church and state, a religious community would not be able to exist because all people’s liberties are protected by the Constitution. Any religious community would not be able to do what they want because what they want may be too dangerous or radical.
    3) Yes, the opposition to the mosque being built is a violation of freedom of religion. In Massachusetts, the Puritans had very little, if not no toleration of other religions. In the 1600s, William Penn made Pennsylvania a very religiously diverse colony. The Quakers in Pennsylvania had been accepting of all religions and cultures, even the Indians. the Americans of today need to follow in the footsteps of William Penn, we do not have to agree with Islamic beliefs, but we must accept the mosque being built wherever is it is built. If we continue opposing the placement of a mosque in Manhattan then we will find ourselves to be no better than the Puritan communities that existed in the 1600s.
48. Meredith Starkman 4th hour September 23, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    1. When we lump together a religion like Islam with its most radical counterparts, we bear a resemblance to the Puritans. They saw any person who disagreed with their belief system as a sinner and rebel. Intolerant, and unwilling to stomach those with opposing beliefs, the Puritans opted to persecute any Quakers who tried to convert the people of their faith. Quakers who chose to continue with their practices were subjected to appalling acts of cruelty – the cutting off of their ears, holes burned through their tongues, and brutal lashings. People who had varying viewpoints from the Puritan perspective were also exiled, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. Much like the Puritans did with the Quakers and other religious dissenters, we generalize the Islam religion as being within the same realm as their extremists. By doing so, we are discriminating against the Islamic people without reason. Many Americans associate the religion as a whole with its small percentage of terrorism affiliation. To do so we are taking an uninformed, close-minded stance and providing an unfair representation of the Islamic people.
    2. A modern day equivalent of the Puritans does not exist in today’s America for several reasons. A group like the Puritans would violate our country’s policy for the separation of church and state. The religious persecution, especially in regards to the Quakers, would be unlawful in our nation as well– abusing the rules against cruel and unusual punishment. Despite small groups of religious fanatics still inevitably in the U.S., extreme outlooks like theirs are less popular and thus no Puritan-like settlement would have a chance of surviving.
    3. Though the proposition to have a mosque placed near Ground Zero in New York is an unpopular plan, the opposition to it is unjust and in violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Denying the mosque access to the region in which it chooses is absolutely inappropriate and illegal for the U.S. government, or anyone else, to do. Americans need to come to the realization that being of certain faith does not guarantee that you fit its, in this case entirely false, stereotype. Islamic people who choose to worship in a mosque are not automatically terrorists, and for the American people to even vaguely suggest such an idea is a bad reflection on what our country is supposed to stand for.
49. SHAWN COSTELLO September 23, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    1. When Americans, lump a religion like Islam together with its not a positive elements, we most resemble the Puritans. The Puritans were very against any religion besides their own, and resultantly grouped all other religions together as an inferior group. Anne Hutchinson was banished to Rhode Island for simply questioning if holy life was proof of god saving you. Puritans also had a disliked for the Quakers, and believed them to all have an extreme point of mind, when this was only true for some. Through the passage of unjust laws with horrible punishment the Puritans attempted to exclude the other religions just like America seems to attempt these days.
    2. A religious community like the Puritans (or a modern day equivalent) cannot be allowed to exist by itself, choose its own members, and have the freedom to do what it wants in America because such a group would have problems with constitution and bill of rights. Though the bill of rights it grants freedom of religion but it also bands cruel and unusual punishment which is a problem the Puritans had. With the passage of laws prohibiting a certain groups such as the Quakers wouldn’t be tolerated. It would be very bad if every time a Jehovah witness came to your door you couldn’t whip them.
    3. The opposition to the placement of a mosque near Ground Zero is against the First Amendment right to the freedom of religion. There would be little problem with any other religious groups. So why is their opposition to a mosque? There is because Americans a choosing to relate all of the Islamic religion to the 9/11 attack which is the problem talked about in question one.
50. Dylan Kakos September 23, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    1. When we lump Islam together with its most radical elements, we are most acting like the Puritans. The Puritans set up their own colony in Massachusetts Bay. They were the first to migrate to the New Worlds based on religion because they wanted to have a strictly Puritan society with Puritan beliefs. Anyone who would come in and spread their religion in Massachusetts Bay, like the Quakers, would receive harsh punishments. Puritans believed that every religion besides their own was corrupt. This happens all the time in America. One ethnic group attacks another ethnic group because off their ethnicity. Regarding Islam, many Americans just assume that all Islamic people are alike and we group them based on the actions of certain people of that ethnicity.
    2. Religious communities like the Puritans (or a modern day equivalent) can’t be left alone to worship as it chooses, select its own members, and essentially cut itself from society because they don’t live in a Country by themselves and they have to follow American laws. People have the freedom to speak whatever they want and that would conflict with a religious community like the Puritans. Since now ears can’t be cut off and tongues can’t be burned, religious communities have no way of stopping protesters legally. There would always be fighting in that community because when there is a large group of one religion, devoted people of another religion tend to go and try to spread their religion in that area.
    3. Opposition of placing a mosque near ground zero violates the first amendment because people have the freedom to worship their religion wherever they want. This is a controversial issue because many Americans put the stereotype that all Muslims are terrorists and because of the events of 9/11, many people believe that it’s inappropriate to put a mosque at ground zero.