I've been noticing several references to the Constitution and American society in this and other threads. I've excerpted a few, set out below, and I want to respond, not so much to intent of the posters as to the way in which they lay their arguments out. I'll number the quoted portions, for easier reference.

1. Stringsinger said:
The reaction of those who are opposed to the construction of the Center could be classified by polling statistics as the "tyranny of the majority" which runs counter to protections in the Constitution.

2. And elsewhere Richard Bridge said
Anyone who assumes that all Muslims are the same or that all must be penalised for the sins of the few (a few who appear wholly to have misinterpreted the meaning of the word "jihad") despite the US's constitutional "freedom of religion" is a bigot.

3. Bobert said, in an omnibus reply to other posts:
Me thinks that alot of fols do not understand what the Constituion is all about...

(No, Boberdz... It's about guns...)

My poin exactly.... So we've come to a point where people get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are meaningfull???

4. And Stringsinger again:
It is inconsistent to protest the building of a mosque and not a temple, cathedral, shrine, church or any other religious edifice. This protest runs contrary to the US Constitution.

5. And Richard Bridge later said, in part:
Unless and until there is no substantial number of US citizens who would treat Muslim people (or Muslim owned or built buildings) differently from Christian people (etc) or Jewish people (etc) then the freedom of religion under the US constitution is illusory.

6. And Stringsinger said, very recently:
The issue of "Church and State" is fundamental to the acceptance of the US Constitution.

That sampling of portions of posts displays, on the part of those posters and probably many others, a misunderstanding of what the Constitution is. The Constitution of the United States is not a sketch of how our society should be, or what our ethical positions should be, or how we as Americans should treat each other. The Constitution is intended as a framework or blueprint of how the United States government is to be organized and run.

Take quote number 1.   The Constitution doesn't and can't control what the majority does, tyrannical or otherwise. Congress may pass laws that bear on that under the police power, but that's not the Constitution.

Quote number 2. Contrary to popular usage, the Constitution doesn't provide freedom of religion as a general societal matter. The Constitution controls what Congress may or may not do with its legislative powers, on the subject of religious practice.

Quote number 3. The first quoted paragraph of Number 3 is correct, in the words used, at least. That's exactly what I'm saying: A lot of folks don't understand what the Constitution is all about. I can't speak for Bobert, though, and say that he meant the same thing that I'm expounding here.   

Quote number 4. "This protest" (whatever that refers to) does not run counter to the U.S. Constitution. It is the action of nongovernmental forces, and is not controlled or even referred to by the Constitution.

Quote number 5. First, the standard seemingly advocated by that quote is impossible to meet in ANY society; there's never going to be unanimity. And even if the standard could theoretically be met, the Constitution neither purports to nor attempts to guarantee freedom of religion, except as one attempts to read the minds of the framers as to why "Congress shall make no law" regarding establishment of religion. It's been a while since I last read the Constitution, but I believe it never uses the words "freedom of religion". Freedom of religion is not a governmental function.

Quote number 6. Frankly, number 6 is not at all clear. "The issue of 'Church and State' is fundamental to the acceptance of the US Constitution."   "The issue *** is fundamental" is vague; "the issue" is merely laying a groundwork for a discussion, not deciding what resolution is to be made of it. And "fundamental to the acceptance"? The Constitution was accepted a long time ago, in, what, 1789? If Number 6 refers to anyone or any government outside of the United State granting acceptance of the US Constitution, it is presumptuous. And if, on the other hand, it refers to the thinking of all US citizens, not only is unanimity impossible, but the Constitution is a rather complicated set of rules for government, and no one proposition (or "issue") rises to a level which automatically calls for acceptance or nonacceptance of the whole thing by Americans.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm disagreeing with any of the posters of 1 through 6 as to desirable societal goals or actions. In fact I suspect that those writers and I are in close agreement on the principles involved. I merely assert that unless an action of government as to (in this case) the Islamic Center and Ground Zero (whatever that is) is involved, the Constitution should be left out of the discussion, because its invocation merely fuzzes up the issue.

End of rant.

Dave Oesterreich