Unsanctioned

Last updated on: June 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm by Fred Clark

Unsanctioned 2012-06-24T15:33:15-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

"Sanction" is one of those words — like "cited" or "sanguine" — that can mean opposite things. This can be confusing.

"The bus driver received a citation from the city" might mean she was ticketed — punished — for a traffic violation. Or it might mean she was rewarded and commended for excellence. In the 1980s, South Africa was under sanctions due to Apartheid. After that system was lifted, the sanctions were removed and trade with South Africa was once again sanctioned.

This sort of ambiguity might account for some of the confusion displayed by those pretending to be offended by the opening of another Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan.

"To bigotry no sanction," President George Washington said. But what does that mean? It might mean that America does not permit or condone religious bigotry. Or it might mean that America does not prohibit or punish such bigotry.

As with the hypothetical bus driver above, we need to know more of the context to know which meaning of "sanction" Washington intended. Fortunately in this case, the first president provided that context. Placed in that context, Washington's statement leaves no room for ambiguity or confusion as to what he meant:

The Citizens of the United States of America

have a right to applaud themselves for giving to mankind examples
of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation.
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of
citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if
it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another
enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily
the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no
sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who
live under its protection, should demean themselves as good
citizens.

We can't find any ambiguity or confusion in what the second president had to say on this point either. In 1797, John Adams affixed his signature to the Treaty of Tripoli, giving these words the force of law:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Adams was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson, who said:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
my leg.

And the president who followed him was James Madison, architect of the Bill of Rights, another unambiguous statement that begins with these words:

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

Anyone who finds any of that confusing is simply confused. This is not ambiguous or — to use the favorite weasel word of timid journalists "objectively" fearful of taking sides alongside the facts — "controversial."

There is no legitimate controversy here. There is no basis in law, principle, doctrine or morality for opposition to the free exercise of religion by Islamic Americans. And their proximity to the Temple of Mammon on Wall Street doesn't change that.

The opponents of this congregation cannot argue against them without also arguing against the principle repeated four times above. And they can find no argument against that principle. So they resort to what Americans always resort to when unable to present or articulate a valid, reasonable argument: they pretend to be offended.

To be blunt, I do not believe that any of the people objecting to this Islamic center are being honest. I do not believe that these are good people or that they are acting in good faith. I think this is a pose, a bit of posturing, a false claim of offendedness. Their pretense of indignation over something that, in fact, neither picks their pocket nor breaks their leg, is not believable. And so I do not believe them.

If anyone can locate an actual argument, made in good faith, for why this particular congregation should be denied its rights, then I will be happy to engage that argument. But I haven't yet heard such an argument. Have you?

Uncategorized

church & state

Previous Post

August 13, 2010

Insincere bigotry

Next Post

August 17, 2010 Scissors for Hitler

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Genesis" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Wisdom History Origin or beginning Law