Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Economist has a poll up about the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero and the results are depressing. Like this one:
Only half the country thinks they have a constitutional right to build it, and less than 50% of Democrats even. The Republicans are far worse, of course, with only 32% supporting such a right and more than half rejecting it. And then there's this:
Almost half the population thinks you can ban only Muslims from putting up places of worship in some or all of the nation. The party split on that one:
Option one, can build mosques anywhere: 63.2% of Democrats, 32.9% of Republicans.
Option two, should forbid mosques but not other places of worship in some places but not in others: 26.1% of Democrats, 47.4% of Republicans.
Option three, should forbid mosques anywhere in the country: 10.6% of Democrats, 19.7 % of Republicans.
Absolutely depressing. And it only feeds into the narrative that the Islamic radicals are trying to sell to Muslims around the world. I never cease to be amazed by how cowardly and authoritarian the American people can be if you make them just a little bit afraid, and especially if some demagogue whips them up into an emotional reaction.
Politics
Comments
Only half the country thinks they have a constitutional right to build it, and less than 50% of Democrats even.
Pretty sure that 57.5% means more than half of Dems think Muslims have that right. Not much more, I'm sorry to say, but still.
Posted by: MadGastronomer | August 26, 2010 9:13 AM
Well, I'm depressed that 52% of Americans (second poll) don't understand the difference between a mosque and a house of worship. It just goes to show that Goebbels was right: "people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
Posted by: mad the swine | August 26, 2010 9:18 AM
I don't think the second option implies that mosques should be banned in certain areas, just that they're not appropriate. It's still bigoted and cowardly, though.
Posted by: Brandon | August 26, 2010 9:25 AM
It's more than depressing; it's unacceptable.
Posted by: DougH | August 26, 2010 9:25 AM
If you believe in our country, our Constitution and the reason our forefathers started this country, there is only one option and that would be Option One. We have to wonder why half this country no longer believes in our basic values that started this country. We often pray, "God bless America," but if we spurn this blessing-the blessing of each other- what are we left with?
Posted by: melissa | August 26, 2010 9:29 AM
I have a hypothesis that many Democrats are caving on this issue. Some of the people I've spoken to believe that letting the Republicans have their way on the mosque issue might soften them up on other positions.
If my hypothesis is true, and many Democrats are indifferent or willing to side with Republicans, then it's no wonder why Republicans influence the political discourse in this country.
Posted by: CW | August 26, 2010 9:32 AM
> Option three, should forbid mosques anywhere in the country:
> 10.6% of Democrats
I'm all but lost for words.
What does being a Democrat mean if not standing up for equality?
Posted by: David Durant | August 26, 2010 9:36 AM
I never cease to be amazed by how cowardly and authoritarian the American people can be if you make them just a little bit afraid, and especially if some demagogue whips them up into an emotional reaction.
That's been the Republican ruling plan for 50 years, ever since Nixon's "Southern Strategy". As you can only keep people terrified with the same level of rhetoric for so long, they've been screaming louder and louder about more and more things until Republicans are the party of fear and fear itself. Sadly, since it has its own propaganda channels that call themselves "news" the Republican fear machine can affect non-Republicans as well.
Posted by: lynxreign | August 26, 2010 9:38 AM
This poll was from an opt-in internet survey of 1000 people. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part. But it seems likely that those who opt in would be those with the strongest (i.e. emotionally driven) opinion. If so, bias toward anti-Islamic opinions skewing the results seems entirely likely.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 26, 2010 9:43 AM
This is proof of the effect that Fox and other hate-noise outlets are having. I wonder what the consensus would be if there was truly 'fair and balanced' news reporting all around.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | August 26, 2010 9:45 AM
At the risk of hijacking the thread... :-)
How did your country go from fighting a war of independence against mine to establish the individual rights of citizens to a situation where "I never cease to be amazed by how cowardly and authoritarian the American people can be if you make them just a little bit afraid" is perfectly accurate?
Posted by: David Durant | August 26, 2010 9:46 AM
David Durant:
The Democratic party still has remnants of populists who line up more with non-plutocratic conservatism than they do with liberalism. In the rust-belt states these are sometimes referred to as 'Reagan Democrats', in the south they were referred to as Dixiecrats (though most but not all of these have migrated to the Republican party). They respond to the politics of identity just as slavishly as social conservatives , which many of these Democrats also are.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 26, 2010 9:50 AM
This essentially describes all of Obama's presidency. He throws as many people as he can under the bus to please the Republicans, hoping that they'll play nice in return. Instead they just act even more like entitled toddlers and cry that all of Obama's "compromising" just isn't enough.
Posted by: catgirl | August 26, 2010 10:01 AM
What does being a Democrat mean if not standing up for equality?
Didn't Will Rogers claim that he belonged to no organized political party because he was a registered Democrat?
That was 70-80 years ago. The more things change....
Posted by: Eric Lund | August 26, 2010 10:05 AM
Mad the Swine @ 2
Why don't you enlighten us then, oh. master under the bridge.
What is the difference between a mosque and a house of worship?
Posted by: Chilidog | August 26, 2010 10:09 AM
David Durant:
I won't answer the 'how', but it's a tradition going back to our founding. Almost every 'out' group that was originally ostracized which goes on to achieve equality or something close to it develops a portion of that group more than willing to fight against the equality for the new 'others'. This year it's Palinista women politiicians fighting for Christianism where suffrage was achieved a mere 90 years ago and women's rights still do not equal men's. Another example is Baptist and conservative Catholics both of whom were ostracized in society when they originally migrated here but now comprise the most influential and effective group that deprives others of their rights. They even have their own media outlet - Fox News which is dominated by conservative Catholics.
What I find ironic is one of the two groups that was originally dominant at our founding at the expense of other Americans, those who are members of Christian denominations which were once colony/state established churches in the Northeast and Virginia, are now the primary defenders of the principles that promote equal protection for all.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 26, 2010 10:13 AM
@11 Eh, this is about par for the course for America actually. I remember being struck by just how whiney and entitled the colonists came off as when we studied the revolution in high school; it was hardly the indisputable moral high ground I had envisioned as a child. The revolution was mostly bitching about taxes (The more things change...). Hell, the Boston "Massacre" was pretty much our fault.
Posted by: Mits | August 26, 2010 10:22 AM
Chilidog - MTS is employing an advanced form of Poe-like snark.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 26, 2010 10:26 AM
A little historical perspective that I perhaps should have included in the post: This is nothing new at all. It's not that America has regressed in some way. The ideas of freedom and equality enshrined in the Constitution have never really held sway in this country. We make progress on individual issues, of course, and the nation is far closer to those ideals today than we were 220 years ago, but it's always a fight against the latest form of bigotry and authoritarianism. But acting in contradiction to those professed values is as traditionally American as those values are. Remember, many of the same men who signed the Constitution passed the Alien and Sedition Acts before the ink was dry on that document.
The fight for freedom and equality never ends. The battles must continually be refought. And that's because those ideals are never really shared by more than a bare majority -- and we're lucky if it's a majority at all on at least some issues at all times.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 26, 2010 10:33 AM
On the PBS NewsHour a week or so back, there were a couple (nonstandard) talking heads punditing on the topic. One of them made a somewhat interesting observation on the lines that the discussion is actually being conducted from two different perspectives: legal, and cultural.
The United States of America, as a nation of law, is not at war with the religion of Islam. Under the framework of our laws, it is legal for a Muslim group to buy a disused commercial property in Manhattan and convert it into a Mosque and/or Muslim Community Center. Or, for that matter, buy an old church building from some defunct parish, tear it down, and build a Mosque there. However, while America is a nation of laws, it is not ONLY a nation of laws.
From the vantage of the USA as a cultural entity, it's not quite so straightforward; this cultural entity is not monolithic. The liberal/libertarian secularists really could care less about this; they may consider the religion silly (since it's not THEIR religion), but the building a Mosque isn't a problem for them, much like in the legal entity. Of course, any attempt thereafter to claim the purpose intended by the builders is justification for any more deference to Islam's ideas of proper conduct in a penumbral proximity will tend to be met with assortedly polite variants on "that's not how it works around here, piss off", save for the rare strongly anti-traditional cultural relativist willing to bend over backwards to the breaking point to accommodate.
But this cultural vantage is not universal in America; my impression from various trawls through the GSS database is that it's a distinct minority. At the other extreme (also a distinct minority) are the traditionalist Christian cultural conservatives. They don't approve of brown people, can barely stand the religious variety that exists even within the Christian brand, and think we are far fallen from the idealized America that they learned about from the lies of their history teachers. They might prefer the conversion of other faiths by persuasion, but will settle for conversion by the sword. And to them, any expansion of Islam's token toehold within the US is an abomination that must be opposed.
Culture wars are not merely limited to the cultural civil war within the US; they also include international cultural wars. And in this sense, yes, the CCC is at war with all Islamic culture, even the sub-strains within Islam that are closest to the American secularists... which may or may not be very close; that's a separate cultural analysis.
Apropos nothing above, it might be interesting to the narrative for someone to make an explicit comparison between the features of the proposed "Islamic Community Center" and the features of typical Jewish Community Centers and the typical YMCA. What's very similar, what's roughly analogous, and what (beyond the brand name) is fundamentally different. Feel free to swipe the notion, Ed, and pass it along to any journalist you think might be inclined to do a competent job.
Posted by: abb3w | August 26, 2010 10:39 AM
The rugged individualist turned crybaby pussy doesn't realize that the constitution is in place precisely for the times that the right thing to do is the hard thing to do. So I guess roughly 50% of Americans are essentially traitors...great. Maybe North Korea would be more to their tastes...Leave The U.S. to those of us who fucking give a damn, ya lousy fucks. This is what happens when you get a generational reprise from extended genuine national stress. No context for real worry...Then wham, 9/11. The wars in Iraq etc. don't count, they are still abstractions to most Americans. The Vietnam war OTOH was on the heels of the Korean conflict and WWII. There was still a very live and thriving population who personally had lived through horrors of war...So here we are, worring about non-existent threats and ignoring real ones...Great!
Posted by: astrosmash | August 26, 2010 11:02 AM
“do you think that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque there?”
Perhaps I’m splitting hairs... but is this so obvious?
Suppose the government stated, “Because many Americans associate the events of September 11th, 2001 with Islam in general, we expect that the construction of the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque at this time and in this place would be nearly certain to lead to retaliation by American terrorist individuals and groups. We conclude that this would present an unacceptable risk to public safety in the area, and therefore deny permission to build.”
Does the first amendment block rulings that pursue a legitimate aim of government — such as protection of public safety — based on a reasonable assessment of a real situation merely because the ultimate reason for the existence of that situation is prejudice on the part of (some) citizens?
I will guess that most here would say it remains unconstitutional — similar arguments could be made to defend “separate but equal” practices — but my point is just to suggest that it’s not that obvious. Strictly speaking, there is no constitutional right to build — there is a constitutional right not to be denied equal treatment based on religion.
Posted by: Coises | August 26, 2010 11:20 AM
> Remember, many of the same men who signed the Constitution
> passed the Alien and Sedition Acts before the ink was dry on > that document.
Ouch - perhaps I need a good book on the history of the fight for civil liberties in the US? Suggestions...?
It can go on the pile next to Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee which is up next...
Posted by: David Durant | August 26, 2010 11:34 AM
Yes, it does. Otherwise, it would not have been written at all. You don't need a constitution that restricts the government to defending only the popular people; you make blanket statements like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof" because in a democracy it's the minorities that need such protections.
Not that blacks, unionists, communists, feminists, gays, and many others haven't had their rights curtailed based on similar arguments. But it's always been wrong to restrict them just because bigots feel very passionately about their bigoty. The Bill of Rights is correct, even if we don't follow it all the time.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 26, 2010 11:52 AM
Coises, that occurred to me too. But the similarity between the responses to that question and the more generic "which of these statements..." question leads me to think the respondents weren't being so literal.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 26, 2010 12:17 PM
Can we please now dismiss the claim that it's not about their rights, only about whether it's "wise" or "appropriate" for them to build there? If more than half of Republican respondents (even if it's a biased sample) say they don't have a constitutional right to build there, then it's for damn sure about their rights.
Coises, the government can interfere with fundamental rights only if they have a compelling, not merely legitimate, purpose, and do so in the least restrictive way possible. Caving in to the forces of intolerance is not a compelling purpose (except in the eyes of right-wingers).
Posted by: James Hanley | August 26, 2010 12:21 PM
I am surprised you're surprised. How do you think it is in other countries?
The US greatest downfall (and indeed of the West as a whole) is the delusion that we, as society, have achieved something not by hard work but by birthright and thus it cannot be taken away.
Posted by: Michael | August 26, 2010 12:50 PM
I'm with Michael@27.
The problem here is not the attitude of the American people; it is your expectations.
The American people constitute the least bigoted, most tolerant, most reasonable empire ever to span the globe. This fact is not inconsistent with the observation that they often believe in nonsense and like to lynch brown people. The point is our claim to fame is relative.
As long as there are countries where women can't even drive, American prejudice and stupidity will compare pretty well.
Yes, the Nordic countries - tiny postage stamp countries full of ethnically homogeneous, insular populations - are scoring higher than we are on the Civilized scale. But try doing that with significant populations of the descendants of slaves, illegal immigrants, natives, and refugees from virtually every place on Earth. The melting pot has chunks in it.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try harder; I'm saying the problem is a bit more complicated than people think it is, and we deserve credit for accomplishing as much as we have (which is more than any other empire).
Which is, oddly enough, the same thing I keep saying about the Obama administration.
Posted by: Yahzi | August 26, 2010 2:10 PM
abb3w:
I would argue they get this from their church, not from history teachers, at least that's my sense of it. I went to a very small rural red-state public school who refused to teach us about evolution or sex ed. However they nailed history and civics/government. I think the dishonest revisionism we largely encounter comes almost exclusively from conservative Christian churches and of course now from conservatives collaborating on the Internet. Perhaps I'm wrong but it appears the recent efforts at the Texas state Board of Education whose results would meet your test are relatively novel events rather than in any way pervasive.
I did enjoy your post, this was a mere quibble.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 26, 2010 2:36 PM
Yahzi,
Canada seems to do a better job than us with tolerance, as a people (as opposed to their hate-crime laws). They have a similar demographic break down to us, don't they?
-Dennis
Posted by: Dennis N | August 26, 2010 2:55 PM
While I definitely support the building of a (let's keep our terminology accurate) non-mosque there, why exactly would they have a constitutional right to do so? The 1st Amendment certainly says that if they have an existing right to build a (non)-mosque there, then that right can't be abridged for religious reasons. (For the most part, the Constitution doesn't so much give us rights as it promises--often incorrectly--that certain rights won't be taken away.) However, if there were some other secular reason that they weren't allowed to build on that particular site, the 1st Amendment isn't going to necessarily change anything. And, even if every individual Muslim does have a right to build a (non)-mosque at a given location, it doesn't necessarily follow that Muslims have this right as a group, which is what the poll is asking about. Most of the language in the Constitution refers either to individual people or to all people (or all citizens in some cases) and not to specific factions of people.
Seeing as polls destroy nuance, I'd probably have answered "yes" if I'd been asked that question, but the true answer is "not sure" because I'm not a constitutional lawyer.
Michael Heath:
Oh, they definitely get it from their church, but that doesn't mean that they don't get it from history classes too. To their credit, I've found that many history teachers are fairly decent, but the primary/secondary-level history textbooks are universally atrocious.
Posted by: Miko | August 26, 2010 3:04 PM
Reading books like Lies My Teacher Told Me and A People's History of the United States, I've learned that I had a relatively good school for history. They covered unions fairly, and referred to Carnegie and Rockefeller as Robber Barons instead of Captains of Industry. We learned about the faults of the Pilgrims, and America's faults in the Spanish-American war. My only quibble is that I had a history teacher in High School who claimed that the Civil War was properly understood as being over states rights and not slavery.
Posted by: Dennis N | August 26, 2010 3:17 PM
Coises "Suppose the government stated, 'Because many Americans associate the events of September 11th, 2001 with Islam in general, we expect that the construction of the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque at this time and in this place would be nearly certain to lead to retaliation by American terrorist individuals and groups. We conclude that this would present an unacceptable risk to public safety in the area, and therefore deny permission to build.'"
Only if you replace the Constitution with the Heckler's veto.
Dennis N "My only quibble is that I had a history teacher in High School who claimed that the Civil War was properly understood as being over states rights and not slavery."
It was. The State's right to slavery.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 26, 2010 6:17 PM
Actually, as asked, the correct answer to the question is "no." Muslims do not have a constitutional right to build a mosque anywhere. However, our government is constitutionally restricted from barring the building of a mosque purely because it is Muslim.
Posted by: BKsea | August 26, 2010 7:55 PM
Dennis N. @ 30: Canada is not even close to the US in demographics. For one, it has a population of only 33 million---less than the population of California. Second, slightly less than a quarter of the population learn french as their first language, making the French-English cultural divide the most divisive issue in Canadian politics.
Posted by: William | August 26, 2010 9:28 PM
William @35
Yahzi was contrasting the USA with Nordic countries:
In the senses that Yahzi has mentioned, Canada is a very good analogue to the USA - a mixed population spread across a very large landmass, with different environments/natural resources. And I think Canada has done pretty well on tolerance.
The USA is behind Canada on abolition of slavery (1830s vs 1860s), women's vote (1919 vs 1920), gay rights (addition of sexual orientation to Charter of Rights and Freedoms
1995, vs ?), gay marriage (2005 vs ?). How is the USA more tolerant and more reasonable?
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 27, 2010 8:39 AM
Posted by: BKsea | August 26, 2010 7:55 PM:
Not even close; our rights are inalienable. Muslims have a right to own property and use it as they will just like any other person here legally. This right is limited by laws to defend the greater rights of others, such as zoning laws. In addition the Constitution obligates the federal government to defend their right equally under the law and explicitly prohibits the states from creating laws that would deprive them of their constitutionally protected rights.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2010 8:49 AM
Michael Heath: First, I'm not trying to argue against the right to build the "mosque." What I am saying is that the question asks if there is a constitutional "right to build." There is not. You could have zoning laws in place that would prevent its being built, without violating the constitution. As you say and we are in agreement, those zoning laws have to treat everyone equally, which is the spirit of the question, but not the actual question. This might be an argument of semantics, but we don't know how people interpreted the question when they answered "no."
Posted by: BKsea | August 27, 2010 10:57 AM
Michael Heath (post #38): You are right on. I would have answered no for precisely the reason you point out. We all have a constitutional right not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion. No one has a constitutional right to build anywhere they like. That's what zoning laws are for. Thanks for pointing the obvious out. End of story. Let's move on.
Posted by: sirfab | August 28, 2010 4:17 PM
Correction: BKsea, you are the one who is right on (not Michael Heath). Apologies.
Posted by: sirfab | August 28, 2010 4:20 PM
Correction: BKsea, you are the one who is right on (not Michael Heath). Apologies.
Posted by: sirfab | August 28, 2010 4:31 PM