Principles, results, dilemmas and the NYC Islamic Center

The current controversy over the Islamic Center in New York near 9-11 ground zero is a controversial topic. It highlights the tension between principles and results. I hope this brief discussion will help focus the issues. The U.S. Constitution is full of principles, federalism, freedom of religion, due process, equal protection etc. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, these principles are paramount for public officials who take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” While the exact scope of these principles is subject to debate, there are some things about which there is little debate. For instance, under the First Amendment, government cannot discriminate for or against any particular religion as long as their pursuits are lawful. There is also a federal statute, a religious land-use act, which prevents religious discrimination by government with regard to the use of land. Individuals also have principles. These are often religious or philosophical principles. If you are not a public official, you are not bound by the Constitution, except for a few provisions (e.g. 13th Amendment ban on slavery). However, once you become a public official, the Constitution binds you in your official acts. In your purely individual capacity, you do not have to comply with anything in the Bill of Rights. However, many people conclude that constitutional values are also good personal values. For instance, many libertarians support freedom of speech and religion as personal values. The problem for both public officials and individuals occurs when the results of applying a relatively clear principle they publicly support leads to results that they do not like. We are not talking about catastrophic results, huge costs or anything like that. We are talking about results that one thinks are wrong, disrespectful or unpleasant, distasteful, in bad taste, etc. This tension between principles and results creates a dilemma. Some conceptualize this as an ethical dilemma. There are three usual reactions to the dilemma. (1) Bite the bullet, accept the primacy of the principle in spite of the results, and suffer the consequences (e.g. getting voted out of office, social isolations, etc.) (2) Ignore the principle and (a) publicly abandon the principle permanently or (b) ignore it in this case but continue to give it verbal support. (2) (B) could be considered hypocrisy. The third option is to devise a phony rationale for avoiding the principle in this particular case. This may protect against charges of hypocrisy. This is a favorite tactic of Supreme Court Justices. Everyone wants their favorite rights for themselves and those they support. Other rights and other people are devalued. For example, the Second Amendment is a right devalued by many on the left. Islam is a religion devalued by many people who want First Amendment protection for their faith and similar ones but not for unpopular religions. However, the main purposes of First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech and press are to protect unpopular views and religions. The fundamental question is what is more important to you? (1) Principles or (2) results Again, we are not talking about catastrophic or financially costly results. First Amendment caselaw is full of cases where classless, tasteless, offensive, racist and sexist speech was deemed protected. For instance, assume some person is handing out pamphlets on a public street lawfully and peacefully urging people to vote for the Communist party. Most everyone ignores him and looks at him like he is some kind of wacko. Some people may be distasteful and offensive, but it is protected by the First Amendment. As a police officer or public official you have to let the person continue until there is a threat of some kind. As a private citizen you can urge him to quit, but you cannot threaten him with physical harm. That would be a crime. If you care about intellectual issues, think about this. What are your principles? How strongly and sincerely do you believe in those principles? One of my all-time favorite quotes, attributed to German pastor Martin Niemoller is as follows LINK: "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."