Cumberland Times-News

Opinion

September 5, 2010

It’s wrong to imply that opposition amounts to bigotry

To the Editor: Cumberland Times-News

— I am quite disappointed in Mr. Tunney’s implication conveyed in his comments (“Letters display sharp contrast in the mindset of America,” Aug. 28 Times-News) concerning my letter to the editor (“Sensitivity should work both ways, not just one way,” Aug. 22).

I do respect Mrs McDaniel-Weissler’s opinion (“This could be a gesture of peace and unity,” Aug. 23). The subject of my original letter was not Islam. I have a brother in law and four nieces who are Muslims. I have read the Holy Qur’an.

I can certainly distinguish between sensitivity and religious freedoms. Yes, there are stark differences in attitudes on the subject. However, I did not issue any disparagement or criticism of the religion in my comments.

The subjects of the commentary were clearly, Nancy Pelosi, sensitivity and the eagerness of the left to reframe or rename every issue that they support. They always seem to use excavation implements to throw their dirt rather than spades.

Investigate those who oppose the mosque, really, Nancy? This is an inflammatory rhetorical question out of the Alinsky play book. We all agree that the first amendment provides individuals with the right to practice their religion. That was clearly stated, Sir.

My brother-in-law believes that the mosque is provocative and does not promote understanding. Understanding should start with the party that affirmatively initiates the action.

Again, sensitivity is a two way street. Since 911 there have been tremendous opportunities for the condemnation of terrorism. There has been very little outcry from Feisal Abdul Rauf. Many rank and file Muslims have condemned these activities, while those in leadership have remained silent.

There are approximately 100 mosques in New York, today. This is a testament to tolerance.

Furthermore, the constitution allows for federal, state, county, municipal and community governments to enact zoning or put in place standards for building. The constitutionality of zoning ordinances was upheld in 1926.

The zoning ordinance of Euclid, Ohio, was challenged in court by a local land owner on the basis that restricting use of property violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Though initially ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, the zoning ordinance was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co..Communities for example, have a right to prevent adult entertainment facilities near playgrounds as well as many other restrictions.

I resent the implication that those who oppose the building of the center are bigots and the misrepresentation of my words. What is objectionable here is comparable to someone screaming “peace” to the top of their lungs in your face.

Maybe both sides, including you, need to set down the tar bucket!  

Arlen Sites Jr.

New Creek, W.Va.

Text Only
Opinion