FUNDAMENTALISM, however and wherever in the world it moves people to radical action, is perhaps the greatest crime against humanity; as a way of seeing the world, fundamentalism is legal...but sometimes lethal. The response to the world by fundamentalists sometimes crosses over the legal line. The difference between fundamentalism and the illegal action of fundamentalists is a distinction that people who cannot do logical, critical thinking perhaps cannot make. Those people may be poorly educated, or they may be inherently slow witted. Others choose not to make the distinction. They are the ones who deliberately choose not to acknowledge a distinction between fundamentalist beliefs and illegal actions because it serves their political and religious purposes to defy the law. Not all action done in the name of religion is moral. Sometimes action condoned by a religious group is plainly illegal. Americans are charged with responsibility for knowing the difference and for living responsibly under the rule of law. Civil disobedience is indeed a course of action that a responsible citizen may choose to take. The thoughtful citizen knows the difference and declares that he/she is disobeying for a noble purpose and is prepared to take the consequences for disobedience.

An announcement came earlier this month about the intention of an Islamic group’s plans to build a religious center in Manhattan near “ground zero.” Tea party folk and fundamentalists all across the country expressed outrage. “Holy ground” will be violated, they say. To support or not to support the proposal has become a litmus test for politicians of both major parties. The mayor of New York is a bright, well-educated Republican. He knows that the beliefs and actions of even the most devout Christians and Jews cannot trump the requirements of the Constitution of the United States.

Americans miss the point when they insist that a religious group should not be allowed to build a church or mosque or synagogue on private property... anywhere, unless, of course, there is a question of public safety. In this case there is no threat whatsoever to the public. Should it matter that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the group asking the city for permission to build is insensitive. The Constitution isn’t about sensitivity or insensitivity. It’s about fairness and equity for all people under the law.

For those who haven’t heard or have forgotten maybe we need to review the language and the intent of the First Ammendment. That Ammendment as part of the Bill of Rights prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion,”... impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Maybe it’s time for Americans to pay attention to what is happening in countries where religious groups insist on making their moral sense the law of the land. The New York Times reported this morning (August 16, 2010) that “the Taliban on Sunday ordered their first public execution by stoning since their fall from power nine years ago, killing a young couple who had eloped.” The punishment was carried out by hundreds of the victims’ neighbors in a village in northern Kunduz Province. Even family members were involved, both in the stoning and in tricking the couple into returning after they had fled. A 25-year-old man named Khayyam and a 19-year-old woman named Siddiqa, defiantly confessed in public to their relationship. “They said, ‘We love each other no matter what happens,’” according to the Times report. Here is the way it works: a person who is to be stoned to death is buried up to the neck in a dirt or sand pit. Rocks are supplied by the religious leaders. Death doesn’t take long... just long enough for the person being executed (in this case, for loving the wrong person) to feel the pain.

We have in our American culture effective ways of making people “feel the pain.” Based on their religious beliefs and impulses, fifty-two percent of Californians voted to disallow a class of people to make their own choices in the matter of whom they can marry. Persons who happen to be gay or lesbian are disenfranchised by a bare majority of California voters... based on religious ideas. I believe the rule of law will eventually trump religion; but in the meantime, the voters who approved Proposition 8 deliberately inflict pain on the people who are different from the heterosexual majority only in their having been born homosexual. The painful denial of the privilege of making a choice of whom to love and whom to marry will end... perhaps as early as December this year. I have confidence in the power of law under the Constitution of the United States.