1

 
 Moral Issues, Government Involvement
An Anthology

Written and collaborated by:

Charles Hemkin, Desmond Smart, and Ty Wilson

English 120
Professor Sean Burt

  2  
 Table of Contents

“Legalization of Marijuana” and introduction……………………………. ………………..Pg.4

“How Far Is Too Far? Where Your Rights End and Mine Begin” and introduction……….Pg.11

“The Ground Zero Mosque: The Difference between Legal Rights and Human Ethics” and
introduction……………………………………………………………………………...…..Pg.17
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..Pg.25
Work’s Cited Page…………………………………………………………………………..Pg.27

  3  
 Legalization of Marijuana

The first of the commentaries introduced in our Anthology is titled “Legalization of

Marijuana”. This commentary, written by Desmond Smart, does a good job of showing the roles
government has in our country. Desmond’s commentary is chosen first because it gives a strong
impression of the very important theme that will be seen through all of the following
commentaries, which is the connection of moral issues and government reform. There are many
important issues affected in which the government has divine power over the outcome. The
legalization of marijuana happens to be one of them. Desmond Smart main topic is the
legalization of marijuana and its effect on the health of Americans in need, as well as the
environmental benefits. He states the good and bad about both arguments and comes to a
conclusion that the legalization of marijuana would be beneficial. His perspective is that there
are no documented side effects for the use of marijuana, and it is a moral crime to keep this
healthful medicine from people in need. The medical research, which Desmond gives details
about in his commentary, suggest that marijuana could be a cure for a number of diseases.
Desmond also states why marijuana was made illegal by the government in the first place, and
why he believes it has been negatively stereotyped through incorrect associations that have been
pinned to the drug over the previous years.

What makes this day more memorable then others? On this very day that I am writing

this paper people over in California may be changing history. Actually not necessarily changing,

but putting it back to the way it was. Due to issues I will discuss later in my commentary

marijuana was made illegal in 1937. Today Californians are getting the chance to vote on one of

the most controversial topics out there right now, the legalization of marijuana. Similar to

alcohol regulation, “The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010,” Proposition 19

would make it legal for anyone over the age of 21 to possess, obtain and consume marijuana.

There have been many fierce debates about this politically, but now the vote comes down to the

people of California. You may ask why this even matters to you, you maybe be on the other side

of the continent. Although this proposition only applies to California it has the ability to change

much more then just that state. It could spark a change in the entire U.S.

  4  
 There are so many views, perspectives and ideas that the poll could come out either way,

and if you think about it all sides make valid points. To me there is one that seems to make more

sense then the rest. To generalize, first, you have the people who want marijuana legal, or pro

legalization. These people believe that if marijuana was legalized it would be good for the

economy, medically and for individuals themselves. Then you have the people who fight against

it who, over looks important studies and argues against it. They believe that the legalization of

marijuana would only bring more abuse of illegal trafficking of marijuana. Research has

demonstrated that the legalization of marijuana would be very beneficial overall. These benefits

would range from variety from different aspects of society.

With the true believer side people imagine the world as a much better place. Internally,

lives would be changed for the better if marijuana were legalized. This idea is actually well

supported, since marijuana medical use is documented in Egyptian papyri dating back to 1,550

BC. (Malerba) Also one of the nations second largest doctors organization, The American

College of Physicians (ACP) has endorsed the medical use of marijuana. They have called for

more studies of its medical uses, an urged the US government to get out of the way (Malerba). It

is documented that medically, marijuana can help with a wide range of diseases. Tourettes

Syndrome, Multiple Sclerosis, Glaucoma, and many other disorders have been helped medically

from marijuana. This is due to the main ingredient THC, or Tetrahydrocannabinol, which is

described and used as a pain reliever. You can get this in the form of Marinol, which is a

prescription drug from over counter clinics. (Gieringer).

For many patients who suffer from cancer and other chronic diseases, marijuana is their

only relief. In New York, a Conservative party member Joel Peacock said, “ Please ask your

senator for some compassion.”(Peacock) Joel Peacock had been in an accident and was left with

  5  
chronic pain. When he used marijuana he found that he was no longer in pain and that he could

actually go to bed at night. His very words were that marijuana “ just does everything my

medicine doesn’t do.”(“2009 New York MPP Commercial #1 “Joel Peacock”) If you haven’t

heard of Joel Peacock, you have probably heard of Melissa Etheridge and Patrick Swayze. Both

of these celebrities used marijuana for their personal pains. (Francis) This just shows people

who have found a relief in their daily torture from internal and external pains. It just doesn’t

make sense that a medicine with this kind of affect be illegal to people who need it.

Not only does marijuana help medically but can provide for many of our natural

resources used today. Marijuana is a very versatile plant, it can be grown almost anywhere and

can be used for paper products, building material and nutritious food. It also can be converted

into Biomass. (Clarke) Hemp, which is a form of marijuana, has special characteristics that

make it a valuable and ideal plant.

Hemp paper is said to have the highest quality, and resists decomposition. Hemp paper

can also be recycled more times then the wood-based paper. Here might be an interesting fact

you may not know. The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper. (Edwards)

The very laws that we use to run our nation, was written on paper that the American society

labels as “bad”. Hemp compared to any other resource comes out on top. Hemp is a better

resource then paper in more ways then one. Not only does hemp out match trees but it can also

take the place of gas or the fossil fuels we used to power many things, manly cars. With gas

prices rising, hemp is the one alternative resource we can turn to. According to Fennucio, the

thought of hemp production as a cheap alternative to oil and gas is appealing because it can be

converted to “Biomass” that is converted to energy. Hemp can cut down on unnecessary

rainforest destruction and the extinction of drilling expensive oils out of the ground trying to

  6  
bring up oil. Also it could reduce pollution and be very beneficial to our economy. Having

marijuana made legal would provide jobs to people who otherwise would be out of work. In the

state our country is in right now, we could use any jobs available.

What makes this idea controversial is that the legalization of marijuana wouldn’t decrease

the illegal trafficking of marijuana, but increase it. Some people believe that you could make a

comparison with marijuana and gambling. Research has shown that the legalization of gambling

in America has increased illegal gambling. The supporters of this idea believe that, “illegal drug

supplier’s would thrive by selling more potent marijuana products outside of the legal channels

that would be taxed and otherwise restricted”(DuPont). I believe this statement is incorrect.

Marijuana could be grown almost anywhere and it is easy to obtain, making it affordable. I

believe people would rather pay for the marijuana and tax then risk a chance of going to jail.

There is a money factor when you compare gambling and marijuana. When gambling you “win

big” but with marijuana you have more to lose than gain.

Universities, and other research centers around the world have researched on the affects

of marijuana. It is a well-known fact that marijuana has medical and economic value. So why

are there so many bad ideas on marijuana? What makes marijuana taboo? There are two main

reasons for this. The first is that marijuana is considered to be a gateway drug. People believe

that if we smoke marijuana it will lead us to use more dangerous drugs like cocaine, ecstasy or

heroine. A study done by the Centre For Economic Policy Research, in London, found that

marijuana isn’t a gateway drug. The RAND study provided the same outcome of information.

(RAND Studies) Although a small fraction of marijuana was found to be used prior to some,

more dangerous drugs, in theses instances so was alcohol and tobacco. Theses studies

demonstrated that associations between marijuana and “hard” drugs use could be expected even

  7  
if marijuana use has no gateway effect. (RAND Studies) This study shows that marijuana was

used prior to more dangerous drugs because it was more available. Research has shown that

people can get their hands on marijuana easier than alcohol. (RAND STUDIES) If a person

wants to experiment with a stronger drug, they will do it regardless of whether or not they have

tried marijuana. If you say that marijuana leads to more dangerous substances because it is a

drug then by this logic, “you shouldn’t eat meat because it leads to cannibalism.”(Essay On Why

Cannabis Should Be Legalized).

The second reason of why marijuana became a bad thing is because of the idea that forms

when people say “pot head” and the association that comes along with it. Laziness, ignorance,

and stupidity are all characteristics of a person who smokes marijuana. These assumptions are

slightly exaggerated. If you have ever seen the affects that marijuana has on a person, you know

that people don’t just become a totally different being. They don’t become aggressive or start to

see hallucinations like other dangerous drugs. So why have these ideas come to be known as the

“average pot smoker?” After researching, I and found it to be closely related to why marijuana

was made illegal in the first place.

Processing marijuana is affordable and available making it very profitable and valuable.

Because of this in the 1930s big business leaders, people like William Randolph Hearst and

DuPont, no correlation with Dr. Robert DuPont, were threaten to lose profit and even their

businesses. These two powerful owners had timber-based industries that would be most affected

by the processing of marijuana (Murphy). These business owners used their power, doing

everything they could to manipulate media and politics into believing marijuana was harmful to

the American people and their society. Hearst’s himself owned a chain of newspaper buildings,

which allowed him to get his point across to viewers. According to Murphy these newspaper

  8  
chains often produced stories of people who smoked marijuana as “crazed Black and Mexican

men” raping white women. These unbelievable and made-up stories began to sway the

American people to have doubts about the uses of marijuana. Theses big business owners used

racism as a median to make marijuana a horrible substance to even have in America. (Murphy)

With all the media and important people ranting that marijuana was bad for society, everyone

started favoring getting rid of marijuana all together. In 1937 it was made illegal. (Murphy)

Now we have a chance to change what was wrongfully done in the past. With new

information researchers are beginning to change Americans minds. In fact people are doing

more than just having second thoughts about marijuana; they are starting to do something about

it. On Oct. 14, protesters gathered in San Jose at a courthouse to protest the arrest of medical

marijuana delivery personals. The caregivers were arrested because they were suspected of

trafficking drugs for the own personal gain, although no wrongdoing was found. (Elliott) In

Colorado, in 2007 more than 700 hundred people gathered to advocate marijuana. Francine

Popovich that was in attendance stated, “I came on vacation to Denver for this. All of my friends

at home are so jealous. Look how many people showed up. Its shows how many people want

marijuana legalized.” The many people that have encouraged, started and participated in protest

are making a difference.

I believe that marijuana should be legalized. The overall affects of this would change our

nation around putting us on a better path. We could make our country stronger, medically and

socially. We cant continue to let the benefits of marijuana use are being shadowed by

propaganda. One of the big reasons why the law hasn’t been changed is because no one wants to

be the person who legalized marijuana. No one wants to go to there mother or grandfather and

say “Hey I voted to legalize weed today.” We need to let the advantages of marijuana be known

  9  
globally. Once we change how people look at marijuana we can then use this plant to fix

problems our society is dealing with.

  10  
 How Far Is Too Far? Where Your Rights End and Mine Begin

The next commentary, “How Far Is Too Far? Where Your Rights End and Mine Begin”
by Ty Wilson, illustrates issues within the arguments both for and against controlling firearm
ownership amongst citizens of the United States of America. The reason why this article was
chosen second is because it has a weaker argument on the morality of the issue at hand. It is
rather focusing on the fact that government needs to intervene by enforcing the already pre-
existing law. The theme of government intervention is common to all of the articles in the
anthology. Gun control happens to be a topic that should be important to everybody residing in
the United States because of the direct affects it has on their lives or the lives of those close to
them. The debate on whether firearms should be readily allowed or banned has the power to
affect everyone, solely based on the ideas they can give up the ability to protect themselves or
living with a heightened fear that others, rogue criminals included, can carry firearms on
themselves at nearly all times. This article takes a new spin on the issue as old ideas, such as the
debate over the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, have become irrelevant due to Supreme
Court rulings. This is one example of the governmental legal action that has, could, or
should/should not be taken on issues that have a high susceptibility to moral or ethical bias.

An 80-year-old Korean War veteran, his 83-year-old wife and 12-year-old grandson were

all asleep when all of a sudden a gunshot is fired. The war vet awakes to an armed burglar trying

to break into his home by a shooting through the window. In an act of defense, the Army veteran

shoots and kills the intruder with a handgun he kept in his house (Eldeib). Who was this

intruder? He was a drug suspect that had been fleeing the police and had entered the private

home in attempts to evade arrest. So what's wrong with this picture? At this time, Chicago, the

place of the incidental happening, had a 28-year-old ban on handgun ownership. The police

never pressed charges because the actions were taken in a matter of self defense and not taking

this action could have left the man, his wife, and grandchild dead. However, the fact still remains

that had the 80-year-old veteran been a “law abiding citizen” in the eyes of the state, he could

very well have ended up dead with no chance of defense.

Almost anyone in the United States can tell you what the second amendment of the Bill of

  11  
Right says. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of

the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” is the most popular phrase used in the

argument against gun control. However, all former approaches to gun control in the United

States have led to little progress towards settling the issue for good and have grown outdated or

use invalid points. The fight for, or against, civilian firearm use and ownership in the United

States needs to take on a new approach. Rather than argue about what is right, wrong, and legally

or morally allowed, the focus should be on what the current situation is and what steps need to be

taken to lead to a practical outcome. What needs to happen is that a closer look is taken at the

issue at hand. Rather than waving statements and arguments around about ideologies such as,

“guns don't kill people, people kill people,” or, “exposure to guns leads to desensitizing people

and enabling more violent crimes,” and actually using raw proof and results to establish a

strategy to fix the problem. The arguments against this subject in accordance to the

Second amendment includes outraged comments from people like Steven Durfey, “Why stop at

[the] 2nd? So [they] want the 2nd amendment repealed? Why stop there? Let's talk about a free

press! When arms are taken away from citizens, look what happens – mass genocide all around

the globe, but never where people can defend themselves” (Chicago Tribune).

The gun control debate has been around for many years and has gone through so many

changes, that the original thoughts, arguments, and stances have become irrelevant in today's

society. New court rulings have come about and in the past few years, the argument has

progressed past the point of whether or not civilians should be allowed to own firearms. The

Supreme Court has ruled that, yes, they are allowed. To not allow this would be against the

second amendment to the Constitution. A UCLA law professor, Adam Winkler, an expert on the

second amendment, says, “The only thing we know for sure is that it's unconstitutional to

  12  
prohibit the possession of a handgun at home.” Supreme Court rulings back this statement up as

well in a 5 to 4 ruling that the right to own a handgun as a mode of self-defense is, “Fundamental

from an American perspective (and) applies equally to the Federal government and the states”

(Savage). So now that the core of the gun control argument is no longer in the hot seat and up for

debate, what is to happen? In the Emory Law Journal article Overcoming the Fear of Guns, the

Fear of Gun Control, and the Fear of Cultural Politics: Constructing A Better Gun Debate

(Braman & Kahan), calls for a new stance to be taken are made. Telling both sides of the

argument to throw out their old arguments and form new ones that are relevant and not overused.

Part of this new approach needs to be the fact that, according to the article, is, “part of the

challenge is going after guns used in crimes is the lack of research on exactly which laws help

reduce violence.” Researchers can shout statistics to show the amount of violent crime, violent

crime involving guns and how many people are injured or killed by civilian firearm ownership

each year until they're blue in the face, but without knowledge about what laws can help change

this, the numbers mean nothing.

So the digression of the argument leaves us back at ground zero, with a fresh slate, ready to

build from the up with new ideas and argument from either side. The establishments of U.S.

Constitution still stand and progress can now be made. This is not, however, without it's own

speed bumps and turmoil’s. Rick Garnett, a U.S. Citizen, points out in Savage's article that, “This

case is only the beginning of the debate. Gun ownership rights – like free speech rights – are not

absolute, and states and local governments retain the authority to enact reasonable gun control

laws.” Which is true. In most cases, U.S. Citizens can legally own a rifle or shotgun in any state

without a permit. The exceptions to this being restrictions set out by the Brady Act of 1993. In

this act, it states that the gun prohibitions apply to people who have been convicted in any court

  13  
of a crime punishable by at least one year in jail, is a fugitive of justice, an unlawful user or

addict of any controlled substance, has been rule mentally defective or handicapped, is an illegal

alien in the United States, has been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed forces, has

renounced U.S. citizenship, Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing,

stalking, or threatening a partner or child of that partner, or has been convicted in any court of a

misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (Brady Act). In these conditions, the court has already

ruled those 'reasonable regulations' can stand (Savage). Most legal problems with gun control,

and other issues in general, can be avoided if people realized that they are not the only one

whose rights are covered under the Bill of Rights. In the book Kids Are Americans Too by Bill

O'Reilly, a political talk show host, the fact that our personal right guaranteed by the Bill of

Rights end where they interfere with an others' guaranteed rights is highlighted by the phrase,

“your right to swing your fist freely in front of someone ends where their nose begins”

(O'Reilly). Our right to bear arms does not mean that we have the right to openly shoot and kill,

or maim others. We have a right to bear these arms as a means of protection if someone was to

overstep their rights and threaten our life.

One issue with gun control is taking into account the community. Much of the

divisions between gun ownership versus gun banning come from differences in the culture of

communities. In many rural areas, hunting is deeply embedded in the culture and way of life for

the people, many of whom depend on hunting as a large portion of their food supply. On the

contrary, urban communities often link gun use to drugs and crime. This is highlighted in

Braman and Kahan's article In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control. Also, tragedies like

the school shooting of Columbine High School are often brought up in arguments for stricter gun

control and regulations. These are the pleas of people who have seen the affect of violent crime

  14  
and just want it all to stop. So which extreme of the argument should be the 'win' the fight for

what they believe to be right? Neither. What should be the concern is how to effectively take

appropriate steps for people of all communities. We are, after all, all citizens of the same

country. We should all be held to the same standards, thus eliminating the rift between differing

communities.

The problem with regulating guns to an extreme is that, people who already break the laws

to obtain these firearms will continue to break laws to keep their weapons. Ludwig, an expert on

the subject of Gun Control and its adverse effect on society have shown through his studies that

these illegal handguns are obtained on the black market. This shows that, yes, criminals are using

illegal means to obtain their illegal weapons and thus, putting higher restrictions on those who

obtain their firearms legally, and for legal use, will not result in a significant decrease of illegal

guns or violent crime due to guns. It will only decrease the amount of guns in the hands of

criminals.

The immediate steps we can take are simple solutions that may seem obvious, however

they get lost in the heat of debate. In a recent survey, fifty-eight percent of Americans thought

that we should enforce the current laws concerning firearms. So, Washington, D.C., did this. A

new police unit was created to target illegal guns. Just by enforcing the laws already established

by Congress under the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” of 1993, the monthly recovery

rate on illegal guns jumped up 35 percent. Police Officer James Boteler Jr. states that, “most of

the guns we're recovering are from people who would not be able to own one.” Targeting the

guns owned by people who don't obtain their firearms legally is the way in which America can

ensure that violent crimes, due to firearms, are decreased and at the same time not step on

anybody's guaranteed rights established in the Bill of Rights or punish those who use these rights

  15  
responsibly while making a safer environment for everyone else at the same time.

Now that the debate of gun control has changed dramatically, each side needs to take new

approaches to the issue. With the Supreme Court validating the second amendment of the Bill of

Rights, whether or not citizens should be allowed the ownership of firearms is no longer the

issue. How to effectively allow the ownership, yet putting in place reasonable regulations, is

what the argument has become. The only answer to this that can be implemented swiftly and has

already shown its effectiveness is by enforcing the laws and regulations that were already in

place and renounce laws that infringe on the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. These

actions are removing firearms obtained in illegal ways that are being used by people who cannot

legally own firearms. Cracking down on those laws will get illegal guns out of the hands of

people who own them illegally. Then, when an armed burglar attempts to break into the homes

of people just like the 80- year-old Chicagoan Army veteran from the Korean War, the man

doesn't have to sacrifice disobeying the law in order to feel that he can keep his family safe. He

will be able to have the option to defend his family but still be living according to the law every

day. He would merely be practicing his rights of defending one's own family and personal

belongings as guaranteed and upheld by the Supreme Court by the second amendment to the

U.S. Constitution under the Bill of Rights.

  16  
 The Ground Zero Mosque: The Difference between Legal Rights and Human Ethics.

In the final commentary titled “The Ground Zero Mosque: The Difference between Legal
Rights and Human Ethics,” Charles Hemkin takes a strong viewpoint on why he believes the
mosque should not be built near Ground Zero. This article is chosen last because it ties together
all of the arguments seen through out the two previous commentaries and expresses them in a
way that would leave a strong, lasting impression on the reader. Charles makes the argument that
this issue of building the mosque is not that of legal rights, but rather one of morality, ethics, and
government intervention. He focuses on a central theme that the emotional scars still have not
healed after the attacks of 9/11, and that government needs to adhere to the opinions of
American’s. Charles makes it clear that he believes that Muslims have every right to have a
mosque built, but not in this particular location at this moment in time. His commentary also
mentions that the majority of Americans disapprove of the mosque being built. This is a strong
statement he uses in favor of his argument. It is a statement that shows the reader there is a
failure of the government to adhere to the morals of survivors of the attack, as well as the rest of
the nation. The commentary written by Charles Hemkin is important because it gives the readers
insight on the ethical downfall that building the mosque near Ground Zero would provoke.
Charles successfully portrays the importance of the moral dilemma seen with the issue of the
mosque by providing a well researched argument coupled with a writing style that portrays his
passion and patriotism towards his country.
 

September 11, 2001 will go down in history as one of the worst attacks of terror our

country has ever seen. Going back to that day, we discovered that two planes had crashed into

the twin towers. Obviously this was not a coincidence. Who was in charge of carrying out such a

destructive plan? It was later discovered that an Islamic terrorist group by the name of Al-Qaeda

had purposely crashed the two jumbo jets into the World Trade Centers. The terrorists

responsible for the attacks were extremist followers of Islam. Now, nearly ten years after the

massive attack, Islamic religious officials want to build a Mosque only two blocks away from the

monumental site of Ground Zero.

Due to the attacks, the religion of Islam has been associated with terrorism. This being

said, not all Muslim people are terrorists. It is an association that Americans have unfortunately

picked up over the past few years. However, the fact still remains that members of Al-Qaeda

  17  
were Muslim, which created this stereotype towards Islam. It is a stereotype that had really come

to life since 9/11. Since the attacks, the Mosque has also been negatively viewed. A mosque is a

place for Muslims to worship and connect with God. The question I am addressing is “what is

the purpose of having the Mosque so close to Ground Zero?” Building a Mosque near Ground

Zero would be ethically unjust and would tarnish the sanctity of the site due to the negative

associations between Islam and terrorism.

One may ask, “Aren’t we a nation that accepts all people, as well as the practice of all

religions?” The answer to this question is yes. According to the U.S. Constitution, the First

Amendment gives American citizens the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression

from government interface. Then why is there such uproar over the issue of building a Mosque

near Ground Zero? The First Amendment may state that Muslims have the right to practice their

religion. The constitution does not, however, state anything about what is right or wrong. This is

not an argument on the legality of the issue, but rather on the morality. The site will be tainted

with the scars of terrorism, and these scars will hinder the peaceful atmosphere of Ground Zero.

At the present moment, the religion of Islam is not seen well in the eyes of Americans.

Americans view the religion negatively, and often associate it with violence. As a matter of fact,

Islam is a religion of peace and prosperity (Mahmutcehajic 77). Ironically, the proposed plan of

building a center of worship so close to Ground Zero has not proved to be very peaceful. It has

caused a great amount of controversy and served as fuel for argument.

A recent New York City Community Board meeting got very heated over the proposed

Mosque. Many families who had lost loved ones in the attack as well as survivors themselves

stated their opinions. Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is in charge of building the Mosque, attempted to

give some reasoning for his plan during the meeting. The main question asked by citizens was,

  18  
“why are they building it so close to Ground Zero?” Rauf countered by claiming, “it would help

bridge the great divide between Muslims and Americans” (nypost.com). The outcome of his plan

would be hard to reach at the present moment due to the lack of support from Americans.

Kaufmann stated that the disapproval rating for the project is around 63%. It would be highly

unlikely that this one Mosque would resolve many of the problems associated with Islamic ties

with Americans. In reality the proposed mosque is creating more controversy for the short term.

The issue should be left alone for the current moment. Sometime farther down the road, once the

new monument is erected on Ground Zero and the scars have healed, would be an appropriate

time for a Mosque to be built. As of right now the memories of 9/11 are still fresh in the minds of

Americans. The nation still has not healed from the scars the attacks have created. The chief

cause of the controversy is due to the emotional tie Americans have created between the attacks

and terrorism. The attacks of 9/11 proved to be a very emotional time for our country.

Emotions, however, can sometimes run exceedingly high at times. We can compare the

building of the Mosque with the Quran burning episode that recently took place in Florida. An

emotionally driven minister was protesting against the building of the Mosque by organizing a

Quran burning event. The minister who was in charge of the protest has every right to carry out

his plan of burning the Quran. Although he does have the given right does not mean that he

should proceed with the protest. In fact it is morally unfair towards Muslims to do what he had

intended. His actions were morally unfair because the act of burning the Quran is degrading to

the Muslim religion. It would be degrading to any religion in that matter. Many Americans,

Christians and Muslims alike, were against the protest. After the minister listened to the public’s

negative response, the protest was retracted. The minister’s decision was won over by the ethics

of the entire nation. The comparison being made here is simple. An individual can take his rights

  19  
to extreme levels. The excessive practice of an individual’s rights, however, can induce a variety

of ethical issue’s. Although Muslims have every right as citizens to build the Mosque, it is not

necessarily a good idea that it is built near a significant location for Americans. At least, not so

soon after the fairly recent attacks of 9/11.

Extremist followers of the Muslim faith were responsible for creating Ground Zero, and

building a Mosque there would be ethically wrong. Some people have even proposed the idea of

moving the Mosque to a different location to Imam Rauf (cbsnews.com). Feisal Rauf, however,

refused to take this offer. Donald Trump even offered to buy out one of the major real-estate

investors in charge of land near Ground Zero. (cbsnews.com) This plan was quickly shot down.

The Imam seems to have strong intentions on being so persistent with the location. What is the

significance behind the Imam’s plan to build it on Ground Zero? Feisal Rauf’s persistence on

building the mosque is causing more people to lose their support of his claim to “bridge the

religious gap.”

As the argument on whether or not the Mosque should be built drags on, we start to

notice a pattern. The pattern is that the majority of citizens disagree with the idea of building the

Mosque. Although many disagree, the proposal still passes through every step of voting by

higher powers. For example, the meeting that recently took place in New York City had the city

board vote on the issue of the Mosque. The city board members voted in favor of building the

Mosque by a vote of 29:1 (nypost.com) On the other hand, it was very clear that the attending

citizens at the meeting did not agree with the vote. The citizens attending the meeting expressed

a harmonious outcry of negative comments after the final votes were counted. It is unfortunate

that the citizen’s voices were not heard; in fact the meeting only added fuel to the fire. These

were citizens who had lost loved ones to the attack, as well as citizens who survived the

  20  
onslaught of terrorism during 9/11. The scars of these people have not properly healed. It was

clear that the voters did not take an ethical stand on the situation.

Another example of when the government ignored the majority of citizen opinions is

when a plan was proposed to make the location the mosque is to be built on be considered a

historical landmark. (examiner.com) Citizens were testing the morals of the government.

Whether or not the government would see this as a plan to consider was the test. This idea would

force the Imam to pick a new location. Of course the proposal was discarded by a great majority

of city board members. The mosque continually gets support from the government although the

majority of the population disagrees with the issue. Why do we continually keep seeing the

Mosque gain more and more steam power from the government and state? It all ties into the idea

of negative stereotyping. The U.S. takes great pride in creating equal opportunities for all of its

citizens. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Buddhists alike. A line, however, has to be drawn

somewhere. When does an issue become important enough where the government ignores the

cries of American’s? We have reached a point in which our government is willing to sacrifice the

morals of those affected by the attacks to the plan of building a Mosque on Ground Zero.

The U.S. Constitution clearly states the phrase “We the People”. This is a phrase that has

many meanings. It is used to show that “We” as a nation are united as one. That all of our voices

will be heard and that all of our needs will be considered (“The Constitution of the United States

of America”). The government argues in favor of building the Mosque because it relates with the

rules of the Constitution. U.S. citizens have the right to religious assembly. Again, this is a very

true and valid statement, one that holds a lot of power. However, the government does miss out

on one main point. The point being that “We” as American’s are a Democracy, a democracy in

which all our voices will be heard. The government seems to be ignorant towards the general

  21  
disapproval of the Mosque. Why is it that the majority of the voices of opinions over the Mosque

issue are being ignored? Non-Muslim Americans are upset that the Mosque will tarnish this site

of monumental importance. Tarnished with not only the associations of terrorism, but with the

lack of ethical support from the government as well.

The surviving victims of the attack are most affected with the associations between the

Mosque and terrorism. No survivor of an event of epic proportions would want to have the

epicenter of all their pain and misfortune associated with the very religion of a terrorist. Again,

the negative stereotype we have created since 9/11 has not yet faded. Visiting a memorial is

proved to be a healing process for survivors. It reduces trauma-related symptoms (Environment

and Behavior). Healing is an important step in coping with lost family and friends. The process

takes a lot of concentration and persistence. Building a Mosque near the site would greatly limit

the healing powers the memorial is capable of. The Mosque would simply be disrespectful to

victims of the attack. The sanctity of the site would be tainted with thoughts associated with

terrorism. Some may say that the Mosque is too far from the site to have any affect. In fact the

Mosque is only one and a half city blocks away from Ground Zero. A mosque built anywhere

else in the country would not have nearly the impact as the one proposed be built near ground

zero. (Kaufmann) This statement shows that the issue that Americans have is not due to the

mosque itself, but rather the location of it. The proposed location is on a ground that still holds a

lot of emotions for our country. What is considered too close can depend on ones own

perspective. It this case, it is not necessarily the physical presence of the Mosque that is altering

the memorials healing capabilities; it is the general thought of its presence. It would be stuck in

the back of the minds of those who visit. (Environment and Behavior) Quite frankly, I don’t

think it is morally fair to the victims.

  22  
 It is clear that the Mosque would have a presence. It is too difficult, however, to ignore

such an establishment so close to Ground Zero. The Imam claims to have good intentions on

building the Mosque. Bridging the religious gap would give our nation huge strides towards

equality and reducing prejudice. The way in which the Imam plans on carrying out his plan is not

correct. Feisal Rauf has created more controversy over the issue, which is proving to be

detrimental for his claim. In a way he is shooting himself in the foot by being overly persistent.

Americans have given their feedback over the issue. It is not the fact that he intends to build a

Mosque; it is simply the location of it. The issue seen here is one of ethics. The altering of the

location can completely solve the problem of the controversy, but that would require the

agreement of the Imam as well as the government.

To sum up, building a mosque near Ground Zero has proved to be a controversial topic

for our country. The issue behind the controversy arises not with that fact of actually building a

mosque, but rather with the location of the mosque. Building a Mosque near Ground Zero would

be ethically unjust and would tarnish the sanctity of the site due to the negative associations

between Islam and terrorism. Our own government has ignored the voices of Americans. The

ethics of our government are being put to the test. Should they listen to the majority of

Americans still wounded with the emotional scars that the attack left behind? Or should the

government listen to the one man, Feisal Rauf, who wants to erect a Mosque near Ground Zero?

This is an argument of human ethics. In conclusion, we as Americans are left with a new

perspective on “what is right and what is wrong.” Should the government be so oblivious to what

the citizens of the U.S. are saying? The fact is that the ethics of U.S. citizens are being ignored.

This is not the kind of Democracy that I want my children to grow up in. The mosque should be

  23  
put on the backburner until the emotions that still exist over 9/11 simmer down. That is, if the

government believes it is right to do so.

  24  
 In conclusion, all of the commentaries selected for this anthology have three themes in
common; moral issues, government involvement, and the need for change. The reoccurrence of
these themes highlights the significance of the underlying topic. In each individual commentary,
there is a conflict with the morals and thoughts of the people involved with either side of the
issue, a conflict with government action in a legal sense, and the call for a change within all three
of the social issues included by the commentaries.
The similarity of the themes in all three of the included commentaries show how Charles,
Desmond, and Ty agree on the idea that these are issues based on moral beliefs and how the
government is currently involved in these issues. The commentaries also call for action to be
taken, and go over the reforms that could be made in order for an action to be carried out that is
for the benefit of the entire nation. These issues and the conflicts that arise due to the fact that
they are unresolved are affecting large amounts of people. This is why it is important that these
issues are looked at and decisions be made based on what is good for the people of this country.
It is easy to ignore an issue or conflict when nobody realizes how it is affecting the majority of
others or by saying that the issue is one that influences only a small portion of the public
population. An example would be how the government ignores the people’s opinions on the
mosque. Another would be how the government has made marijuana illegal for the nation, even
though many need it for medical purposes. Based on the information in these articles and why
they are, or should be, important to the readers, we see that these issues are affecting great
amounts of people and something needs to happen.
Disagreement on the stances taken can be pinpointed to how these issues need to be
resolved. For example in Ty Wilson’s commentary he states the government needs to reinforce a
law that already exists. Where in Desmomd’s paper he states that the government needs to take a
new stance on a drug that has previously been made illegal. The actions called for in each
commentary are subject to debate due to the fact that they are concerning issues highly involved
in moral conflict. For example on how the mosque should not be built, and how it is said to be
unfair towards the Muslim community. It cannot be assumed that everybody has the same moral
standards which is why there are even issues that exist on the basis of moral argument. The only
way issues between moral beliefs can be resolved is if every party affected by the actions taken
in each issue were to have the same morals.
The reason these issues take on government involvement for legal action is so
enforcement can be made that is seen as good for the majority of the people involved. The case
of legalizing marijuana, for example, would be beneficial to those who need it for medicinal
purposes. Some people may object by saying this is unfair, or unjust, which is true in many
cases. Justice can't be properly served in moral topics in the eyes of everyone. There will always
be somebody who, based on moral beliefs, disagrees with the stance taken. What people can do,
however, is make their voices heard. They can take a stance and make it apparent what their
belief is in hopes that the government will act in a way that is seen as best fit for the majority
since that is the purpose of America's democracy.
There can, and will always be more research and more findings available as time
continues. One of the great things about America is that it is open for change and we can change
the views and stances taken on any given issue when more information becomes available. The
purpose of this anthology is not to persuade individuals into a different mindset or alter their
moral beliefs and change their stance on issues. Rather, the purpose is to make the people aware
of the issues we are faced with, why we are coming face to face with these issues and what they
can do to make a difference. The change America needs in order to resolve these issues is that

  25  
citizens need to take a stand for what they believe in. The question isn't how or why should we
change our minds, it's how can we change the world we live in? That answer can be found in
each and every one of America's citizens.
In order to enable the action called for and ensure resolution amongst the people, we the
people of the United States of America, need to make a stand in order to bring about the change
for what we believe in. Is this not the beautiful reason for the grounds on which our country was
formed?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  26  
Works  Cited  

Peltz,   Jennifer.   “Imam   says   NYC   mosque   site   is   not   ‘hallowed   ground’.”  Yahoo   News.  
Associated   Press,   Mon   Sept.   13,   2010.   Web.   15   Oct   2010.  
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100913/ap_on_re_us/us  
Gladstone,   .   “3   Reasons   the   Ground   Zero   Mosque   Debate   Makes   No   Sense   Read   more:  
http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-
d e b a t e - m a k e s - n o - s e n s e / # i x z z 1 2 X f 9 1 E M H .”  Cracked.   N.p.,   August   20th,   2010.  
Web.   16   Oct   2010.   <h t t p : / / w w w . c r a c k e d . c o m / b l o g / 3 - r e a s o n s - t h e - g r o u n d -
z e r o - m o s q u e - d e b a t e - m a k e s - n o - s e n s e / >.  
Goodwin,   Michael.   “MICHAEL   GOODWIN:   Obama   Thinks   You’re   a   Bigot   If   You   Object   to  
Ground   Zero   Mosque.”  Foxnews.   N.p.,   August   16th,   2010.   Web.   16   Oct   2010.  
<h t t p : / / w w w . f o x n e w s . c o m / o p i n i o n / 2 0 1 0 / 0 8 / 1 6 / m i c h a e l - g o o d w i n -
obama-mosque-religious-freedom-ground-zero-new-
york/?cmpid=prn_baynote_MICHAEL_GOODWIN:_Obama_Thinks_Y
o u r e _ a _ B i g o t _ I f _ Y o u _ O b j e c t _ t o _ G r o u n d _ Z e r o _ M o s q u e >.  
Batchelor,  Laura.  “Imam  at  center  of  controversy  named  in  lawsuit.”  CNN.  N.p.,  September  
15th,   2010.   Web.   16   Oct   2010.  
<h t t p : / / w w w . c n n . c o m / 2 0 1 0 / C R I M E / 0 9 / 1 4 / n e w . j e r s e y . i m a m . l a w s u i t / i n
d e x . h t m l ? i r e f = a l l s e a r c h >.  
Kaufmann,   Frank.   “Opinion:   Should   a   mosque   be   built   near   Ground   Zero?   Read   more:  
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/296327#ixzz12XgXjWJ6."Digit
a l   Journal  (2010):   n.   page.   Web.   16   Oct   2010.  
<h t t p : / / w w w . d i g i t a l j o u r n a l . c o m / a r t i c l e / 2 9 6 3 2 7 >.  
“mosque.”  The   Columbia   Encyclopedia,   Sixth   Edition.   2008.  Encyclopedia.com.  15   Oct.  
2010<http://www.encyclopedia.com>.  
Caruso,   David.   “Backers   of   NYC   mosque   appear   divided,   regretful.”  Yahoo   News.   N.p.,  
September   9th,   2010.   Web.   16   Oct   2010.  
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/us  
Moore,   Michael.   “I   Want   the   ‘Mosque’   Built   ON   Ground   Zero.”  RSN.   Web.   16   Oct   2010.  
<h t t p : / / r e a d e r s u p p o r t e d n e w s . o r g / o p i n i o n 2 / 2 9 1 - 1 4 4 / 3 2 8 1 - i - w a n t - t h e -
m o s q u e - b u i l t - o n - g r o u n d - z e r o >.  
“NYC   mosque   imam’s   ‘life   is   under   threat’.”  msnbc.   Associated   Press,   10/4/2010.   Web.   16  
Oct  2010.  <h t t p : / / w w w . m s n b c . m s n . c o m / i d / 3 9 4 9 4 9 0 8 / n s / u s _ n e w s - l i f e / >.  
“New   York   City   Panel   Clears   Way   for   Mosque   Near   Ground   Zero.”  Fox.   N.p.,   August   3,   2010.  
Web.   16   Oct   2010.   <h t t p : / / w w w . f o x n e w s . c o m / u s / 2 0 1 0 / 0 8 / 0 3 / n e w - y o r k -
c i t y - p a n e l - c l e a r s - w a y - m o s q u e - g r o u n d - z e r o / >.  
Hernandez,  Javier.  “Giuliani  Says  Mosque  Near  Ground  Zero  Is  Offensive.”  New  York  Times.  
N.p.,   August   19th,   2010.   Web.   16   Oct   2010.  

  27  
<h t t p : / / c i t y r o o m . b l o g s . n y t i m e s . c o m / 2 0 1 0 / 0 8 / 1 9 / g i u l i a n i - s a y s -
m o s q u e - n e a r - g r o u n d - z e r o - i s - o f f e n s i v e / >.  
Hanson,   Davis.   “The   “Elite”   Argument   Over   The   Ground   Zero   Mosque   –   “You   Insensitive  
Bastards”.”Flopping   Aces  (2010):   n.   page.   Web.   20   Oct   2010.  
<h t t p : / / w w w . f l o p p i n g a c e s . n e t / 2 0 1 0 / 0 8 / 3 0 / t h e - e l i t e - a r g u m e n t - o v e r -
t h e - g r o u n d - z e r o - m o s q u e - y o u - i n s e n s i t i v e - b a s t a r d s / >.  
“NYC   Imam:   No   Deal   to   Move   NYC   “Mosque”.”   (2010):   n.   page.   Web.   4   Nov   2010.  
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/09/national  
Mollica,   Joe,   and   Tom   Topousis.   “NYers   wage   jihad   vs.   WTC   mosque.”   (2010):   n.   page.   Web.  
4   Nov   2010.  
<http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyers_wage_jihad_vs_wtc_mosque_Ug
JiOBYEhrSOw4Q6hpvbQL  
“GROUND   ZERO   MOSQUE:   WHO’S   PAYING?.”   (2010):   n.   page.   Web.   4   Nov   2010.  
<h t t p : / / f o c u s u k . w o r d p r e s s . c o m / 2 0 1 0 / 0 5 / 2 6 / g r o u n d - z e r o - m o s q u e w h o s -
p a y i n g / >.  
The   Constitution   of   the   United   States   of   America.   ,   Web.   16   Nov   2010.  
<h t t p : / / w w w . l a w . c o r n e l l . e d u / c o n s t i t u t i o n / >.  
Zerbonia,   Sue.   “ACLJ   files   petition   to   stop   building   of   mosque   at   Ground   Zero.”   (2010):   n.  
pag.   Web.   4   Nov   2010.   <h t t p : / / w w w . e x a m i n e r . c o m / c h r i s t i a n - l i v i n g - i n - s t -
l o u i s / a c l j - f i l e s - p e t i t i o n - t o - s t o p - b u i l d i n g - o f - m o s q u e - a t - g r o u n d - z e r o >.  
DuPont,  Robert.  “Why  We  Should  Not  Legalize  Marijuana.”  Marijuana  and  Money.  20  Apr.  
2010.  Web.  15  Nov.  2010  
Fennucio,   John.   “Global   Hemp.” Hemp seen as fuel substitute.   Global   Hemp,   Inc.   20   Sept.  
2005.  Web.  14  Nov.  2010    
Malerba,  Larry.  “Medical  Marijuana:  The  pros  and  Cons  of  Legal  Cannabis.”   The Huffington
Post.  25  Oct.  2010.  Web.  15  Nov.  2010  
Gieringer,  Dale.  “Labs  Testing  For  Marijuana  Use  By  Marinol  Patients”.   NORML Working To
Reform Marijuana Laws.  24  Dec.  2008.  Web.  15  Nov.  2010    
Peacock,  Joel.  “2009  New  York  MPP  Commercial  #1  Joel  Peacock”.  15  Sept.  2009.   Youtube.  
15  Nov.  2010  
Francis,   N.P.   “Celebrities   Melissa   Etherigde   &   Patrick   Swayze   Support   Medical   Marijuana.  
“Do  You”.  Share  Your  Story.”  7  Aug.  2009.  Web.  15  Nov.  2010  
Clarke,   Robert.   “Economic   and   Environmental   Potential   of   Cannabis.” McFarland &
Company. Inc.  1997.  15  Nov.  2010  

Edwards,  Allene.  “Hemp.”  Green Lifestyle.  15  Nov.  2010  

RAND  Studies.  “  Legalizing  Marijuana  in  California  Would  Sharply  Lower  the  Price  of  Drug.”  
7  July  2010.  Web.  15  Nov.  2010    
Murphy,   Kathleen.   “How   Marijuana   Became   Illegal.”   Washington Free Press.   3   June   2009.  
Web.  15  Nov.  2010  

  28  
David  G  Savage.  “A  divided  court  defines  2nd  Amendment  :19th  century  rulings  tossed,  but  
big  issues  remain.  “  Chicago  Tribune  29  Jun  2010,Chicago  Tribune,  ProQuest.  Web.  9  Nov.  
2010.  
Duaa   Eldeib.   “For   many,   gun   ban   is   irrelevant   :Weapons   may   be   in   as   many   as   100,000  
homes   in   city,   researchers   speculate.   “   Chicago   Tribune   6   Jun   2010,Chicago   Tribune,  
ProQuest.  Web.  9  Nov.   2010.   O’Reilly,   Bill,   and   Charles   Flowers.   Kids   Are   Americans  
Too.  First  Ed.  New  York:  HarperCollins   Publishers,  
2007.  N.  Print.  
Schwartz,   Emma.   “In   Congress,   the   Uphill   Battle   for   Gun   Control.”   EBSCO   host.   EBSCO  
Industries,   17   Mar.   2008.   Academic   Search   Premier.   Web.   19   Oct.   2010.
  <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/search? vid=2&hid=112&sid=47672273-9c9c-4ddb-
9c51- d976bc8bda92%40sessionmgr111>.Path:Booleansearch”gun   control”   ;   click   on   the   “In
  Congress,  the  Uphill  Battle  for  Gun  Control.  
“Voice  of  the  People:  Gun  control.  “  Chicago  Tribune  5  Jul  2008,Chicago  Tribune,  ProQuest.  
Web.  9  Nov.  2010.  
U.S.   Congress.   “Brady   Handgun   Violence   Protection   Act.”   103rd   Cong.,   1d   sess.,   1993.  
Committee   Print.  
“U.S.  Constitution”.  Bill  of  Rights,  Amendment  II.  
“ We The People, Not “Them The Corporations”.”Democratic
U n d e rg ro u n d . We b . 11 Dec 2010.
<http://upload.democraticunderground.com>.

“Islam Mosque.” LOADTR. We b . 11 Dec 2010.

< h t t p : / / e n . l o a d t r. c o m / I s l a m _ m o s q u e - 4 1 8 6 3 5 . h t m > .

“Hemp For Vi c t o r y. ” H u m a n i t y . We b . 11 Dec 2010.

< h t t p : / / w w w. h p l u s m a g a z i n e . c o m > .

“Gun.” Airline Flight Safety Tr a i n i n g . We b . 11 Dec 2010.

< h t t p : / / w w w. a i r l i n e f l i g h t s a f e t y t r a i n i n g . c o m . a u > .

“ J u s t i c e . ” C e n t re f o r R e g u l a t i o n a n d M a r k e t A n a l y s i s . We b . 11 D e c 2 0 1 0 .
< h t t p : / / w w w. u n i s a . e d u . a u / c r m a / r e s e a r c h _ e x p e r t i s e . a s p > .

 
 
 

  29  
   30