The 'Ground-Zero Mosque' and Grand Staircase Escalante
With no end in sight, the controversy surrounding the so-called ground-zero mosque continues to bring out the worst in all of us. As the controversy continues, I'm struck by a parallel between this proposed mosque and another American monument established in 1996.
Background
Almost 15 years ago, President Bill Clinton designated a large expanse of land in Utah as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Seen largely as a political ploy to win favor among voting environmentalists, the designation of this national monument immediately halted business development in the area, including a proposed coal mine, and stifled Utah's ability to make use of lands designated to help pay for the state's school system.
Creation of the monument also sparked a conflict between local county officials and the federal Bureau of Land Management over which authorities have jurisdiction over the dirt roads throughout the monument. This controversy continues to this day and is quite emblematic of the frustration felt by many of us in the more rural western United States over BLM practices and fair use of what we see as "our own land."
Make no mistake: these matters are conflicts of law with no easy solutions. The controversy over Grand Staircase Escalante is very much alive in Utah today, with local ranchers and miners still angry about what they see as federal usurpation of important economic resources, and local environmental activists equally as passionate in their support of the monument. However, we must pause to note that this issue no longer has a place on the national stage.
Keep reading...
A few issues I might have with it. For one, I thought a majority of New Yorkers opposed the
Mosque.
More to his point, though, I'm not sure the two cases are very similar. For one, there could actually be a reasonable interstate commerce rationale behind the Utah situation. I'm not familiar with it, but I can certainly understand situations where Uncle Sammy might have some say-so in such an area. Generally I tend to side with the state if it's inhabitants are stupid enough to want to destroy their own backyard, but I won't automatically rule out federal intervention. And as for the center itself, while I as an outsider don't have any legal place to intervene, if the people of another state wish to do something that I think pretty plainly trounces the law of the land, I have no problem bitching about it. The author speaks of pundits creating controversy. While I often find that an annoying occurrence, I also recognize that often times the controversy is necessary. If the upstanding and enlightened folk in South Carolina decide to enact a law that makes it legal to hang any Croatians on the third Wednesday of every month, would you suggest that people from other states should butt out and mind their own business? If the New Yorkers find a legal method of preventing it, then I'll just write them off as silly and childish and go on with my continued disgust for the masses. If they seek to prevent a legal act by any means necessary, then pundits should be stirring things up and people should be whining about it.