In Mr. Greg Bean’s weakly [sic] musings (“From Another Angle, Things Aren’t as Bad as They Looked,” Aug. 19), he graciously spares publisher Diane Gooch from his “mean-spirited diatribe” and then attacks her for being a person of “privilege.” Mr. Bean makes the argument in his column that religious freedom is one of the things that American soldiers have died to protect. Of course he is correct about that. What he and others who are making this simplistic argument avoid talking about is that religious freedom does not grant one the privilege of breaking our code of ethics and laws. Examples of this are the polygamy laws and the laws against animal sacrifice in Santeria. Many Muslims have come to our country to escape the inhumane horror of Sharia law.

So the question is: Are we obligated in the name of tolerance to evade all of the tenets of Islam that are completely and irreconcilably incompatible with “natural law” and the Constitution on which our country was founded? Are we, in the interest of appearing nonjudgmental, bound to cover our eyes and ears, and keep our mouths shut as an unjust system of morals is foisted upon us under the cloak of multiculturalism and tolerance?

It is fair and important to examine who this individual is (the mosque imam), what are the intentions of the people behind the mosque, and whether the ideals that they will promote are consistent with our laws and values. All empirical evidence to date suggests that the imam is obfuscating and the true intent of the imam is in sharp contrast to his stated goals. Mr. Bean and others who are hiding behind the momma’s apron of tolerance should be prepared to live under a parallel legal system if they do not have the courage to say something now.

There is no suicide clause in the Constitution.
Jim Fitzmaurice
Rumson