—not because there is anything wrong with the mosque, but because
the county commission that approved the mosque failed to adequately advertise its meeting.
The Rutherford County Planning Commission can schedule a new meeting and re-approve the mosque—but the judge’s decision has reignited local opposition so that any public meeting is likely to be a barnburner.
The mosque was one of several Muslim projects in the US that hit a swell of conservative opposition around the same time as the controversy over a plan to build a Muslim community center near New York’s ground zero.
Though his ruling voids the approval, he specifically noted there was nothing stopping the commission from reconsidering the issue and voting on the mosque site plan again.
Saleh Sbenaty, a spokesman for the mosque, said the ruling was disappointing but his group remained committed to building the Islamic center. They have been worshipping for many years at a smaller site in Murfreesboro, a booming city of about 100,000 people southeast of Nashville.
This the most excitement Murfreesboro has seen in 150 years, since it was the site of a major Civil War battle from December 31, 1862 through January 2, 1863. Tactically inclusive, as were so many battles of the Civil War, the Battle of Murfreesboro recorded an astounding 23,515 casualties on both sides.
The opponents of the Murfreesboro mosque have fought for two years to stop construction. During lengthy hearings in 2010, they presented testimony that in effect put Islam on trial. A string of witnesses questioned whether Islam is a legitimate religion and promoted a theory that American Muslims want to replace the Constitution with extremist Islamic law and the mosque was a part of that plot.
The chancellor dismissed all those allegations but held a trial on the narrower claim that the public meeting law was violated because the meeting notice wasn’t adequate. The meeting notice was published in the Murfreesboro Post, a free weekly newspaper that had a circulation of about 21,000 at the time the legal advertisement was placed.
The ruling noted that only about 196 papers were placed in racks in unincorporated areas of the county, despite the fact that approximately one-third of the county’s more than 250,000 people live in those areas. No papers were distributed to homes in the neighborhood around the mosque.
State law requires that local governments provide “adequate public notice” for meetings, without defining what is adequate.
The county argued that local officials did all that was required of them legally by placing a notice in the print and web editions of the newspaper — the same practice they use for advertising all public meetings. Those notices did not include an agenda saying the mosque issue would be dealt with.
The chancellor wrote in his opinion that it was important to consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether the meeting notice was sufficient. That includes the intense public interest the mosque construction generated.
After the site plan was approved by the County Planning Commission, mosque opponents organized a march and rally at which about 400 people showed up, with nearly an equal number turning out for a counter-protest to support the mosque, the local media reported.
The mosque also became an issue in the local congressional race, with Republican candidate Lou Ann Zelenik calling it a threat to the state’s moral and political foundation. She lost.
Later, a dump truck on the construction site was burned in what federal investigators determined was arson.
In his opinion, Chancellor Corlew said the public interest in the mosque meant the county should have taken extra steps to ensure that the public was aware of the meeting where it would be discussed. Without spelling out what those steps might be, he noted the county runs a cable television station and also has a website where the meeting notice and agenda were not posted. The county says that was an oversight.
“Without publication of the issues of business to be discussed at an otherwise routine meeting, citizens may be lulled into the mindset that only routine matters will be raised at a meeting, when suddenly a matter which is to them of earthshaking importance suddenly comes forth,” Corlew wrote.
County Attorney Josh McCreary had argued in court that the mosque approval was a routine matter at the time and the intense public interest was part of a campaign by the plaintiffs to stir up opposition to the mosque after the fact. He pointed out that no public hearing was required before the Commission voted to approve the mosque plan.
“In this instance, everything they are relying on to prove this is a matter of pervasive public importance came after the lawsuit was filed,” he said in court, arguing that plaintiffs had made the situation “notorious.”
A local attorney said the judge’s ruling invalidates every decision made by the Planning Commission at its May 2010 meeting, throwing several other projects into limbo as well.
One week after the ruling, construction work on the mosque is still underway. County officials said such a court order does not take effect in Tennessee until 30 days after it is issued.
After the ruling was made public, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on the US Justice Department to intervene to protect the rights of Muslims in Tennessee if the Planning Commission does not immediately issue new construction approvals.
“The judge’s ruling is apparently based on a fictitious ‘heightened standard’ for public notice when Muslims are involved,” staff attorney Gadeir Abbas said in a statement.