If You DON’T Build It, The Terrorists Have Won (Or Refudiating Sarah Palin)
Photo courtesy of photos8.com
Discrimination is NEVER right. Even when it suits you.
Even though I might personally think it’s not the most sensitive thing to build a mosque near Ground Zero, I will defend the right to do it.
I will defend the right to build a mosque anywhere in the United States.
I’m not Muslim. It doesn’t effect me on a day-to-day basis if it gets built or not. When the day does come that it does effect me and you and our freedom of speech it may already be too late.
You really can’t give an inch on this stuff. You have to go all the way. You have to defend the people who offend you. The people you don’t like. You have to defend their freedom to express ideas you don’t like.
In reality, you’re really defending yourself. And your own freedom.
You have to fight every time.
Nevermind that we used to be a country that prided itself on NOT judging people based on their religious beliefs.
Oh, and here’s the real line in the sand. If you still don’t agree with me then you have to do something. To keep in line with doing the “right” thing.
You have to move all the Catholic Churches away from schools. And playgrounds. Because if you are afraid of Muslims because less than two handfuls did some bad stuff, then you have to also be afraid of the hundreds of Catholic priests who did some really sick stuff to some innocent kids.
But that’s not ALL Catholics, you say.
Well, it’s not ALL Muslims, I say.
And honestly, I’m neither Muslim nor Catholic. I don’t agree with either one. At all, actually.
But I have to defend their freedom to express themselves. The free flow of ideas and speech.
Anywhere in America.
Anywhere they want.
-Jason
From Anywhere in America
You May Also Want To Check Out These Posts:
[...] This post was Twitted by AlexConde [...]
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (94.23.51.159) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (87.98.139.183) and so is spam.
A few points to consider:
1) While it was “less than two handfuls” which caused the destruction, it was many more who “celebrated” these attacks and continue to plot against our nation. All attacks and attempted attacks have come from within members of this religion, with little condemnation from the larger community. Catholics (since you were specific in your post) as a community have condemned the actions of the priests and continue to do so.
2) I agree in part with you regarding the freedoms discussed, but if a known criminal (priest, cleric, rabbi, or imam) plans to put a building (church, temple, mosque) in my area – I would want them thoroughly investigated to determine the intent of this building. A priest convicted of child molestation or an imam who practices terroristic threats against this nation – neither should be allowed to build a “house of worship”.
3) We do allow many mosques to be built…no one has restricted the right to practice their religion (unlike other countries). However, we can ask them to consider alternate locations which may better serve the community as a whole. I doubt this is the only piece of property available to them for their members to meet and seriously doubt the members are all located within a specific radius of the location – so convenience as an “excuse” is invalid. A question to ask is why is it so important for them to build at this site? What advantage does this place hold over other locations? Many churches and temples have to accommodate the community they wish to locate in.
4) Also, I too will defend the freedom to express themselves, however they see fit, but we do not have to allow them to do so in a place many now consider a national monument/landmark.
I am not questioning their right to build – I question their motivation?
Essentially, the problem I have with the situation is that the people building the mosque are being judged based on the qualities of other people.
Here’s a hypothetical, one which I tried to use with the church comparison: If you’re Buddhist (for instance), and the people who flew a planes into the towers on 9/11 were Buddhist, how would you feel if people judged you, told you where you could or couldn’t live, worship, etc. based on the actions of other Buddhists to which you have no relationship?
I’m all for single-serving discrimination. Judging each person based on what they say and do. Not on any generalizations floating around about people like them. That’s the problem. This specific group of people didn’t do anything wrong. But a few people like them did.
If it were me personally, I wouldn’t put up a mosque there, specially after finding out that so many people would be hurt by it. By that’s just the sensitive-writer-who-does-card-tricks-kind-of-guy that I am. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong to do it.
But by defending their right to do it, hopefully one day, when I have something I think is important to say or to share with the world and that thing winds up pissing people off, hopefully I will still be able to say it.
That’s the twist with freedom of speech. It’s freedom of ALL speech and expression. Not just the stuff you agree with.
I really feel that once you start making exceptions to this idea of free speech then off you go slip slide down that pesky and slippery slope. I don’t want to find out what’s next….
Keep in mind, the next time someone makes an exception it might involve something you think is important, something you want to say. At that point, it’s too late….
Thank you for response, I enjoyed reading it.
Best,
Jason
Jason,
I enjoyed your comments as well and believe we agree far more than we disagree. However, I’d respectfully disagree with you in a few areas.
This is not about “freedom of expression” (what is it they are trying to express – their religion?) or “freedom of speech”. No one is restricting their “right” to express or speak, just the location. We are not stating “no mosque in NY state, no mosque in NYC, etc.”. Just no mosque in this location.
Also, I realize you may say, once you restrict it in one place, it’s a matter of time before it is restricted everywhere. However, as I asked – what is the importance, to the religious leader(s) for having a mosque on this site? Did one exist prior to 9-11 (I don’t believe so)? Is it a holy site for them (why)? I am purely looking for motivation of this group. And yes, if a Buddhist temple was proposed on this site, and I was Buddhist and the terrorists were Buddhists, I would still have the same question – why are we allowing ourselves to put us in such a position. Also, if it was Scientologist, atheists, or practicing voodoo-ists (sp?), I would have the same reluctance to allow them to build where a member of their group had caused great injury and devastation.
Another way of looking at it is these were all mostly foreign nationals. If their home countries wished to build a diplomatic embassy or national office, I would have the same questions – what is the motivation for allowing them to build here? Why this site? And I would want answers PRIOR to allowing them to build.
All I’m really saying is some locations should be respected and the community should have an opportunity to comment on the proposal BEFORE it is approved. I understand it is a representative democracy we live in and our elected officials are there to serve(or not) – but zoning boards at times are appointed positions (I’m not sure in NYC) and in this instance, a minority of members did not consider the public or community.
The real problem is the “zoning board” allowed the application to move forward and was supported by the mayor, but the citizens voice has not been considered and could be said to have been “restricted”. It was not up for a vote prior to the disclosure of the application.
I agree democracy has many aspects which require strength of conviction…allowing the KKK or Nazi party to parade, allowing NAMBLA to exist, and many other instances. It is what makes this country strong, the right to expression/speech.
I would be curious as to how you viewed the “commercialization” of Gettysburg a few years back – the fact that a business wanted to build a theme park in a place many considered “sacred” was stopped because the community at large was upset and the business withdrew, along with political support. Was their “freedom” restricted? Possibly. What about communities which do not want Walmart, etc.? Or nuclear plants, waste sites, recycling centers, etc. built in their neighborhood? Are they restricting the rights of these entities? Generally, other communities welcome them after these initial refusals. Corporations are individuals, technically speaking under the law, and have the same rights.
Again, I really appreciated your response and you made me consider carefully my argument. Thanks for the opportunity.
Tim
Tim,
You bring up some great points and a lot of food for thought.
I’m not sure I have any concrete answers or that there are any. But I don’t think that the motivation here particularly matters. That’s kind of the point, it doesn’t matter if their motivation is to piss people off or if they just want an innocent place of worship. I don’t think discriminating against these people because they share beliefs with the terrorists is ever right.
Their motivation shouldn’t affect the guiding principle here. Don’t lump in a bunch of people because they worship the same deity. Or skin color. Or ethnicity. Base your judgement on the people themselves and not their beliefs.
My first reaction to the examples you bring up, is of course I would be the person to not want Walmart or nuclear plant or waste sites or an amusement park in the middle of a historic place. But my feelings, what I want are not as important as sharing in the freedom. For the Gettysburg thing, if it’s important to people then there should be rules protecting that kind of environment. For Walmart, I guess you let them build it and then if the people are really unhappy with it they won’t go and they’ll go out of business. But if people show up and use Walmart, for example, then hasn’t Walmart provided a service that people wanted?
I don’t know of anyone who particularly wants any of the other places (nuclear, waste, etc.) in their backyard. Those have environmental ramifications and a whole host of other issues which I think are just a separate conversation.
Likewise, corporations carry with them another set of issues which are important to explore but in a different context.
Excuse my English but, This post makes my mind spin at the speed of dark.
Sent via Blackberry
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Leave your response!
Recent Posts
Tags
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Categories