Let's get this party started with a quick observation about the plans of a Florida church to observe the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by burning copies of the Koran.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703713504575475500753093116.html
It's fascinating that this perverse remembrance and the plans to build a community center near (but not at) "Ground Zero" both exemplify the gulf between the idealism and the actuality of our constitution's 1st amendment. These groups absolutely have the right to do these things, and no true patriot would say otherwise. That said, that doesn't make it a good idea. I've always felt that maturity can be defined as an equilibrium between the knowledge of what one can do and the reasons why doing it may not be the right thing. Clearly, this kind of maturity is in short supply these days.
I think you're drawing a bit of a false equivalency here, unfortunately. The purpose of the Park51 Community Center is essentially benign. It's backed by a moderate Imam who has spent years working (both for himself and for the US Gov't post-9/11) to promote moderation in place of extremism. It's not within sight of Ground Zero. It's located in an old Burlington Coat Factory building in an area neglected by NYC businesses because of the lack of foot traffic. It's situated in an area that has a sizable Muslim population -- an area which also hosts a mosque. It's a project that was initially supported by conservatives such as Laura Ingraham. It surely cannot sully the sanctity of Ground Zero any more than the strip clubs or fast food joints which are already present. The Park51 people have already shown a willingness to make peace by changing the name of the center from Cordoba House, simply because Newt Gingrich started lying about Muslim history. There's nothing untoward about the plans, and if it weren't for (a) serial anti-Muslim nutjob Pamela Geller raising a stink about it, and (b) Republican pundits and politician who -- upon smelling blood in the water -- decided to seize upon this as a divisive wedge issue during this midterm season, I'd wager that not a peep about whether or not its construction is appropriate would have ever been raised.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the Florida preacher who plans to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11 is acting out of pure divisiveness and intolerance. There's no productive outcome to his actions -- they're designed purely to fan the flames (no pun intended) of anti-Muslim bigotry. Whereas the aim of the Park51 CC project is community outreach and support, the aim of this preacher's actions is to promote hatred. In addition, General Petraeus has stated that his actions will serve to place American troops in Afghanistan in harm's way by giving Al Qaeda a handy recruiting tool/rallying point -- much in the same way that the furor over Park51 has served to provide examples of anti-Muslim bigotry for Al Qaeda to use as well.
To my eyes, one of these actions is in essence benevolent, and one is in essence malevolent. And to imply that one is equally as ill-informed as the other is, I think, being a bit too diplomatic in striving to strike a balance between the two.
If we seek to compromise with those behind the Park51 CC, the question of "how close is *too* close?" must be raised. According to Newt Gingrich, no distance is too far -- he's said we shouldn't build any mosques in this country (though this isn't a mosque) as long as Saudi Arabia forbids the building of Christian churches. Apparently the good people of Murfreesboro, TN think that their city isn't the right place for a Muslim worship center, either, since their local building site and equipment were torched. At some point, the NIMBYism ("Not In My Back Yard") must be disregarded.
And the same applies to the book-burning preacher in Florida. Just as the National Socialist Party of America had the right to demonstrate in Skokie, IL, he's got the right to assemble his flock to burn the Koran on 9/11 (a much closer equivalence, IMO, Godwin's Law be damned)...Even if it is a much, much worse idea to burn a religion's holy book than to build a cooking school and basketball court.
All this being said, I think the ultimate lesson to be learned from each example is this: the leading lights of the Conservative movement could not possibly care less about the Constitution as long as it applies to people other than themselves.
Fair point, I didn't mean to imply that the two issues are equivalent. My point was more that the 1st amendment leads to strange bed-fellows.
ReplyDelete