When I started to write a blog, I initially wanted to stay away from politically or socially sensitive topics, and so not offend anyone who I might one day work with. As time went by I decided, screw it, I'm politically independent, I have as many good things as bad to say about any particular party or ideology. If people get angered by something I write, I'm willing to accept that risk.
And so we come to the issue of the proposed mosque that an imam is planning to bulid near Ground Zero in NYC. I'll also throw in the proposed Quoran-burning planned by a Florida pastor, because they do have a tangental relationship.
Americans have constitutional protections and, more specifically, first amendment rights. As a quisi-Liberitanian, I believe in that as much as anyone. Those rights effectively allow both the imam and the pastor to do what they are proposing to do. But in the end, I believe any reasonable person would reach the same conclusion for either one - neither should be allowed to do what they are proposing.
The first amendment does not grant absolute rights. For example, it doesn't give anyone the right to endanger others through their actions, such as shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It seems to me that age-old argument applies here. Both of these proposed actions are obviously going to cause potential harm to others, either physically or mentally, and the right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.
In the past I've alwasys made a distinction between that which is insensitive (hurting someone intentionally) versus that which lacks sensitivity (hurting someone stupidly). Here the imam lacks sensitivity, while the pastor is being insensitive. Either way, they should recognize that, and fade into the backgrounds from which they came.
People want to make it out to be more than this, but really, isn't it that simple?
No comments:
Post a Comment