The Qur'an-Burning firestorm, if you will, of late provides a striking contrast to the ongoing Ground Zero Mosque controversy against the backdrop of things people arguably "legally can but politically should not" do. In a twist of irony, many of those firmly contending that freedom of religion and expression would allow for the Mosque to be built, but it would be in poor taste, are now defending an action that many find to be in poor taste by pointing out its First Amendment justifications.
This being the case, the interplay of the two issues provide a rare and fortuitous opportunity to experience the difficulty of true tolerance. Politics and human nature being as they are, each person is likely to find him or herself more closely aligning with opposing outcomes on these two issues: either that the Mosque should be built and the Qur'ans should not be burned, or that the Mosque should be stopped and the burning go forward. You have already been briefed on my feelings on the former of these issues, and so can likely guess my feelings on the latter, but, feelings aside, I must recognize that freedom need be a two-way street. Niether can the soft sensibilities nor the wayward beleifs of our fellow citizens sway allowance of public discourse and expression. Rather, those are precisely what must encourage further exploration of ideas and, perhaps someday, convergence.
The reality is that the juxtaposition of these two issues can make everyone angry. And in our shared anger at different things, we can all acknowlege our widely differing preferences and inner feelings that move interaction, society, and politics. The hope is that, through that shared experience of gut reactions and outrage, we can understand what drives those whose views we do not understand precisely because it drives us, as well. And, through that understanding, acknowlege the importance of an enemy's right to speak.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (attributed to Voltaire)
