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)
Jeez why do you have to be so fair and reasonable!
ReplyDeleteYes, both are constitutionally protected. You can't say that the books can't be burned but the Mosque must be built. But a reasonable person can acknowledge that it is far different to burn the Koran and to announce exactly why you are burning it then to build a mosque (and it was not said that the mosque was going to be built near Ground Zero with the explicit purpose of pissing off lots of people). The building and burning are two actions that are speech. One is an action that takes place in a short amount of time and is much more likely to provoke a response--it could possible be "fighting words" under First Amendment doctrine (though that hasn't done anything in years). The other is a long process--it is more than an action, it is a process of building.
ReplyDeleteIt took a long time for this country to acknowledge that flag burning is okay. And yes, it is okay to burn the Koran. And it was the free speech that made the pastor change his mind... and a call not from the Chief Justice, but from General Petraeus
Lots of bad ideas are constitutionally protected. I am just happy that common sense talked someone out of a bad idea. I like what Gail Collins said in the NY Times:
"The Koran-burning has been equated, in some circles, with the fabled ground zero mosque. This is under the theory that both are constitutionally protected bad ideas. In fact, they’re very different. Muslims building a community center in their neighborhood on one hand. Deliberate attempt to insult a religion that is dear to about 1.5 billion souls around the globe on the other."
I wholeheartedly agree with you that motivations behind the two situations were quite different: one motivation was innocent, well-intentioned and, as I stated in my post two weeks ago, only bothers people because of their wayward beliefs that a Mosque is somehow related to 9/11 and terrorism; the other motivation was specifically to make a statement against a religion stemming from ignorance about that religion.
ReplyDeleteI, too, am glad the pastor changed his mind, out of my own understandings, beleifs, and opinions. My gut reaction to such an offensive and ignorant act was likely similar to yours--that of outrage and disgust. Still, the idea of expression carried out in a patently offensive manner is, to me, a poignant display of why such freedom is so important. People are free to reveal their "wrong" or adversarial viwpoints and public discourse can bring about an equalibrium from the very act of discussion.