Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNJ
Go kick it with Dr. Laura, then.
Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences. The debate is not over the legality of drawing Muhammad or building a mosque on private land.
One can recognize that building a mosque near Ground Zero is perfectly legal, and well within one's rights, but that it is also going to offend some of the people directly affected by 9/11.
Now, one is allowed to not care how their construction process hurts the feelings of others, in the same way that one is allowed to not care how their speech or drawings hurt the feelings of others.
That is one's right as an American.
However, it isn't a right that we MUST exercise. We can choose to hold ourselves to higher standards of conscientiousness, regulating our behavior within certain limits so as to enrich the lives of those around us.
And with our rights to free expression we can criticize those who don't.
|
you're right about it not being a legal issue. i was more thinking about consistency, and it makes sense to me that someone would be for depicting mohammed and building the mosque. i think both of those positions are most in line with tolerating multiple religious and anti-religious perspectives. and i think religious and philosophical inclusiveness are important as American ideals. i'm not a huge fan of any religion, islam included, but i don't associate the wtc attacks with all of islam. i can respect the victims' feelings but i think victims who oppose this mosque are being irrational and maybe a little bigoted. and i worry that a lot of the criticism is coming not from victims but from political opportunists (i.e. palin).