Certainly you're aware of the Victory Mosque and the Quran burning episodes. Of course, the issues are not simple; ranging from freedom of religion and freedom of expression to media exploitation; but I'm wondering if there's a common thread running through some of the reactions. Fear. I see a lot of contrasts lately, here are some of them:
It would be difficult to research, but I clearly recall being told in my youth that there was a time when the H.A. Motorcycle gang was not permitted to wear their club patches on their jackets in Sacramento California; lest they be arrested for disturbing the peace. So now a group can build what is clearly a gloat center in N.Y.C. Without this being a disturbance? What would the American populace of 1946 have done about this? My guess is that they wouldn't have had to face the question, as it wouldn't have come up in the first place. The followers of the “religion of peace” would have worried about having Mecca turned into a glass parking lot. I'm not endorsing strategic nuclear weapons, just saying that the country was a different place back then.
I'm not sure if the mosque builders have thought about the “law of unintended consequences”. As the warden in Bird Man of Alcatraz said: The American public has a short memory. Maybe memory isn't the right issue, but people tend to cool off pretty fast. As long as that building is there, it will be a target for mock T shirt messages like: “Come rejoice at the 9-11 celebration station!” The phrase “Remember The Alamo is certainly old, but could be mirrored with:”Remember the Victory Mosque”. Then again, would you be surprised to learn that the leaders of that religion “Talked it over, and decided to dismiss plans for the mosque because they care and are sensitive to the people of America...”it was just a ruse to put on a facade.
With everybody in the world so fearful of Islam, I wouldn't be surprised to see it replace current symbols of darkness. All is needed is a literal symbol. Then, when the ooh-bad teenagers wanted to deface property, they would no longer rely on swastikas and satanic emblems, but rather, the Islam one. What a riotous predicament this would put the liberals in. If property was vandalized, and Islamic symbols painted at the scene, would it be a hate crime, or proselytizing???
While we're dealing with the ambiguous, a message to conservatives who think that the government must be obeyed unquestionably: Does this planned mosque finally convince you the there's a difference between legality and morality?
As for this Quran burning guy, I suppose the problem is a lack of contrast. It's clearly an angry reaction, but the bible says:”Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay.” The closest I can get to justifying the book burning is when Gideon tore down the alter of the false gods there in his community. But really, is that this guy's motive? I can assure you that this pastor has been living in harmony with far more populated and equally heretic religions than the few (if any) Muslims in his town. When did he burn their books?
Surely someone has come up with a kooky crimes and incidents database/website, like the Darwin one. Am I wrong in guessing that there are a number of kooky events everyday in this land of 300 million people? The media just had to focus on this one...why? Sensationalism only? I suppose job security is where you find it, but this created a fearful reaction in many. And what else is a liberal society to do? Fear of offending is just paralysis.
Oh but wait. Paralysis is probably the wrong word. Cowardice is closer. Liberals have no problem at all in attacking the defenseless. Notice the debt that's being passed on to the generations not yet born. Time to mirror another old saying: No debt without representation!
That is assuming one of the little ones actually makes it all the way to birth. They might make it 8 months, 29 days, and 20 hours; but they're not safe yet. Here we go with the legality-morality thing again...partial birth abortion is legal here in the US. What is this procedure? A killer with a white coat on brings the baby most of the way out of its mother. The head is left in for legality reasons. A pair of large scissors is inserted into the baby's brain. The little legs and arms stop wiggling. The scissors are replaced with a suction tube, to remove the brain matter. This allows the head to be crushed, and pass out of the (mother?) easier. Rats, more ambiguity; is she a mother, or merely a woman empowered by choice? No doubt, a land of contrast.