You stated that " draw mohamed day " was more acceptable
Primarily because it is a direct response to specific threats and there is something nice about telling people who threaten you to go shove it.
Also because I don't share the idea that images of religious figures are inherently insulting. I don't think Muslims should be able to say in a non-Muslim society (or even in a Muslim society, since I'm a libertarian and I don't support heavy theocratic control) that people will face legal punishment or violence for drawing pictures. Intentionally insulting pictures should also be allowed. Intentionally insulting pictures would be rude, and outside of the specific situation of the direct response to the threat would IMO be uncalled for, but violence, or even just the threat of it is far worse.
My preferred response is to condemn the behavior not attack a whole major religion. That behavior isn't just terrorism and oppression (although obviously they deserve the strongest forms of condemnation, and in appropriate circumstances even a military response), but support of the terrorism and oppression, or even to a lesser degree refusal to oppose or condemn terrorism and oppression. If American Islamic leaders, or a significant percentage of Muslims world wide, support, or even just refuse to condemn such things, than I have no problem with making negative statements about their refusal.
I'm curious do you support the mosk at " Ground Zero " where so many Americans died at the hands of islamic terrorists?
1 - My understanding is that it isn't actually at Ground Zero, just relatively close buy, maybe a city block away. (If it was actually at ground zero my opinion would be slightly different).
2 - I oppose building the mosque close by, I would call on those building it not to do so (which apparently will not make any difference, they seem to be stuck on the idea of building it).
3 - I oppose almost any effort by the federal government to get involved in the issue for either side. Other than one point which I'll mention below, its a local issue, even if one that gets national attention.
4 - I oppose not granting permission to build in the same general neighborhood of the WTC site, simply because of religious dislike. There is a 1st amendment free exercise issue here, if that's done (and that could be the federal involvement, if the builders are discriminated against because of their religion, than it could become a federal court issue).
5 - If it was actually at the site, then I think trying to deny the permission would be a bit more reasonable. It still might run in to some judicial problems, but building a mosque on the site, in the context of the people there, and the survivors and relatives of the killed from the attack, generally not wanting a mosque there (and in the context of the new building, or even the whole new site not having other places of worship), I think that banning the mosque from the sire would be reasonable, and also might survive court challenge. |
