For those of you who didn’t, thank you for being literate. If this is sounding somewhat pithy there’s a reason: I don’t enjoy having words put in my mouth. Somehow it was determined by a reader of yesterday’s post that I consider those in mourning of the 9/11 attacks to be “racist bigots” for opposing the building of Park51. He should read the article again. I understand how he could have misinterpreted my words but his conclusion is reaching. I created a page for clarification. The rest of you can continue reading.
Below, I have taken a few quotes made by the reader from the Facebook thread and rebutted.
“Because ppl don't want a victory mosque built on the rubble of ground zero does not make them anti muslim.”
First, I never said anyone opposing Park51 was specifically anti-Muslim, but denying that there exists a sentiment to be construed as such is naive. It is built into the situation.
Second, the mere thought that Park51 would be considered a “Victory Mosque”* is despicable. To use this phrase as leverage is even more so. I’ve never called it that. No one I know has ever called it that. It was applied by the media after the proposal for construction – it was not its title. It is a negatively charged buzzword that preys on miseducation and a false sense of patriotism. Doesn't the reader realize that this phrase presupposes that all Muslims consider 9/11 a victory?
Third, our country was founded on a longing for religious tolerance, not in spite of it. The reader seems to be saying there's no more room at the inn.
“The n-word is derogatory but its not illegal. So if its not illegal and you want to "just to push the sensitivity envelop." Why not use the term? If its only about exercising rights and not sensitivity whats the big deal? See, just because you have legal right doesn't make it right.”
Sigh. Here the reader is saying this: if I help build Park51 I would then think it’s alright to call someone a nigger. Wrong. My article had to do with flawed reasoning derived from a state of sensitivity. Reasoning, by nature, should be naked. Conclusions should be arrived at through clear and uninflected thought. To reason properly we must appeal to a universal sense of good, not our own feelings – be they derived from hate, loss, or otherwise.
“I am a member of Libertyandprosperity.org so I might know a thing or two about the constitution myself, because we try to teach about such things. Anyone can. It was written so the common man could indeed read and understand it.”
I am a member of Netflix. It is designed so that anyone can watch a movie. The movies themselves are designed so that any person can understand them. The nature of storytelling is to reach an audience and, therefore, must be accessible to the common man. Does this mean I know what Bernardo Bertolucci was trying to say with his film The Dreamers? Before you answer, consider this: I also read a lot of stuff on IMDb.
*He used this phrase a few times. I suppose it doesn't matter that Park51 isn't even a Mosque...