In yet another example of the differenece of what can be done and what should be done we have news of a proposed book burning. By now almost everyone should have heard that Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center is planning to burn several Koran’s on September 11th. The outrage from this proposed book burning has been wide and furious.
Stepping aside from the image of the book burning, the calls to imagine Nazi Germany, there is something else that comes to mind. Liberals have gone ape over the proposal. There is a huge outcry of prejudice against Islam and Muslims. There is no lack of Senior White House officials making statements defaming the plan.
But, where were these same officials, these same Liberals, in regard to the proposed 9/11 mosque debate?
The 2 situations are very similar. In each case we have Islam at the core. On one side we have a questionable group of Muslims that are taking action that obviously hurts the nation, and on the other individuals that are intentionally hurting Islam. We have both initiators acting well within the bounds of law. We have supporters and detractors that are firm in their beliefs. There isn’t much difference.
Those that want to defend the 9/11 mosque point to the Constitution. It’s an arguement that is moot as no one is arguing against the Right of the mosque to be built. The issue is how right, morally, it is to build. The question is how can the mosque promote good will, as is the stated purpose, when it is definitiely creating ill will just from its proposed existence?
But Liberals and Democrats are ignoring that question. They are blind to any question about the mosque, instead standing firm on the Constitutional Right that is without question.
On the other hand there is Pastor Jones.
Pastor Jones has the Right to do whatever he wishes with his own property, in this case the Quran. He has the Right to Assemble. He has the Right to Speech and make whatever statements he wants about what he will do with his property.
Therefore, according to the logic of the 9/11 mosque supporters, Pastor Jones has a Constitutional Right to burn the Koran and all other arguements should end right there. According to the support from Democrats and Liberals on the mosque, every point or question seperate of the Rights from the Constitution should be invalid. Yet that is not what Liberals and Democrats are saying.
Oddly, Democrats like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder are denouncing the proposed actions of Pastor Jones. Yet they had nothing to say on the 9/11 mosque. President Obama is once again silent – though he may make ambiguous statements on the issue at any point if he is consistent.
Thus the question that should be asked by the major media is, do Liberals and Democrats want to uphold the Constitution or do they want to just use the Constitution to eliminate arguements against ideas they like?
Now it is given that the actions of Pastor Jones are deplorable. It is sure to incite Al Queada and other organizations/nations that hate the very existence of America. But that is little different than the celebration that the 9/11 mosque at Ground Zero will bring. Both actions will give those that seek to destroy America (under any political party or President) reason to increase their actions against this nation and our troops abroad. Comments to the counter take a simplistic and ignorant view of the realities of the world we live in.
Neither the 9/11 mosque nor the book burning should happen. Both are Constitutional and permitted by law. Using the arguements of Liberals, both should be equally defended and allowed. In the humble opinion of M V Consulting, Inc. neither should go forward, but that is based on the morality of both situations and not the legality of them.
Still, it is hypocritical to a degree of absurdity to see Liberals, and many Democrats in elected office, choose one side and then the opposing side of an arguement based on the same defense. The conclusion is inescapable. Liberals and Democrats are using the 2 situations for their political agendas, without regard to the Constitution or the best interest of the nation.