At any rate, I was involved tonight in a conversation indicative of the rhetorical divide in the country right now. The conversation eventually grew beyond the scope of 140 characters, so I've continued here.
I'm new to Twitter. I'm operating on the assumption that this conversation is OK to reproduce, since we both have public profiles.
TheLoki47: http://huff.to/cxhxNN // #teaparty and #tcot xenophobes and #gzmosque opponents make no sense, but wonder why we think they're bigots.
HRearden51: @TheLoki47 //we don't wonder. We know you're just too stupid to mount an intelligent argument.
TheLoki47: @HRearden51 // Clearly ad hominem and consistency are not your complaints, since your sensitivity argument is awfully PC! #tpp #tcot #p2
HRearden51: @TheLoki47 //Read this then get back with me. Arguments such as yours are diversionary at best. Dishonest at worse. http://bit.ly/9A8Qsn
TheLoki47: @HRearden51 // I've read that. It's still xenophobia until the argument is more than THEY attacked US. If it's a diversion drop it #gzmosque
HRearden51: @TheLoki47 //No . It's just inappropriate to build it there. Calling opponents bigots and racist is intellectually derelict.
TheLoki47: @HRearden51 // I see. THEY attacked US. Got it. #gzmosque #tcot #p2
HRearden51: @TheLoki47 //You're not making sense. Speak to the propriety.
TheLoki47: @HRearden51 // Now you're not making sense. Where's the "propriety clause" in the 1st amendment? #gzmosque #park51 #tcot
HRearden51: @TheLoki47 There you go. Diversion...or dishonest? If you want to engage me, you'll have to be more honest. 1st amendment is not at issue.
Despite the fact that we begin the conversation with greetings such as "bigot" and "stupid", there is clearly a serious attempt to grapple with the issues here. And, of course, I take HReardon51 at his word that he is sincere in his pursuit of engagement.
But the fact is there can be no engagement, due to radically different assumptions. Indeed, this debate has everything to do with the First Amendment. Since I think much of the defensiveness on both sides comes from the characterizations coming from the other, I will restrict myself to my own position (rather than trying to discern the motives behind those put forward on the other side). To paraphrase, my stance on the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" issue would run as follows:
Since the First Amendment provides for the free exercise of religion, attempts to block religious activity must be motivated by specific concerns about that activity--concerns sufficient to override constitutional protection. At the very least, this means that the burden of proof in this argument lies with those who oppose Park51 and this burden has yet to be met. Until then, there is no "issue" to be addressed.There is little flexibility afforded to Park51 opponents in this stance. Park51 does not need to argue why they should be allowed t0 build there--opponents need to argue why they should not. To date they have not done so.
I understand that this may be frustrating to those with sharp feelings about Islam or 9/11 (or whatever it is that offends them, in particular) but that's hardly an argument to roll back constitutional protections. The First Amendment, the top priority of the anti-Federalists, protects everything from Salman Rushdie, Draw Mohamed Day and South Park's Mohamed episode to Park51 and the Scientologists. And sometimes people will be offended, but so what?
So, no HReardon51, I don't think you're a bigot. But I'm struggling to understand what your argument might actually be. Since Park51 is not al Qaeda, it is very easy for me to draw the conclusion that you are saying their rights should be abridged simply because they are Muslim. Surely that's not what you're saying. Right?
