I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists....
I have actually read it floated around the internet that some people are proposing that maybe, possibly, it might be a good idea... in the interests of everyone, really... if maybe Terry "Not a Member of Monty Python" Jones and his congregation decided not to go through with International Burn a Quran Day on Saturday that maybe the Park51 group could relocate their planned community center further from the World Trade Center?
Barring the fact that this still raises the question of how far is far enough and who gets to decide that distance, it exacerbates the problem of handicapping the Bill of Rights by also being at odds with American policy on terrorism.
Now, let me be clear - I'm not laying any criminal accusations against Jones and his people. And I'm not saying that burning a book is the same as suicide bombing. But criminal or not, violent or not, the intent is still to create fear and terror in "the enemy", which in my mind makes IBAQD an act of terrorism, regardless of whether anyone dies because of it (directly or indirectly). Still, they have the same Constitutional right to freedom of expression/religion that I defend the Park51 group with. Nothing about International Burn a Quran Day is illegal, and it shouldn't be.
BUT...
Essentially, what these suggestions propose is that one group of people acting within their legal and zoning-approved rights on private property in a comparatively free market should be held hostage to the whims of another group who are, for all intents and purposes, threatening the first group (albeit in a non-violent, Constitutionally protected manner - but it's only a half-step from what Jones is planning and a good old-fashioned cross burning). In order to prevent the hateful act of one group, we should "pay a ransom" by getting another group to give up what is rightfully theirs.
It's just... sick.
Barring the fact that this still raises the question of how far is far enough and who gets to decide that distance, it exacerbates the problem of handicapping the Bill of Rights by also being at odds with American policy on terrorism.
Now, let me be clear - I'm not laying any criminal accusations against Jones and his people. And I'm not saying that burning a book is the same as suicide bombing. But criminal or not, violent or not, the intent is still to create fear and terror in "the enemy", which in my mind makes IBAQD an act of terrorism, regardless of whether anyone dies because of it (directly or indirectly). Still, they have the same Constitutional right to freedom of expression/religion that I defend the Park51 group with. Nothing about International Burn a Quran Day is illegal, and it shouldn't be.
BUT...
Essentially, what these suggestions propose is that one group of people acting within their legal and zoning-approved rights on private property in a comparatively free market should be held hostage to the whims of another group who are, for all intents and purposes, threatening the first group (albeit in a non-violent, Constitutionally protected manner - but it's only a half-step from what Jones is planning and a good old-fashioned cross burning). In order to prevent the hateful act of one group, we should "pay a ransom" by getting another group to give up what is rightfully theirs.
It's just... sick.