Some people like to make the statement: "I will defend your right to say that which I disagree with." They then apply this statement to the idea of building a mosque at the destroyed WTC site. We are expected to answer this call in the same way.
The problem with the above analogy is that while you may have the right to try to dance on a grave, I will not condone your dancing on top of a grave. Specifically in the case of building a mosque at ground zero, I feel a closeness to those who were murdered there rather than the murderers. In a way, we as Americans feel that it is our grave-site.
So, the simple answer is: no, I will not fight for, nor will I agree to your "right" to dance on my grave-site. What sort of person would even ask for something like that? Are you listening to the voices that make up 70% of the country, mayor Bloomberg? We may just terminate your contract early.
The other point that seems to escape our enlightened politicians, is that we do not want to dig our own graves and line up in front of them. We are at war. 9/11 was an act of war. The building of a mosque at that site is a victory for the islamists that attacked us on 9/11. They still want to kill us. Why does the enlightened political class assume that we aspire to be the sacrificial lambs in their hope for the collaborators to be slaughtered last?
Lastly, I will address the progressives and for this purpose, I will quote Chris Muir: "Do not mistake your cowardice with conviction, or syntax with sensibility." The progressive's true nature is obvious to the rest of us.
2 comments:
"So, the simple answer is: no, I will not fight for, nor will I agree to your "right" to dance on my grave-site. What sort of person would even ask for something like that?"
The answer is, the sort of person who does not care for rights, only for their will to do what they want in order to do what they think should be freely accepted by others as 'right' - and as their proregressive granddaddy Rousseau said, sometimes they will need to "Force them to be free".
I don't see any conflict between what you've said here, and property rights, but I did answer your comment "... in my last 2 posts I've argued that the needs of the community may at times trample over property rights." a few minutes ago.
Thanks for stopping by. You should turn your reply to my comment into a post. There is one gem I found especially brilliant - property rights being a natural extension of our human nature.
Post a Comment