9/11 Quran Burnings and the 1st Amendment

After reading the article, Quaran-burning on again, off again, I am disappointed. Disappointed with the Americans AND the Muslims. They both are letting a select few in the culture represent the beliefs of the whole cultural community. Yes, the terrorists who took the lives of too many American's the day of September 11th were indeed Islamic extremists. Naturally this would give a large population of America fear of all Islamic people. It is human nature to be afraid of the unknown, and not all American citizens knew that to be Islamic did not mean they were extremists or terrorists. We need to stand up as a community and realize that Islam is a religion, and they have just as much a right to freely practice their religion in our country. It says so in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. We need to step aside, and not proclaim their religion as our reoccurring scapegoat. While people may write that it is all our fault, and that America is to blame for the prejudice against Islamic people, I look at it the other way too. Just because we live in the same country as Terry Jones, a reverend in Florida, it is believed by many muslims that we as a country have the same beliefs as him. He made an offensive decision to burn copies of the Quran on 9/11, and this angered the Islam religion. He was doing this because he was against a mosque being built near ground zero. Personally, I don't want innocent Islamic people thinking that I would want to do that. Neither do many other Americans. The muslims have to realize that not all Americans are out to get the whole Islam culture. The worst part about it is that the action of one Man who used his freedom of the press to get out his message would risk the safety of all of America. The article said, "If he'd gone through with it, it would have been tantamount to war," the cleric said in the coastal town of Lhokseumawe. "A war that would have rallied Muslims all over the world." It shows how much the words of one man can get blown out of proportion. Muslims should feel as welcome as other people to live in America. They should not feel that they must protest and fight for their freedom.
Another fight that can relate is the one between the Israelis and Palestinians. They have been fighting for all of history about who should own Israel. The difference between the building of the mosque near ground zero, and the settling in the city of Jerusalem is that the Israeli Palestinian fight has biblical connections to the location desired. Jerusalem is mentioned in both of their religion's holy texts, and they both feel entitled to the land that is there. I am not sure if it is just me, but I haven't read any part in the quaran connecting to the land that ground zero is built on. All the mosque would be doing in that location is upsetting people with personal stories towards the 9/11 attacks. With no spiritual connection to build the mosque on that piece of land, why not build it in a place that it can sit peacefully with less prejudices? I am against the burning of the quaran, for it symbolizes the prejudice against an innocent religion, while I am also against the mosque being built by ground zero. Though these men wouldn't get the mosque in their desired spot, less public argument would be caused if it were to be somewhere else. This one man should not have gone as far to create a fear of public security, which should not have made president Obama comment on the matter. Are people forgetting about the separation of church and state?




http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23360 

Thomas Paine: The American Crisis

Thomas Paine wrote out to "General Washington's demoralized troops at Valley Forge (AR 50)" to express his desire for American freedom. He began by telling us of his beliefs about God's power over the war. He believed that the higher being wouldn't let men die if it weren't for a good cause in the end. He then goes on to talk about his country and that they have to put all they can into this war if they want to keep a free country. He expresses this by saying, "...I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake" (AR 52). If they could win, the prize would be more than rewarding. Later in his letter he refers to some of the absurd laws that the British had put on them. One of them was how a British soldier could invade any home at any time and do whatever they wanted to do. He said that the idea of that happening to his home put him over the edge. We read about this law in another passage when someone was arguing against it also. Paine's opinion is that he is not a strong believer of war, but when his life is at stake he will act against it. The introduction to Thomas Paine's life is very interesting. He was involved with both the American and French Revolution. I have never realized that both Revolutions went on at about the same time. I have learned that Thomas Paine was one of the world's greatest political propagandists.

The American Reader