IF all you wanted when you set up your subdivision was a nice place for people to vacate at eight and repopulate at six, sleep, and go do it again the next day, you may have zoned it for houses. Some places don't have zoning ordinances.
Then what happens when (fill in the blank) decides to erect a place to do their thing that does not fit in with your community's culture? A democrat (note the small "d") says: you get to ban it, as a community. The alternative is to not be able to ban anything. If we won't give official preference for religions, we should treat religions like other organizations: if the community doesn't want you as a neighbor, you're not allowed in.
The subdivision/bedroom community next to mine had a new neighbor announce they were going to move in. A strip club, less than a thousand feet from the nearest house. There was a huge protest from basically everyone within hollering distance, and the people behind the strip club took a hint. They weren't interested in controversy, they wanted profits (vs. years of legal battles to obtain said profit with controversy). No strip club there, next story. But in Tennessee, the neighbors are protesting against an adversary that doesn't give two cents about public sentiment. If you are willing to build a mosque over the objections of the local neighbors, that proves their point that you are in it for more than just a place to worship your made-up god, which is what Cain was trying to say on the Fox interview but he didn't get the right words out.
Not said (but reported): B4nz 4 m0sQ@s! zOMG!
Said perhaps less than perfectly well: Communities should be able to pick their neighbors. Once again, Herman Cain agrees with me and is right, although the easy line to demagogue makes him sound not only wrong but intolerant.
And of course, as the perceived slight in this case is against islam, it cannot be tolerated. Because tolerance means tolerating everything and everyone who agrees with you. Only.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment