Sunday, September 05, 2010

What's Legal, VS. What's Right

Here are some examples (I'm sure you can find some of your own):

A grown man in bed with a 12 year old boy who is the neighbor's son. Nothing illegal happened, mind you. Do we need a law written to explicitly say that this is bad behavior? Do we have to have photographic evidence of the 12 year old boy? Oh, the man was wearing shorts? That's better then. 
Parents bring a 5 year old to a violent, Rated R movie at 11 pm on a school night. Again. Not illegal. Perfectly legal. 

The neighbors shine a light from their property that blasts into another neighbor's window. It's their property. Why should anyone be bothered?
A hugely pregnant woman gets on the subway where a fit teenage boy sits in an easily accessible seat. He doesn't move. He was there first. It's his seat. He's not breaking any rules.
Here's the last example:

There is a terrorist action against a specific location.  Body parts are still being found.  It is a mass graveyard.  A religion wants to build a "healing place" on the site (not directly at the center, but clearly part of the grounds).
  1. Occupy anyway, despite impassioned protests by those related to the dead.  After all, it's your RIGHT.
  2. Leave the site, and locate somewhere else in the neighborhood.  You may have the RIGHT, but you are also CULTURALLY SENSITIVE to the feelings of the relations about how to honor their dead.
Option 1)  The Ground Zero mosque backers and their liberal allies.
Option 2)  The Carmelite nuns at Auschwitz.


No, THAT group of Muslims didn't personally smash a plane into the Towers, but the iman leans too close to alliance to the ones that did:

Way back on September 30, 2001, Feisal Abdul Rauf was interviewed on 60 Minutes by host Ed Bradley.  Their verbatim  dialogue from this CBS News transcript concluded:
BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
No nuance.  Just over-the-top, in-your-face, sympathy for the devil.


So, no, I don't want to see him build his mosque on the site that airplane parts hit.

Share

No comments: