While it is often impossible to be certain what motivates a terrorist, one can be fairly certain that one motivation is to disrupt the "normal way of life" that Americans experience.
While an act of terrorism is always abhorrent, how we react often has a far different impact than is intended.
This is often referred to as "The Law of Unintended Circumstances," and what it means is often an action that a country or politicians take in order to react to an act of terrorism, often causes far reaching unplanned and unintended circumstances.
The late, great comedian George Carlin made famous the line, "The terrorists win," referring to whenever our country alters our democratic traditions with the intent of making us "safer," indirectly "hands the terrorists a victory.
" If the intention of terrorism is to disrupt the democratic American way of life, when we restrict liberties "to make us safer," we also alter our democratic tradition of freedom.
Politicians should realize that while we should always be vigilant and defend our American way of life, we must assure that we preserve our democratic tradition of freedoms protected by United States law.
It is understandable that most politicians will generally "talk tough" against terrorism, if America strips itself of protected freedom, we have done more to harm American tradition than the terrorists! The recent controversy about the proposed mosque in lower Manhattan, relatively near Ground Zero, is an example of how emotions, grief, rhetoric and politics impacts open discussion.
While it might be argued, and the argument has legitimacy, that building a mosque so close to the sight of such a horrendous terrorist site, and so much horror, is insensitive, there is certainly an issue of legality.
Since the Moslem religion is not only a recognized religion, but a major one, if we have the right to restrict a mosque because there have been Moslem terrorists, then can a community exclude religions such as Judaism, Catholicism, Christianity, etc.
, because there have also been fringe characters involved in dishonorable and tragic behavior? For example, if a community with numerous anti-Semites residents, exclude a Jewish synagogue on the basis of a perceived wrong from history? While it sounds "far-fetched," can someone use events from the Crusades, etc.
, as a reason to exclude a Catholic church? If we believe in the right to freedom of religion, isn't it the correct behavior that, even though I may oppose a religion or disagree with it, that I should still defend the American right to freedom of religion that protects someones right to worship as they please.
Even the most ardent anti-mosque proponent for lower Manhattan, will admit that the number of Moslems that are either terrorists or agree with terrorists are an extraordinary minority of Moslems.
We can certainly discuss whether it is insensitive to build a mosque in such a "hallowed" area, but let us not argue that they don't have the right.
We must always be careful not to encourage prejudice and bias against any people or group, for any reason.
Bias and prejudice is always wrong and unproductive behavior.
While undoubtedly, many individuals can feel that a mosque might be far more appropriate built elsewhere, where can we draw the lines of what's proper and what is simply prejudice? Instead of using prejudice and bigotry as our weapons against the terrorists, we should rather use the superiority and "right" of the freedoms that America offers that no other nation matches.
This issue is complex, and we must not react to terrorists simplistically!