Four case studies:
1.Mormons performing baptisms for the dead for jews who died in the holocaust.
2. Carmilite nuns moving into an abandoned Nazi death camp and praying for holocaust survivors.
3. Muslims building a mosque two blocks from ground zero.
4. Drawing cartoons of the prophet Mohammad or Allah.
In each case, one party takes offense at something the other party is legally entitled to do. Stop doing that; it offends me! In each case the offending party can reply: don't choose to be offended!
Here's the challenge: in which of these cases is the offended party justified and in which case is the offended party being thin-skinned? What principles help you differentiate between the cases?
4 comments:
I'll get back to you if I can come up with any principles for differentiation, but as far as the mosque is concerned..it just seems like a strange decision for a group (moderate American Muslims) that hopes to be better understood and accepted. Why not move it a mile away or something. That's what the nuns ended up doing. Sure they have the right to build their mosque there, but what is their reasoning?
Good point Brett, in the Mosque scenario it feels like a deliberate statement. I might only say that because I am the thinned skinned one.
Drawing cartoons though.. that is funny
One potential principles is: actors should avoid offending others, unless the cost of doing so is too great, or their is no way to accomplish what their goal without offending.
1. There is no way for mormons to accomplish their ordinance without offending, because the ordinance itself is giving offense, so mormons should be allowed to perform baptisms for the dead.
2. Nuns can just as easily pray for holocaust victims (typo in original?) in a different location. Unless there is some catholic doctrine I'm unaware of, the nuns can accomplish their goal with modest inconvenience(?) of leaving the location in question.
3. There probably is a property that can accommodate Muslims that is farther from ground zero. Wish some inconvenience the Muslims can accommodate the protesters.
4. Drawing the cartoons was intended to offend or provoke, so the goal itself was illegitimate.
Here's another thought. The only relevant question is that of property rights. Property law is a pretty good aproximate of line between actual harm and perceived harm.
1. Mormons can perform baptisms for the dead on their property because they own it.
2. Carmilite nuns can pray at death camps to the extent allowed by property law. Perhaps if this is government owned land then the government should make appropriate restrictions based upon the purpose of the property--like if the property is a public museum then prayer may be inappropriate.
3. If they own the property they can build it.
4. If you own the paper you can print it.
Post a Comment