Of Mosques, Burning Qur'ans, and Rights v. Responsibilities

This will be an odd article. Usually, I discuss economics and rights, here, and how they intersect. Today, however, I'm going to discuss something unusual, especially for Americans. Instead of civil rights, I'm going to discuss civic responsibilities.

At the moment, you are undoubtedly aware of two issues in the news: the proposed controversial mosque to be built near Ground Zero (9/11) in Manhattan by Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, and the proposed burning of the Qur'an by radical cult leader Rev. Terry Jones.

Just moments ago, I learned from ABC News that cult leader Jones has called off his planned book burning. It also reports that Jones, as he reports, has spoken with Imam Rauf, who has agreed to not build the mosque near Ground Zero. Jones says he and Rauf will meet in Manhattan on Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the September 11 massacres, and talk.

First, if the ABC story is true, this is a significant moment in US history. Cooler heads have prevailed. I'm not sure why or how they came to this sensible choice, but they have.

This brings me to the original intention of this discussion.

The choice for both men and their respective congregations was seemingly paradoxical. It was between the exercise of civil rights and civic responsibilities. The issue at hand is that, at times, we must choose between civil rights and doing what is right. And, these are not always the same thing.

Civil rights include things like speaking freely, voting, being safe in our papers and persons (including civil peace and personal privacy), and worshiping a deity or not as we see fit.

Civic responsibilities include things like each of us keeping the peace, going to war to preserve our nation, not polluting, and not using our rights when it serves a greater good.

The civically responsible thing for cult leader Jones to do is not burn the Qur'an. Though he and his flock have the right to do so, they have a responsibility to the greater good not to do so. The civically responsible thing for Imam Rauf to do is not build the mosque near Ground Zero. Though he and his flock have the right to do so, as NY city zoning laws tell us they do, they have a responsibility to the greater good not to do so.

In the US, though, the line between rights and responsibilities has always been skewed. It usually veers off, at least philosophically if not in reality, in favor of personal rights. This bias comes from the flames of tyranny in which our nation was born and reborn, Phoenix-like, out of the ashes of Europeans subjugated by a king, Indian nations conquered by federal troops, Africans enslaved by Massachusettans and southern whites, a whole nation enslaved by the 10th amendment, and the majority of people continually repressed by industrialists.

These rights are considered so important, we and our forebears have spelled them out as best we could in our federal and state constitutions.

However, for these rights to be preserved, for these rights to continue to exist, each of us must defend them.

Ah ha!

With written-down rights come written-down, but, more rightly, implied responsibilities. We find them written down in the preamble to the Constitution. Government must provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (future generations).

Yet in order for government to do these things and for the Bill of Rights to be in force at all in our democratic republic, the people must provide and defend them. The latter, defense of rights, flows naturally from the former, the existence of rights. It is just common sense.

Next, for government of the people to be secure, prosperous, and rights-bearing, we must defend the government that defends the rights. In a democratic republic, the people are supposed to both form and defend the government. So, here we find a second implied responsibility: national defense.

Let's look at a few other written-down rights. We are told our bodies, stuff (papers), homes, and privacy have a right to be secure. In other words, we have a right to have peace within our country, within our lives. And, common sense tells us we are responsible for providing and keeping the peace.

The how for keeping the peace, however, is not spelled out. Perhaps the founders thought that each new generation would figure that out for themselves, based on their needs. Perhaps they thought we would understand that, at times, peace is created by forgoing the exercise of our rights, that we have a responsibility to consider and work for the greater good, bypassing use of these rights when they will not create the greater good. 

Regardless of what the founders thought, on a practical level, we have to find a way to be at peace with each other. And, as the Buddha supposedly said, "To move forward, one must always give up something." I think he meant that in a karmic sense, but I think it works in the physical world, too.

It seems the way to be at peace in society is sometimes found by not exercising civil rights when it is the civically responsible thing to do. Not always, but sometimes. 

And, this is most definitely one of those sometimes.

If the ABC story is true, I am glad. It seems these two men put aside their pride and rights claims, and yielded to a greater responsibility. They found the proper balance between rights and responsibilities, and the world and our nation are better for it.




--- What was the original American Aurora? The Aurora was a newspaper published by Benjamin Franklin Bache , a grandson of Benjamin Franklin. The Aurora was published in Philadelphia, our nation's capitol at the time.

The Aurora was highly critical of what Bache felt was the tyrannous Federalist governments of presidents Washington and Adams.

The result? Adams imprisoned Bache for sedition, where he languished, awaiting trial, until his death from yellow fever at age 29.