More On Moslem Zoning – Texas Style

Most of the comments made in response to the “Moslem Zoning” satire I posted (see the post under the “lighter side”) were negative because they did not see apparently the connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I was surprised because no less than four people reviewed it prior to its publication. Among the pre-publication reviewers were an attorney who favored the zoning measure, a PhD and a journalism student. All of them saw the parallels I drew between City’s proposal to effectively zone out of town offensive sexual expression and, in the satire, the City’s proposal to effectively zone out of town offensive religious expression.

To me, it is all too obvious that free speech is intertwined with other issues, such as cultural and religious issues. When we feel a speaker should not be allowed to express a point of view in the manner he or she is fit to express it, either because it is not politically correct, appropriate, or too controversial we are limiting the debate coercively, rather than through argument, that is, reason.

After I published the Moslem zoning satire, however, another friend explained to me that the connection between freedom of religion and freedom of speech is not as self-evident to most people as it is to me. I should have explained that because the communication of ideas is an important part of the free exercise of just about any religion so too then is the unabridged freedom to express those ideas, however offensive and dangerous. And there is little doubt that radical Islamic fundamentalism espouses many ideas, often very graphically, that many in western culture find abhorrent, including very much myself.

Both pornographic and radical Islamic (and Christian) fundamentalist expression and practice are very offensive and threatening to many of us and merit our concern and criticism. The difference here is merely that censorship of sexually liberated heterosexual citizens is fashionable, but censorship of “oppressed” Moslems is not, particularly in politically correct Northampton. Some people have even speculated, albeit wrongfully, I believe, that anti-porn Noho feminists would conspire with radical Islamic extremists to ban exhibition of women’s bodies behind Muslim Sharia Law veils and scarfs.

So, freedom of religion is very much dependant upon freedom of speech, and attacks upon one often resemble the attacks upon the other. Just the other day, for example, I noticed a headline, “Residents use pig races to deter building of mosque.” The complaints and ostensive “concerns” of near by residents in that Texas town cited in the article echoed many of the complaints and concerns voiced by NPN and its supporters:

“ ‘Its not an appropriate place to have a [porn shop] … As a house of [sexually explicit material], they shouldn’t be disturbing the peach and tranquility of 15 homes’ … Neighbors tell us they’re concerned about traffic …” and no doubt about the people who will be working and visiting the mosque, which will also include a gym and school. Imagine the stuff they may be viewing and teaching there. Who knows what may happen if those ignorant murderous misogynous Moslems get to your kids!

One neighbor’s proposed solution in that Texas town was to hold Friday night pig races next to the mosque. In our case, we may lament “if only the City had such imagination.” But evidently, when dealing with the potential secondary effects of pornography, City Hall did not.

You might still be able to view the article at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=4808968&ft=print.

Yours/AC