US principles make compromise tough
- Source: Global Times
- [08:09 September 03 2010]
- Comments
Plans to build a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero have split Americans, especially New Yorkers.
Among those opposing the development are some family members of those who died on 9/11 and politicians seeking to take electoral advantage of the emotions surrounding the question.
On the other are Americans who argue the constitution protects people of any faith who wanted to create a house of worship on private property.
No one wants to take a step back, and no progress toward compromise is made.
This deadlock has a particularly US flavor. In any other country, few developers would try to build a mosque close to such a sensitive site - the site of a deep wound inflicted on the city and the US by Muslim extremists.
But the US is a country which prides itself on individual freedoms and equal rights, and almost encourages people to refuse to soften their stance on such matters whatever the circumstances might be.
This insistence is often proven effective. We see the interrogation methods used on terrorist suspects questioned in the media, leading to change in what is allowed. Labor laws protect everyone, including those who are not allowed to work legally, and even the carriage horses hauling tourists in Central Park enjoy regular days off mandated by law.
Some of the protections are surprising or even baffling to some people from other cultures but they are also something to be admired. So the fact that there is even a debate over the proposed mosque is already a display of US strengths
But it may have also exposed some increasingly deep divisions in US society.
Like any deadlock, the only way to solve the problem is to find a middle ground. Even for Americans who are known more for their stubbornness than flexibility, compromise is not a foreign concept.
Pragmatic programs, such as the needle exchange program that is funded by the federal government to provide clean needles to drug abusers, are examples. To a hardliner it may be seen as an acceptance of continued drug use but to those who know the reality it is an acceptance that you have a chance to make the people concerned less prone to disease.
The final draft of the rebuilding plan of Ground Zero was nothing but a compromise of different stakeholders.
But unlike many other debates in the country, which are often simply one ideological belief against another, the fight over the proposed mosque cannot be separated from complex human emotions.
Freedom of religion, the weapon adopted by supporters of the mosque, would be non-debatable were it not for the painful memories of 9/11, particularly among those who lost their nearest and dearest.
But whether human emotions should be allowed to win out over logic is a hard question to answer for Americans. The issue is therefore testing fundamental US values like few others.
A byproduct of US belief in fairness and equality is their painstaking efforts to keep human influence away from these fundamental principles.
Jurors are selected to try to ensure they have no personal connections to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Political donations have to follow a set of strict criteria in an attempt to restrict influence peddling.
