Two Incidents that say volumes.

Muslims in New York City want to build a Mosque a couple of blocks north of what is called Ground Zero of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  If you have read the constitution, you should know that they have every right to build it there.  Certainly, there are a number of relatives, friends, and the like, of victims of the attack that do not want the Mosque to be built and they certainly have a right to their feelings and to express them.  President Obama has stated his opinion and reminded us of the constitutional right of the Muslims but does not state his opinion beyond that.

A minister in Florida decides that, in commemoration of the event, he was going to burn the Qur'an, considered by Muslims to be the final revelation of God and a sacred document.  Because of media attention this event gained world wide attention.  Threats of Muslims to murder Americans, soldiers fighting for the freedom other Muslims, Christians ministering to Muslims in need and the like, influenced the administration to have the Secretary of Defense  to ask the minister to cancel his event.  Certainly, it can be argued that the ministers action in scheduling such an event was in bad taste. 

Consider:
  • No one seems to be mentioning that this minister is exercising his constitutional right of free speech in his action.
  • The difference in the administrations treatment of the two situations.  It would appear that the administrations position depends more on groups' sizes than on individuals' equal protection under the law.  Interestingly, this point is supported by earlier actions, such as the administration's breaking contracts with investors to benefit trade unions.
  • Is the minister exercising his constitutional right? Is assigning the blame of intended actions of Muslims to this minister in Florida a part of President Obama's "collective salvation"?