The 9/11 attacks were the focal point of the conflict between the United States and the Middle east. Its its immediate effects, such as loss of human life, the crash of the economy, and widespread paranoia, were huge. Its after-effect, however, were great as well. Specifically, one effect was of the anti-Islamic sentiment that gained momentum. More recently, though, this issue has again escalated in the official "Burn a Qu'ran Day" planned by Reverend Terry Jones. This was in remembrance of 9/11 and the victims of it and was planned to occur on September 11 of this year. And despite death threats, Terry Jones said that they would burn the 200 copies of Qu'ran either way. Condemned by Hillary Clinton and various factions of Middle eastern press, Terry Jones adamantly states that he will press on so that he would be able to convey a message. However, the article addresses the fact that the United States is a nation that supports and encourages all types of religion. There was much commotion about this, internationally as well. For example, muslims from afghanistan lined up and burned effigies of Jones while chanting "Death to America".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/08/hillary-clinton-plan-to-burn-quran-disrespectful
In the other half of the world, many muslims wonder why the United States does not ban Reverend Terry Jones from doing this, as they have explicitly promised violence do to this action. And this is because of the american freedom to do, and to express themselves. The aljazeera article, as linked, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/201099184720360588.html then continues to explain the american right of freedom to express oneself, religiously in whatever manner is deemed appropriate by the person.
Having read both articles, I find it truly amazing how different they are. First of all, the western article, from the Guardian focuses in on the events, while the al jazeera text focuses in on the legal aspect of why the american government would even allow such an event to occur. However, it is interesting that the Guardian article shows that actually, the us government, really, is trying to "prevent" it in its own way. Because who wants to have to undergo both domestic and international scorn, as was seen from Hillary Clinton from within and other Muslims internationally. One difference is that, the al jazeera article makes it seem obvious that such events would be banned when it comes to religion and the Qu'ran. However, in this case, the "government" did not allow it.
No comments:
Post a Comment