Huckleberry Finn and the Mosque

In recent decades, Mark Twain’s classic novel Huckleberry Finn has faced numerous banning attempts, often because of its profuse (and dated) use of the n-word. For that reason, it can be an uncomfortable read. The story, however, remains sublime, and the one character most frequently referred to by the notorious epithet can rightly be considered the book’s hero.

When Jim has his own freedom almost within reach, he runs into the runaway Huck. Jim knows that Huck’s father is dead (Huck is not yet privy to this information), so he also knows that this 14-year-old boy is alone in the world and that the world is not kind to 14-year-old boys like him. Jim sacrifices what he believes to be his one chance at freedom in order to protect the kid. The choice is heartbreaking and the sacrifice is noble and sad. Jim, through his choice, demonstrates the better nature of humanity that eludes most of the other characters. He made his sacrifice voluntarily, without being asked. He did it because it was the right thing to do.

Huckleberry Finn asks thoughtful readers under which circumstances they might be willing to sacrifice their own freedom.

Recent events beg different but related questions: Under what circumstances would you ask someone else to sacrifice their rights or freedoms? And what is the cost of setting that precedent? I submit that the criteria for requesting fellow citizens to suspend or sacrifice their rights should be at least as demanding as those for which one would willingly sacrifice one’s own rights without being asked to do so. I fear that I am in the minority.

The so-called Ground Zero Mosque has an unfortunate number of people insisting that Muslim Americans give up their right to build their community center in its proposed location because it is insensitive to the feelings of 9/11 survivors and victims’ families. (It should be noted that 9/11 survivors and victims’ families are not of one opinion on the matter.) Is “insensitivity” really the threshold we as a nation want to establish for requesting the suspension of rights? We claim that we believe all people have inalienable Constitutional rights, but too often we are willing to ask some groups (Muslims, gays, atheists, blacks, Latinos, Jews, Japanese, women, etc.) to serve their country, our country, by giving up the rights our soldiers, their soldiers, are fighting and dying to protect; and each time we make that request, we step a little farther away from the American ideal.

The President, in keeping with his Oath of Office, defended the Constitutional right of Muslim Americans to build their mosques. He later backpedaled, insisting that he was speaking only about the legality of it, and not the wisdom. Obviously, the same First Amendment that guarantees Muslims the right to build a place of worship wherever they want also guarantees others to express their opposition to it. But if you question the wisdom of building a mosque a few blocks away from Ground Zero, should you not also question the wisdom of opposing it?