Mosque or No Mosque in Wallingford

Snuggled into the New England landscape, the tiny town of Wallingford is once again embroiled in a struggle between change and the status quo. An immigrant resident of an adjoining town is vying to place a mosque in a historical building located in a residential neighborhood, and the residents are having none of it.

Local newspapers gave a front page review of Farid's life. It is the classic American immigrants' story. He immigrated with his family from Pakistan when he was eleven years old. His family started a small flower shop and prospered with long hours and Spartan economy. When Farid wanted to start his own business, his mother happily produced the seed money and his resulting success was stellar.

Farid then founded a Muslim school in another adjoining town naming it in honor of his now deceased mother. His ambition is to establish this mosque in his mother's name, as well. Curiously, Farid decided to place both the school and the mosque in adjoining towns rather than his own upscale community. Instead he chose a community with a long history of maintaining the status quo.

Wallingford has always resisted change - from the no computers in the town hall debate to the debate against a holiday for Martin Luther King's birthday. So, as expected Farid and his supporters cry prejudice while the Wallingford opponents decry the traffic and the expected noise disturbances in their peaceful residential neighborhood.

I can understand the positions of both sides. As Wallingford is labeled as discriminating, I wonder how such a virtue as discrimination has taken on such a sinister meaning. We have long applauded gourmets, designers, architects, authors, and other creative people with their discriminating palates, yet this word can be leveled against anyone who will not comply with an other's opinion to manipulate the outcome of a debate.

Discrimination is not motivated by hate - as some would have you believe - but by the delicate balance between fear and embrace. To those evolutionists, discrimination is the tool that allowed the evolution of man. To creationists, discrimination allowed the survival of each race. Without discrimination, we would have been eaten by saber tooth tigers or poisoned by nightshade. Discrimination is a natural instinct and to legislate the extinction of this discernment will surely eradicate humankind.

My proposal for the stand-off in Wallingford: Allow the mosque on Leigus Road if a corresponding synagogue can be built next door.

A Need For Radical Change

While celebrating the 232ND birthday of the United States, it is not the hot dogs, apple pie and fireworks that will unite us as one country on this Fourth of July. A national election looms large in the next few months, and I believe I can safely voice the consensus that America needs a radical change.

Elephant or Donkey, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, or just plain Pachyderm and Jackass - who will bring us change? My answer is both; for the appropriate question is not who will bring about the most radical change, but who will bring about the most workable change? Who is willing to try anything, regardless of set backs and numerous mistakes, to bring about that change?

Let us take the most agreed upon need for change in America today - rising fuel costs. A local paper ran an opinion poll - "Should American lower fuel costs by conservation and renewable energy sources, or should we allow the drilling of previously restricted sites?" Infuriated by the cost of expired trees to publish such a narrowly worded poll, I put the cherished paper to better use (recycling) and started this blog.

Consider if Edison limited his exploratory quest: to find a proper filament for his light bulb, to gold or silver. Or, consider if our founding fathers only considered negotiations with King George over the issue of Taxation without Representation instead of total independence. For radical vision always precedes radical change. I say let's do it all -try everything and see if it sticks.

Both our political candidates have a plan for lowering fuel costs and curiously they are both named Cap and Trade Energy Solutions. However, in reading the two plans - and believe me these plans are both outlined in the most general of terms - the Jackass plan is based on punishment and the Pachyderm plan is based on rewards. So readers, if we are the children and the government is our parent - which would you choose for change - punishment for using too large a carbon footprint, or rewards for utilizing less carbon?

To those parents out there - which worked best with your own children? If you want change - try everything - for there is never just one solution to any given problem.