Soccer Dad

What's so funny about peace, love and a mosque near ground zero?

In an editorial today, the Washington Post asks Where are the Republicans who will reject pandering and prejudice?

BROADLY SPEAKING, there seem to be three strands of argument against building a mosque or Muslim community center two blocks from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan.

The first is that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and killed almost 3,000 people there in 2001 really did represent Islam and that to pretend otherwise is a dangerous delusion. The second is that, no, al-Qaeda does not speak for Islam, but many people -- including survivors and relatives of the victims -- naturally associate the two, and therefore it would be insensitive to locate anything Islamic so close to the scene of the crime. The third, for many politicians, seems to be that most Americans oppose construction of the mosque, and therefore opposition is useful (for Republicans on the attack) or safe (for Democrats cowering in a corner).

All three of these are objectionable.

So then there is no debating the wisdom of placing a mosque near where Osama bin Laden's henchman killed 3000 people. Glad to know that the editors of the Post are so openminded. I thought that dissent was an important part of the American way of life. But apparently some things are so sacrosanct that they may not be debated.

Still let me try.

For one thing, I don't find the second reason for objecting to Imam Rauf's mosque objectionable. Perhaps, if Imam Rauf was who the editors of the Post say he is - a true moderate who believes in peaceful coexistence - then that argument wouldn't hold much water.

But in a number of ways Imam Rauf has shown that he is not the moderate he advertises himself to. As Charles Krauthammer noted, he told Ed Bradley that he considered the United States to be an "accessory" to 9/11. He refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. And I see from Roger Simon (something that Laura pointed out to me in an e-mail) that he doesn't believe in interfaith dialogue. Where, then, is the moderation that allowing him build a mosque will foster?

The editors of the Washington Post are remarkably incurious about these matters. That is, of course, their right. But it hardly justifies their painting those who disagree with them as bigots who oppose the free exercise of religion. After all a large percentage of Americans find the notion of the mosque near ground zero to be objectionable.

James Taranto put his finger on what bothers me most about the Post's attitude.

It reminds us of something Bob Tyrrell said about the left not long ago: "There is only one political value that they have stood by through three generations, and that is the political value of disturbing your neighbor." The pro-mosque left's pieties about "American ideals" have about as much to do with the reality of the controversy as the fringe right's ravings about "Shariah." In truth, the left favors a mosque near Ground Zero simply because most Americans find the idea obnoxious.

The mosque's critics are expressing their views. Nothing more. As far as I can tell there are no legal ways to challenge its construction. But to ask Imam Rauf to show some sensitivity, is somehow offensive.

BTW, Imam Rauf is going to the Gulf to promote understanding.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Park51 Muslim community center and mosque proposed on a site near New York's Ground Zero, leaves this week for a three-nation Middle East tour on behalf of the State Department, during which he is expected to speak about the controversy surrounding his project.

So what wil he talk about? Will he complain about how he's persecuted by Americans? Or will he praise America for allowing citizens to object to their government's action without fear of reprisal, as they might find in a country like Bahrain?