And it seems to be heating up as the anniversary of 9/11 approaches. I suspect dialogue with liberals on this topic is impossible due to what I call the 'two planets problem': conservatives and liberals live on different planets. You could cash out the metaphor by saying that we differ radically in temperament, sense of life, values, and assumptions. But I am getting e-mail from decent and well-intentioned left-leaners who disagree with me about the GZM, so here goes one more time.
Let's be clear about what the issue is. To put it as crisply as possible, it is about propriety, not legality. No one denies that Imam Rauf et al. have the legal right to build their structure on the land they have purchased. The point is rather that the construction in that place is improper, unwise, provocative, insensitive, not conducive to comity. To put it aphoristically, what one has a right to do is not always right to do. But that is to put it too mildly: the construction of a mosque on that hallowed ground is an outrage to the memories of those who died horrendous deaths on 9/11 because of the acts of Muslim terrorists, terrorists who didn't just happen to be Muslims, but whose terrorist deeds were a direct consequence of their Islamist beliefs.
Now at this point you either get it or you don't. A majority of the American people get it, but Obama doesn't. Lacking the spine to address the real issue -- the issue of propriety, not legality -- he gave us a lecture on freedom of religion and the First Amendment. Besides being b-o-r-i-n-g, his pathetic homily amounted to the logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi. This fallacy is committed when, mistaking the thesis your interlocutor is advancing, you respond to a distinct thesis that he is not advancing. We who oppose the GZ mosque do not maintain that its construction is illegal; and because we do not maintain this, Obama and his leftist cohort commit ignoratio elenchi when they insist that it is legal.
Here again we note the 'two planets' problem.' Leftists just cannot grasp what the issue is as conservatives see it. Since they do not feel the impropriety of a mosque's being built near Ground Zero, they cannot believe that conservatives feel it either; and so they must interpret the conservative response in some sinister way: as an expression of xenophobia or 'Islamophobia' or nativism or a desire to strip Muslim citizens of their First Amendment rights.
Supposedly, a major motive behind the construction is to advance interfaith dialogue, to build a bridge between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities. But this reason is so patently bogus, so obviously insincere, that no intelligent person can credit it. For it is a well-known fact that a majority of the American people vehemently oppose the GZM. Given this fact, the construction cannot possibly achieve its stated end of advancing mutual understanding. So if Rauf and Co. were sincere, they would move to another site.
Here is a little analogy. Suppose you and I have a falling out, and then I make an attempt at conciliation. I extend my hand to you. But you have no desire for reconciliation and you refuse to shake hands with me. So I grab your hand and force you to shake hands with me. Have I thereby patched things up with you? Obviously not: I have made them worse. Same with the GZM. Once it became clear that the the American people opposed the GZM, Rauf and Co. either should have nixed the project or else had the cojones to say: we have a legal right to build here and we will do so no matter what you say or how offended you are.
As it is, we have reason to suspect Rauf et al. of deception.
Recent Comments