Charles Krauthammer weighs in on the Islamic Center near Ground Zero, Michael Kinsley responds, and Krauthammer responds to Kinsley's response.
I think it's sporting of me to give Krauthammer two swings, because I'm on Kinsley's side. This whole notion that Muslims have a right to build their Islamic Center within a couple of blocks of Ground Zero, but should be turned down anyway, since there are "sensibilities" and "sensitivities" to consider--how lame is that? It's like saying you have a right to free speech, so long as it doesn't offend too many sensibilities. Are our constitutional freedoms actual or theoretical?
All the talk about "sensitivity" and "hallowed ground" is a way of not talking about the real reasons for opposition to the center, which, as Kinsley indicates, are pretty clearly bigotry and political opportunism. Ground Zero is sacred territory, like the Gettysburg battlefield, and, therefore, Islamic community centers, but not strip clubs, must find another place to operate. The argument is so weak that we are entitled to attribute the viewpoint to less respectable sources. The wingers have put aside their usual distaste for sex-oriented businesses, which evidently are not up to Islamic community centers in the sacrilege department, and abandoned the principle of "local control" in order to win the votes of Billy-Bobs two thousand miles from Manhattan.
The principle underlying the phrase "defining deviance down" applies. It's bad enough that Republicans so casually trash the Constitution. Worse yet is that no one should be surprised.
Comments