what's legal v. what's right
Heather Higgins ·
Aug 16, 2010 at 6:29pm
Krauthammer hits a home run again, taking on the sanctimonious like Bloomberg over the mosque that is, for all intents and purposes, at Ground Zero. (Indeed, one begins to believe that if its promoters didn't also believe that site to qualify as Ground Zero, they wouldn't pursue the effort.) One of the sad side effects of the suspension of judgement and sliding to legal norms is the idea that what is right is vastly more nuanced and complex than what is legal -- indeed, that it often involves higher claims of civility, courtesy, and morality. Supporting the erection of a mosque at Ground Zero is a sanctimonious act of contempt and incivility by cockalorums towards all who died there, (as well as a gesture of grand historic obtusness).
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: what's legal v. what's right
I was just just checking the Google Map of Atlanta, Georgia. Oddly enough, couldn't find a Sherman Street, Sherman Avenue, or Sherman Road. Probably too soon.
Re: what's legal v. what's right
Heather, your phrase "a sanctimonious act of contempt and incivility" hits it right on the head. What's been striking to me about this business all along is that it’s Muslims who are the most strident about the necessity for the rest of us to respect their sensitivities. Offending Muslims is a dangerous game. Just ask Theo van Gogh. Oh, right -- we can't.
The sensitivities of Americans in the GZM scenario are irrelevant, though. Even bringing them up -- noting the provocative nature of the mosque's planned site -- is a sign of the Americans’ disgraceful refusal to build bridges.
Lest anyone say I'm equating all Muslims with van Gogh's murderers, or with the persecutors of the Danish cartoonists, etc., I'm not. My point is the GZM people are pitching themselves as moderates who are trying to reach out to the victims of a massive crime perpetrated by their coreligionists. Doing so in a way that offends the victims as deeply as possible -- in a way that is, in fact, not just offensive but threatening – doesn't seem like moderate behavior. How on earth can they presume to dictate terms of rapprochement to the victims?
Re: what's legal v. what's right
Oh, and Heather -- thanks for teaching me the word "cockalorum."
May '10
Re: what's legal v. what's right
I thought it was an excellent piece by Charles Krauthammer. In the Park 51 thread I mentioned what I thought was an important point to consider: "Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction......as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. "
Shouldn't we consider the fact that the mosque may not remain in "moderate" hands?
Aug '10
Re: what's legal v. what's right
Charles Krauthammer is a national treasure, and should be granted the Medal of Freedom; but it will probably go to Cat Stevens first.
There's extreme narcissism at the root of Muslim leadership and their endless demands that we kowtow to their sensitivities. It's always something; Muhammad pix, head scarves, Sharia, stoning, beheading, and genital mutilation, 'honor' killing, or burkhas.
Who was the leader who instructed the head of NASA to build up the self-esteem of Muslims as a "first priority"? You're allowed one guess.