“Meanwhile, hiding behind rhetoric about the sanctity of religious expression when the Left has been trying for years to scrub the public square of religious expression is ludicrously hypocritical. Hiding behind the sanctity of private property rights when the Left normally offers, at best, one grudging cheer for private property is even worse. When local communities fend off Wal-Marts, the Left cheers. When campus goons throw pies or shout down speakers, liberals yawn. But when nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose building a mosque at Ground Zero, it’s nothing more than nativism and bigotry run amok? How does that work? The Left is constantly lecturing America about sensitivity to this, that, and the other thing. Well, how about sensitivity to many Americans who think this idea is offensive? Why must opponents be cast as either bigots or ignoramuses?” –Jonah Goldberg
Search
First, I have to say that this reads like an essay a high school student would write the night before his homework is due. Just an observation.
So, to recap -
Goldberg apparently agrees with mosque supporters on both “the sanctity of religious expression” and “property rights”. He disagrees on the subject of sensitivity (he thinks we need to be more sensitive), on pie-throwing (he’s against it) and on Wal-Marts (he’s for ‘em).
I think we can safely leave aside the vital issues of pie-throwing and Wal-marts for now. And that leaves, according to Goldberg, only one point of dispute between him and the 30% of Americans who support the building of the mosque - sensitivity.
OK. I think we can address that.
Goldberg is correct (even a blind squirrel…) in stating that the Left has a history of advocating sensitivity. Take the Confederate flag as an example. Everyone has the right to fly the Confederate flag, which is undeniably insensitive to black Americans. And the Left has been (justifiably, I think) vocal on this issue. So Goldberg has a point.
So is the Left now being hypocritical in ignoring the sensitivity of the opponents of the mosque? Well, if you expect the Left to be engaged in defending the sensitivities of the majority, then - Yes. If that’s what you expect, then Goldberg is right. But that’s not what I expect, and it’s not what the Left has been doing for the last forty years. What they have been doing is defending the rights and, yes, sensitivities of minorities - gays, Muslims, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, the poor, immigrants, atheists, working women, etc. And that’s what they’re doing now. Meanwhile, Goldberg is defending the white, Christian, male voting bloc - which is his right - just as National Review always has. No one is being hypocritical here - neither the Left in ignoring the 70%, nor Goldberg in his newly discovered sensitive side.
Which finally brings me to my point.
Soon, this whole situation will be resolved one way or another. Fox News viewers will be outraged about something else and life will go on. Some Republican candidates may use the mosque controversy in the next election, but it probably won’t resonate much - by that time the outrage will be something else - Was that a Black Panther salute that Michelle Obama made?! And after the next election, no one will care at all about the “Ground Zero Mosque”… except for American Muslims, who will now have moved pretty much squarely into the Democratic Party, along with working women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, the poor, atheists, immigrants, Jews, etc.
Here’s a better written and much better argued National Review article on the Burlington Coat Mosque from Josh Barro.
Click here
(I can only assume Barro endorses pie-throwing.)
Okay!! So you don’t view it as a poor attempt at foreign policy public relations then?
Even though The State Department sponsored Feisel Abdul Rauf in a tour of the Middle East.
@Fernando,
Assuming the question was directed at me -
I really don’t have enough information to even begin to understand that question, let alone respond to it.
In order to answer the question at the very least I would need to know what “it” refers to, who the “poor attempt” was initiated by, and why you consider it “poor”.
LaurenceB,
Fundamentally I agree with you. I dont think anything should be done to prevent the Mosque from being built. My point wasn’t in advocating against it, my point was in showing how quickly liberals were in defending it - when, especially in other cases, its liberals who stand on the side of weakening private property and religion in the public square.
If this would have been a Wal-Mart, for example, or even a Catholic Church, the tables could have easily been reversed.
My point was that any Muslim center near ground zero would not be tolerated by the American Public.
We had a fight not so long ago over Dubai port deal of which it did not pass, and that was no where near ground zero.
I was attacking this administrations failure to understand the American Peoples view toward the Middle East.
It really was never a left wing vs right view.
If this was a high school essay, I wouldn’t give it a good grade. For one thing, the logic is bizarre, something like “the left is illogical and intolerant so we can sometimes be that way to.” But more importantly, this is clearly one of those pseudo-issues designed to distract people from real issues. It’s lashing out at some vague “them”, which has intentionally been undefined. The whole “war on terror” escapade deserves scare quotes–we’re fighing a so-called “war” on so-called “terror” based on sentiments of those in the so-called “heartland.” Stripped of all the double mirrors and facades, the U.S. is simply operating as it has since the mid-1800s with armies posted throughout the world fighing for economic interests for the benefit of small groups of people with economic interests in those areas. This particular psuedo-issue might have a modicum of interest if the mosque builders were some radical sect preaching the establishment of some worldwide califate. Instead, they are (from what I’ve heard) very liberal Muslims that Al Qaeda would seek to destroy if they ever ran the world. At any rate, what a bunch of silliness!
HP,
I would be interested in hearing of a case where the entire liberal movement mobilized to prohibit the building of a Catholic Church - or even a Walmart, for that matter.
Of course, there has never been such a case.
Indeed, the idea is simply laughable that liberals from Harry Reid to Michael Moore would ever spend anywhere near the time and effort to stop the construction of a Catholic Church that is currently being expended by virtually everyone on the right from Gingrich to Goldberg.
And, speaking to Mr. Goldberg’s deep, intellectual debating “point”, they don’t seem to be coming out in droves to endorse pie-throwing either.
Fernando,
If it is true that “any Muslim Center near Ground Zero would not be tolerated by the American public”, then that is truly a sad commentary on the American public, not on their leaders, in my humble opinion.
LaurenceB you will get no arguments from me on that “then that is truly a sad commentary on the American public, not on their leaders, in my humble opinion”.
I would have preferred a multi-religious center of all the main religions.
It would have sent a message to all the other countries that all religions have a stake in peace.
I like the idea. Maybe someone should build a multireligious center somewhere on that sacred soil. Does the U.S. even half multireligious centers? It sounds a bit to laissez-faire to me.