And I don't call folks like him "liberals" (they're radical leftists), but Dorothy Rabinowitz nails it anyway:
Americans may have lacked for much in the course of their history, but never instruction in social values. The question today is whether Americans of any era have ever confronted the bombardment of hectoring and sermonizing now directed at those whose views are deemed insufficiently enlightened—an offense regularly followed by accusations that the offenders have violated the most sacred principles of our democracy.Long discussion of Mayor Michael Bloomberg (hardly a commie like Lemieux, but a fellow traveler in hopeless political correctness nevertheless), and then:
It doesn't take a lot to become the target of such a charge. There is no mistaking the beliefs on display in these accusations, most recently in regard to the mosque about to be erected 600 feet from Ground Zero. Which is that without the civilizing dictates of their superiors in government, ordinary Americans are lost to reason and decency. They are the kind of people who—as a recent presidential candidate put it—cling to their guns and their religion ....
In the plan for an Islamic center and mosque some 15 stories high to be built near Ground Zero, the full force of politically correct piety is on display along with the usual unyielding assault on all dissenters. The project has aroused intense opposition from New Yorkers and Americans across the country. It has also elicited remarkable streams of oratory from New York's political leaders, including Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.This should be a ragin' discussion all day, for example, at the far-left Salon, "Michael Bloomberg delivers stirring defense of mosque" (and the links at Memeorandum). Sigh. Those "enlightened" leftists. What would we do without them?
"What are we all about if not religious freedom?" a fiery Mr. Cuomo asked early in this drama. Mr. Cuomo, running for governor, has since had less to say.
The same cannot be said for Mr. Bloomberg, who has gone on to deliver regular meditations on the need to support the mosque, and on the iniquity of its opponents. In the course of a speech at Dartmouth on July 16 he raised the matter unasked, and held forth on his contempt for those who opposed the project and even wanted to investigate the funding: "I just think it's the most outrageous thing anybody could suggest." Ground Zero is a "very appropriate place'' for a mosque, the mayor announced, because it "tells the world" that in America, we have freedom of religion for everybody.
Here was an idea we have been hearing more and more of lately—the need to show the world America's devotion to democracy and justice, also cited by the administration as a reason to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. Who is it, we can only wonder, that requires these proofs? What occasions these regular brayings on the need to show the world the United States is a free nation?
It's unlikely that the preachments now directed at opponents of the project by Mayor Bloomberg and others will persuade that opposition. Those fighting the building recognize full well the deliberate obtuseness of Mr. Bloomberg's exhortations, and those of Mr. Cuomo and others: the resort to pious battle cries, the claim that antagonists of the plan stand against religious freedom. They note, especially, the refusal to confront the obvious question posed by this proposed center towering over the ruins of 9/11.
It is a question most ordinary Americans, as usual, have no trouble defining. Namely, how is it that the planners, who have presented this effort as a grand design for the advancement of healing and interfaith understanding, have refused all consideration of the impact such a center will have near Ground Zero? Why have they insisted, despite intense resistance, on making the center an assertive presence in this place of haunted memory? It is an insistence that calls to mind the Flying Imams, whose ostentatious prayers—apparently designed to call attention to themselves on a U.S. Airways flight to Phoenix in November 2006—ended in a lawsuit. The imams sued. The airlines paid.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser—devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy—says there is every reason to investigate the center's funding under the circumstances. Of the mosque so near the site of the 9/11 attacks, he notes "It will certainly be seen as a victory for political Islam."
The center may be built where planned. But it will not go easy or without consequence to the politicians intent on jamming the project down the public throat, in the name of principle. Liberal piety may have met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come to know pure demagoguery when they hear it. They have had, of late, plenty of practice.
4 comments:
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals will defend a religion that stands for everything they claim to oppose.
What would you do without them? You'd ban any religion you dislike from building a cultural center anywhere you don't want it, Don. I think that's obvious.
"...this proposed center towering over the ruins of 9/11."
Two and a half blocks away, with no direct view or line of site of the big hole in the ground that is still our 9/11 memorial. How many blocks away would be acceptable to you, Don? 5? 10? All I need is for you to pick an arbitrary number that equals tolerance and understanding.
But I'm willing to bet that you won't. It's much easier to just bitch and whine, isn't it sweetheart?
I have a suggestion JBW -how about not building another Muslim "cultural center" anywhere. How is that for tolerance and understanding?
That's exactly the level of tolerance and understanding, not to mention intelligence, I've come to expect from people like you, BC.
But how about this: no more religious buildings at all? I think you people already have plenty of places in which to talk to your invisible friends. More steakhouses and wine bars will make this country a better place, mark my words.
Post a Comment