A pretty effective video on why the proposed Ground Zero mosque should be moved elsewhere. Granted the appeal is based on the emotions of the people affected by the horror and loss of 9/11. But why shouldn't their strong feelings be respected?



To the movers and shakers behind the mosque it is reasonable to say, "Go ahead and offend these people. But do so knowing you lose the goodwill of millions of fair-minded Americans who resent having their tolerance and hospitality taken for granted."

UPDATE: Roger Kimball weighs in on the effort to enlist former President George W. Bush on the side of the mosquers. After 9/11 W. sure made an effort to show his support for American muslims and their rights. But as Roger points out, he muddied the waters a bit by claiming Islam in English means "peace," when in fact, it means "submission." Big difference there.

Roger sez:

My own view, which I’ve stated in this space before, is that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with “foundational Western values like free speech, the separation of church and state, and equality under the law. Such things are not simply missing from Islam: they are positively repudiated by Islam.”

In the September issue of The New Criterion (out soon at www.newcriterion.com), I weigh in on the controversy over Ground Zero Mosque, noting that, although it may soon recede from the headlines, it raises some very large issues concerning tolerance, the relation of rights to tolerable behavior, and the compatibility of Islam with liberal democracy. It also, as  Andrew C. McCarthy noted at NRO, “powerfully demonstrates” the growing divide between the American people and the progressive ruling class.”  

One side endeavors to defeat the enemies of freedom and tolerance. The other seeks to accommodate them, believing, McCarthy observes, that “they are moving us toward a better, smarter policy that will reduce the threat by making our enemies like us better.”