The first I was aware of the story was some link on facebook to some British guy's reaction to the decision to allow it. It was the typical right leaning email forwarding stuff that I am so happy to ignore. It wasn't so far out there like the so-called birther stuff, but it was the type of thing that I skim and more or less forget about.
The next I was hearing was some panel discussion about the thing during the Fox News morning programming. It seemed like the general consensus there was that it was legal, but it was just a bad idea. I found that interesting as I figured it would be more against the idea. I figured the general notion from the left would be about how this is a non-issue that is being perpetuated by Fox News. Something that isn't even on the national radar, and then poof, all hell breaks loose. Something like the Van Jones debacle.
I really started to take interest when a very left leaning member of heroscapers.com, one of my internet haunts, mentioned that he really didn't like the idea of a mosque being built there. The general consensus seemed to be pretty much the same as on the Fox News panel discussion. It is completely legal, but it is a really bad idea. It is something that is offensive and/or upsetting to a lot of people.
The ensuing discussion then featured a lot of vocal minority opinions about how evil Muslims are by some of the aforementioned right leaning email forwarding types and then some about how bad the right and/or other religions are from mostly one guy on the left, I'll call him Gunther because I don't know anyone named Gunther who might get offended by thinking I might be talking about them. Gunther's MO is interesting. He takes some statement from someone on the right, or who says something even remotely right of center, and he attacks it. The interesting thing with Gunther is that his tactics look pretty good on the surface, but they don't stand up. In general Gunther likes to post a laundry list of links to "illuminating stuff". A lot of the time the stuff isn't as illuminating as he thinks it is, he doesn't fully read or try to comprehend what point the other guy is making, or he just posts stuff so hastily that he doesn't really know what he is saying. But by hell he will defend his position like he is backed by Odin himself. He made a lot of statements about how it isn't really a mosque, and Ground Zero can't be seen from it. He throws in a lot of red herrings and apples-to-oranges comparisons about how gays can't be in the military and some stuff that really bothers me personally, calling "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland a religious war. Gunther brought up what I thought he would, how this is a non-story brought up by the right. I wondered if he would bring up Fox News, the panel discussion fresh on my mind. Instead he brought up Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. A quick google search and skimming suggested that Palin wanted to urge people to voice their concern, possibly try to prevent it from happening. Gingrich suggested that it should only be built if Saudi Arabia would allow the construction and practice of Christian churches on their soil. I only skimmed a couple of stories, so I don't know how representative that is of their position, but it was what I saw.
Palin, I thought, was just being what I look at as the problem with the right. There is a whole lot of appeal to emotion when it might not have anything to do with the issue and the rule of law. It is a call to action where there isn't really anything legal that can be done. It is a call to be upset. Let's play victim.
Gingrich's position I thought was at least thought provoking on some level. It is a challenge to the ideals and motives of those involved. If they are logically consistent with what they are saying then they would agree with his proposition at least in theory. In practice they would have no ability to get the churches built in the same country that Mecca calls home. It is a challenge to the group behind the project.
Then against that backdrop I come into the room where my parents are watching Sean Hannity. Hannity just bugs me. I think his shows are about as productive as watching a couple drunks fighting over who drives home. It is ugly, and it isn't going to end well. He likes to get two opposing sides together to "debate" an issue, and he is the moderator of the discussion. Of course it ends up being a two on one shouting match. It was then that I really was able to vocalize what I had seen happening.
The problem with this debate is that it is really two parallel debates occurring simultaneously. I think more often than not, if the two sides would talk about only one of the debates at a time, there wouldn't be much debate. If any. These two debates are debates of legality and propriety.
When it comes to the legal debate, there is really only a few facts to consider. Did they legally obtain the land? Did they go through the proper procedures and channels to get plans drawn up and approved? Are they obeying the law in doing these things? As far as I can figure, the answer to all of those questions is yes. They are doing what they need to do to build the thing, and they are getting all the permits and approvals that are required. It would be unethical to deny the permits. Any law that might be enacted to prevent construction would likely be striken by the Supreme Court regardless of how many right leaning or left leaning Justices are on the bench. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be a unanimous decision. I'm sure that if cornered, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich would admit that there isn't anything legal that could be done. It isn't surprising that Obama came down on this side of the debate. It really is a no brainer when you take all the other stuff out.
Now the question of propriety is a different story. This all might be legal, but that doesn't mean that it should be done. It might be legal and even biologically OK to marry your step sister, but it is just a bad idea. The idea the organizers are trying to communicate on park51.org is that this is some sort of olive branch being offered to heal wounds. That's all I really have to go on. Taking it at face value it is just a misguided idea that isn't going to achieve the desired outcome. Maybe I lack faith in humanity, but I don't think that many people are ready to accept that kind of offering. The other stuff that was brought up by Hannity is a lot like Gunther's approach. It might sound like it is solid reasoning, but it really isn't any kind of logically compelling argument. Especially when the opponent in the debate is arguing about the legality. Of course in the same vein as the Sarah Palin "let's be victims" routine, it is playing on the emotion rather than the logic. He brought up how the brains behind the operation is in favor of Sharia law and other red herring arguments that again have nothing to do with the legality of the thing. Is it analogous to putting an American monument in what was once downtown Hiroshima? I don't know that anyone can say for certain. It could be. It is still a bad idea and a problem with propriety on the part of the organizers whether it is a war monument or not.
When pressed I think that pretty much everyone would admit that it is on the one hand legal, but at the same time it is also a bad idea. I'm not so sure about Gunther or Palin. They might just stick to their guns. I really wish that more people could separate the problems they have with the propriety of the situation from their problems with the legality of the situation. They might realize that they agree a lot more with the other side than they think they do.
No comments:
Post a Comment