Legal Commentary

Who Cares What Pols Think About The Cordoba Center?

By Big Tent Democrat

In an editorial today, the NYTimes demands President Obama say more about the Cordoba Center (or as the GOP haters call it, the "Ground Zero Mosque.") Conversely, I demand that politicians stay the hell out of it, other than to say what we all know - the owners of the site get to decide what they will do with it.

Similarly, Greg Sargent is obsessed with getting pols to talk about the "Ground Zero Mosque," just as the Wingnuts:

Right on cue, the NRSC just blasted out a release attacking Chuck Schumer thusly: "As Hamas Weighs In On Ground Zero Mosque, New York's Senior Senator Remains Silent."

Schumer's office has actually said he is "not opposed" to the center, but he hasn't said anything beyond that. What we're seeing here is that it does Dems no good to try to duck this issue. Republicans will attack them anyway.

(Emphasis supplied.) That's precisely the point Greg - the GOP will attack them anyway so don't let the GOP dictate what you say and do. Is there any rational reason why I should care if Chuck Schumer "supports" or "opposes" the Cordoba Center? Would Greg Sargent even think of asking Schumer's (or Obama's or Reid's) opinion about this except that Pam Geller decided it mattered? Is Newt Gingrich now Greg Sargent's assignment editor or Chuck Schumer's political consultant? Has everyone gone insane? More . . .

Matt Yglesias wrote:

[O]ver the weekend some kind of hair-splitting distinction opened up between the idea of publicly and forcefully acknowledging the legal and constitutional right of the organizers to place their community center at 51 Park Place in Lower Manhattan and supporting construction of the mosque. I sort of see what the distinction is. People have the right, legally speaking, to go stand on the sidewalk outside my office and scream obscenities at me when I go to lunch. But I really wish they wouldn’t do that, and I think sensible people would condemn the decision to behave in that manner.

But when it comes to matters of religion, I think this distinction gets a bit confusing. I’m after all not a Muslim. And if pressed, I’d have to say that I think Islam is a false doctrine. It’s not the case that there’s is no God but Allah, nor is it true that Mohammed is his prophet. If everyone collectively decided that nobody should ever build a mosque anywhere again, that would be fine by me. Which is just to say that people simply don’t actively support the construction of other people’s religious monuments. You don’t expect Jews to stand up and applaud the construction of new Mormon temples, but I do expect them to acknowledge the right of Mormons to build temples and to stand up to demagogues who would try to abridge that right. And this is what we have going on in Lower Manhattan today. [. . .] There’s no real need to introduce dozens of new layers of nuance into it.

I don't support the building of a mosque or a church or a temple anywhere. I don't particularly oppose the building of mosques, temples or churches either. More importantly, who cares what I think about such things and who cares what President Obama and any other pol thinks about it? I surely do not.

Everyone says President Obama was "courageous" in his statements on Friday. Perhaps so. But politically, he was stupid and clearly counterproductive.

Before President Obama decided we just had to know what he thought about it, the story was about Abe Foxman and the ADL and Fareed Zakaria. Once Obama stepped in, now it is about what every politician thinks about it. Just dumb.

I wish for once a pol would say, who give a sh*t what I think about it? Is there some legislation being proposed about it? No? Then let's move on.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on August 17, 2010 (boomark / email).