Offended by the 9/11 Mosque? Get Over It
A mosque at Ground Zero may offend some, but as conservatives pointed out during the Mohammed cartoon debate: there is no right to not be offended.
Newt Gingrich’s latest argument in the debate about the Cordoba Institute is perhaps the weakest argument made yet in opposition to the mosque. It is a showcase of how the GOP leadership, most notably its prospective presidential candidates, are using the very weak argument that the mosque should not be built because of how it would be “insensitive.”
On Fox and Friends, Newt Gingrich argued why it was perfectly legitimate to oppose a mosque being built near Ground Zero, “This happens all the time in America. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington.” (He also stated that “we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.”)
The problem with this argument is that anti-Semites do have the right to protest near Holocaust museums, and they have exercised this free-speech right in the past. The group that has done this most vocally and consistently is the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. They have picketed near the Virginia Holocaust Museum, and the Dallas Holocaust Museum. The Anti-Defamation League even has a copy of a WBC item from 1996 about plans to picket in front of the National Holocaust Memorial Museum. These protests were probably very offensive, but no one invoked a non-existent right not to be offended.
Gingrich is not the only likely 2012 presidential candidate who has argued that people should be stopped so that Americans don’t feel offended. In Sarah Palin’s first comments on the mosque, she opposed it because it would be a “provocation” that “stabs hearts” and “prevents healing.” Mike Huckabee also felt that Americans were being asked to bear the burden of taking offense while Muslims were getting a free pass:
Even if the Muslims have the right to build it, don’t they do more to serve the public interest by exercising the responsible judgment to not build it, given that it’s really offensive to most New Yorkers and Americans? Or is it just that we can offend Americans and Christians, but not foreigners and Muslims?
The frustrating irony is that conservatives used to be at the forefront of defending the fact that people will inevitably feel offended in a free society. This was probably most strongly argued during the controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, which generated a strong negative reaction from Muslims. Paul Marshall argued in the Weekly Standard:
Religious toleration means not insulting somebody else's religion, and it is a good thing. But religious freedom means being free to reject somebody else's religion and even to insult it. Government should want and encourage its citizens to be tolerant of one another, but its primary responsibility is to protect its citizens' rights and freedoms. The fact that people are sometimes insulted is one cost of freedom. The Jyllands-Posten affair calls us to uphold that principle internationally as well as domestically.
Sarah Palin responded to President Obama’s defense of free speech by stating “We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?” Palin argues that the mosque organizers should not build near Ground Zero because if they were truly tolerant or “moderate” they would relocate the mosque somewhere else. The problem with Palin’s argument is that the First Amendment and private transactions trump whatever emotions she, or 70% of Americans, may have about the matter.
What Sarah Palin, and the conservatives who endorse her comments, don’t seem to acknowledge is that the cost of living in a free society means that sometimes, other law abiding citizens will take actions which shock and offend us.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticize the organizer of the mosque as not being a true moderate--or even an extremist--if the evidence can be mustered. The sources of foreign funding for the mosque should be scrutinized, and the operators of the mosque clearly need to obey all relevant laws. Conservatives could also argue why they think in a perfect world, there would be no Cordoba Institute. But Palin, Gingrich and those who support their arguments, are playing a disingenuous game by promising the conservative base that it is possible to be free from being offended.
Follow me on Twitter: @noahkgreen