At Least an Explanation

I don't often agree with what is written in The National Review. In fact, I usually find it quite baffling.

But at least its authors attempt a rational explanation of their positions, which allows for reasonable debate and respectful dilaogue. So, while I think Deroy Murdock spouts silliness here, at least it's an explanation for why the Park51 Mosque should not be opened.

First, he says that he objects to the mosque's leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s noting that “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” ... And therefore he should not have a mosque.

In other words, by pointing out the historical context of the 9/11 attacks -- that many Arabs were and are furious with the US policies of repression and aggression between 1945 and 2001 -- Imam Rauf committed an egregious act, an should therefore have his right to build a mosque restricted by the government.

Murdock's big beef is with Rauf's description and mild advocacy of the need for some implementation of shari'a law. Rauf says only that Muslims want to live in place where secular law does not interfere with religious law. Such sentiments sound very much like what Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coaltion -- and The National Review -- say all the time.

But Murdock then launches on a description of the nastiest examples of shari'a-gone-bad he can find, and they are really mean: killing, maiming, torture. And that is where he palys the sleight-of-hand. Rauf does not advocate any of these practices, and shari'a is not synonymous with them. They are a misapplication of shari'a in the same way that John Yoo's torture memos were a misapplication of the US Constitution. The application, not the law itself, ought to be condemned.

So, while Murdock at least plays the game of making a logical case, he fails to do it well. That only proves why the argument against a mosque is so ridiculous and reinforces the value of the 1st Amendment, which allows all ideas to be expressed, no matter how hateful or dopey they are.

But I guess the 1st Amendment is not the first thing on Murdock's mind.