Charles Krauthammer, predictably comes out against the proposed Islamic center at Ground Zero with the "hallowed ground" argument, followed by a little fearmongering for good measure.
When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.
Of course, Muslims died on 9/11 as well, and by this criteria their claim to Ground Zero is no less legitimate than any other American's. It is also Muslims who have comprised the highest proportion of al-Qaeda's victims in the time since.
While citing the example of a theme park near Gettysburg and the convent near Auschwitz, Krauthammer conveniently neglects to mention that there has been a Muslim presence in the area for decades, which exists alongside two churches and two strip clubs. Only recently has this ground -- by which we mean not Ground Zero itself but the entire neighborhood -- become "hallowed," and exclusively in response to the Park 51 project. As such, neither analogy fits.
Next, Krauthammer puts on his precog hat and warns of precrime:
Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi-- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?
So we should deny someone their First Amendment rights not merely based on what they've done, but what they might do? This isn't a slippery slope; it's a cliff. It's the same cliff Newt Gingrich walked off several weeks ago, endorsing the idea that every observant American Muslim is a potential terrorist and should be treated as such. With this argument, Krauthammer appropriates the Gingrich worldview even as he admits that "of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi." Then why should American Muslims have to pay the price for what other self-identified Muslims do? Again, the analogy isn't remotely accurate -- Nazis weren't spending most of their time slaughtering other Germans. Krauthammer forces an irreconcilable conflict between the idea that Muslims are as American as anyone else and the argument that the building should not be built because the builders are Muslims.
Krauthammer uses the example of zoning laws that prohibit liquor stores and strip malls, but as Greg Sargent points out, the First Amendment doesn't explicitly refer to liquor stores the way it does to religion. There's also already a federal law, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, that prohibits the government from using such laws to prevent religious buildings from being constructed.
As Sargent notes, though, Krauthammer never specifically says the government should block the project or identify a mechanism through which it should be blocked, which is essentially a cop-out. The argument here isn't whether people can publicly oppose the Park 51 project; it's over whether the government should interfere. And I think it's clear that position is indefensible from the point of view of the First Amendment, which is probably why Krauthammer doesn't try to defend it.
