Zero Grounds

The debate over the "Ground Zero Mosque" demonstrates how values determine policy. Or, to put this in more technical, but not incomprehensible, rhetorical terms: the present tense frames the future.

The "anti-mosque" argument can be dismissed as bigotry. And at the extreme, a strong case can be made that it's part of a rather rancid form of stereotyping. Jon Stewart makes the point that protesting mosques is not confined to the "hallowed ground" issue of Ground Zero. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-hearing-update) The "anti-mosque" argument also suffers from inaccuracy: What's being built is a "cultural center," more akin to a YMCA or JCC than a house of worship. And it's being built a few blocks away from Ground Zero; in Manhattan a couple blocks may be like a different city.

Still, to dismiss the sentiments of those with misgivings as simply intolerant is to commit the same kind of over-generalizing that serves as grist for Stewart's satirical mill and fuel for the ire of righteous (self or otherwise) liberals. (Debunking the exploiters of those sentiments is something different.)

At the heart of the conflict over the "not Ground Zero Islamic Cultural Center that has a mosque in it" is a conflict over two fundamental values: sensitivity and tolerance. It seems odd that these two values would be in conflict, but the two terms, at least as used here, express oppositional values. The conservative position, advanced perhaps most cogently by Charles Krauthammer, is that building a mosque-like structure near Ground Zero is insensitive to what is sacred and ought to be hallowed. The liberal position, advanced rather obliquely by Jon Stewart, is that allowing mosque-ish structure near Ground Zero typifies our best principles, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

(Ironically, both might point to Lincoln for support: "...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. ... With malice toward none, with charity for all ... let us strive on to finish the work we are in.")

Note that both express their positions in values-heavy language, implying or declaring that building or not building is a moral, indeed, a spiritual imperative. Krauthammer uses words like "miraculous," "transcendent," "sacrifice," "suffering of the innocent." Stewart, after a series of clips that demonstrate (!) a pattern of intolerance, concludes with Newt Gingrich's inadvertent ad hominem, and then delivers an ironic rhetorical question: Why should we have higher standards of religious freedom than Saudi Arabia?

Krauthammer's position is exclusive, Stewart's inclusive. From a rhetorical perspective, both can be justified. The conservative position sets off the sacred and protects the past; the liberal position expands the moral imperative, the Golden Rule.

I point this out since if this argument was fact-based (forensic, in rhetorical terms), there would be no argument. Krauthammer argues that "hallowed ground ... 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."

I think Stewart would agree, both to the definition and its application to Ground Zero. And also that "location matters." But the latter begs the question, which Stewart skewers, how far from Ground Zero is far enough? Or, to turn Krauthammer's seemingly convincing but actually weak analogy around - at what proximity does a commercial tower trivialize Gettysburg?

In other words, if the argument was fact based, then the decision to build or not build the mosque would consider questions like: what other buildings are in the same radius (a "gentleman's club" for one), how does the proposed cultural center compare to those institutions, and how, if at all, will it impact the construction, the view or the significance of a Ground Zero memorial?

But those questions are amenable to rational analysis. Values based arguments, group or "tribal" rhetoric, is not. "We must preserve the sacredness of Ground Zero." "We must honor the principle of religious freedom." These are not merely emotional battle cries; they assert (group) affiliation and define (one's) identity.

Is it possible to come to some consensus or compromise when values clash? Can demonstrative arguments lead to anything other than rhetorical riots? Not always, but yes, sometimes - yet only if the values themselves are recognized, acknowledged and put in the proper frame or perspective.