Judge Vaughn Walker taught us that it’s unconstitutional to define words.  President William Jefferson Clinton taught us that the meaning of words can be changed to suit whatever he happened to be thinking—making him something like Humpty Dumpty from Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.  I like to think I’m better looking than Walker, Clinton, or Humpty Dumpty, but as some may dispute that point, I’ll further distinguish myself by laying down some definitions at the outset of this post:

right (n) : an option whose exercise will not prevent the agent being “in the right”

tolerance (n) : willingness to suffer the existence of something unwanted.  (not to be confused with outright advocacy)

Americans who are opposed to Cordoba House (a.k.a. the Ground Zero Mosque, a.k.a. Park51) can all pat themselves on the back for avoiding the error of bringing legal action against the Initiative.  The community center has the legal right to exist.

However, the Cordoba Initiative planners’ demand that sensitivity be afforded toward Muslims whilst none is owed to nonbelievers is a departure from conscience and from moral right.  (This negative attitude is epitomized by Imam Rauf’s rejection of the accusation that the Cordoba Initiative is insensitive, whereas cartoons depicting Mohammed are willful provocation.)

While we would not be in the right to use government as a weapon for protecting ourselves from purely emotional offenses, Americans do have the right to resist the Cordoba Initiative, even to the point of preventing it through lawful (but not litigious) means.

Passive and non-passive resistance

So far, the Initiative has seen some measure of passive resistance in the voices that have spoken out against it and expressed the offense that they feel.  This expression is worthwhile, but it alone will not convince Rauf and his comrades to alter the offensive particulars of their construction project—at least, it hasn’t done so at any time in the last nine months.

Personally, I would like to see Americans refuse to take Rauf’s money in exchange for the land, materials, and labour he needs to complete his construction. — Yes, there’s a chance that even this would fail: perhaps you recall last December when a New Mexico district court constrained a private company to photograph a lesbian wedding which it had chosen not to shoot.  (We don’t call compulsory labour “slavery” anymore because Americans know that they’re supposed to be offended by slavery.) — My tenuous hope is not to be expected, however.  We have already seen that Soho Properties (owned by a disciple of Imam Rauf’s) has pledged the coveted real estate.  And even if there weren’t  already quite a number of Americans in support of Cordoba House, the effect of the recession on the construction industry would probably convince many to trade their scruples for lucre.

Shortfalls notwithstanding, Americans have little excuse for not putting forth a little more effort: if there’s one field in which Americans excel, it’s protesting things.  We even have a legal and Constitutional right to assemble and protest.

Yes, protests generally are gay, but those of us who find them distasteful can still take part by borrowing a page from the left’s playbook: ever notice that when Wal-mart employees picket for more benefits, they don’t stand in the picket lines themselves?; they pay unemployed people to hold signs and hurl epithets for them (and ironically, they don’t provide their stand-ins with employee benefits).  If that’s not your cup of tea, then write a letter to the editor, expressing your position on the controversy.

Monday’s Wall Street Journal ran a pithy piece entitled “The World Trade Center Mosque and the Constitution,” whose views largely coincide with my own, something of a “what American-hearted American would cross that picket line to lay bricks for this mosque?” take.  If you want a citable document, consider giving this a look.  If you need another source, try Matt’s comment from the first installment in this series.

The end