Reasoning on mosque faulty

It's hard to be an Obama sycophant these days. Your hero delivers a Ramadan speech roundly supporting the building of a mosque and Islamic center at Ground Zero in New York. Your heart swells and you're moved to declare this President Obama's finest hour, his act of greatest courage.

Alas, the next day, Obama explains that he was only talking about the legality of the thing and not the wisdom -- upon which he does not make any judgment.

You're left looking like a fool because now Obama has said exactly nothing: No one disputes the right to build; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so.

It takes no courage to bask in the applause of a Muslim audience as you promise to stand for their right to build a mosque. What takes courage is to then respectfully ask that audience to reflect upon the wisdom of the project, and to consider whether the imam's alleged goal of interfaith understanding might not be better achieved by accepting the New York governor's offer to help find another site.

Where the president flagged, however, the liberal intelligentsia stepped in, penning pro-mosque articles characterized by a frenzied unanimity, little resort to argument and difficulty dealing with analogies.

The Atlantic's Michael Kinsley was typical in arguing that the only possible grounds for opposing the Ground Zero mosque are bigotry or demagoguery. Well then, what about Pope John Paul II's ordering the closing of the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz?

How does Kinsley explain this remarkable demonstration of sensitivity? He doesn't even feign analysis. He simply asserts that the decision is something "I confess that I never did understand."

That's his Q.E.D.? Is he stumped or is he inviting us to choose between his moral authority and that of one of the towering moral figures of the 20th century?

At least Richard Cohen of The Washington Post tries to grapple with the issue of sanctity and sensitivity. The results, however, are not pretty. He concedes that putting up a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor would be offensive, but then dismisses the analogy to Ground Zero because Sept. 11, 2001, was merely "a rogue act, committed by 20 or so crazed samurai."

These weren't crazies. They were methodical, focused, steel-nerved operatives.

Nor were they freelance rogues. They were the leading, and most successful, edge of a worldwide movement of radical Islamists, with worldwide financial and theological support, with a massive media and propaganda arm, and with an archipelago of sympathizers who protect and guard them.

Why is America fighting Predator wars in Pakistan and Yemen, surveilling thousands of conversations and financial transactions every day, and engaged in military operations against radical Muslims from the Philippines to Somalia -- because of 19 crazies, all of whom died nine years ago?

Radical Islam is not a majority of Islam. But with its financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers -- according to a conservative estimate, it commands the allegiance of 7 percent of Muslims, i.e., over 80 million souls -- it is a very powerful strain within Islam. It has changed the course of nations and affected the lives of millions.

Ground Zero is the site of the most lethal attack of that worldwide movement, which consists entirely of Muslims, acts in the name of Islam and is deeply embedded within the Islamic world. And that is why putting up a monument to Islam in this place is not just insensitive but provocative.

Just as the people of Japan today would not think of planting their flag at Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that no Japanese younger than 85 has any possible responsibility for that infamy, representatives of contemporary Islam -- the overwhelming majority of whose adherents are equally innocent of the infamy committed on Sept. 11 in their name -- should exercise comparable respect for what even Obama calls hallowed ground.

Contact Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist, at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.