re: #553 acacia

I can see someone disagreeing with Krauthammer on his points but this is hardly evidence he has gone off the deep end. There are 2 issues here. One is the right to build it there and the other is the wisdom to build it there. While Krauthammer does raise zoning laws at one point toward the end of the article I don’t see this as anything but a statement - along with all his much more numerous non-legal examples - that location matters. It does. He’s weighing in on the wisdom of building it there not the legal right to do it. I think his examples of Gettysburg, Treblinka and Auschwitz are good ones and bring home the point that there is more merit in not doing something you have a right to do rather than doing it just because you can and in your mind it’s a good idea. I personally find this whole issue boring but I think Krauthammer makes good points. It’s only those that say there is no “right” to build a house of worship in an area otherwise zoned for it that are off the deep end because they essentially advocate a law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Last I checked you can’t do that.

I agree. Krauthammer doesn’t deny the Constitutional right to build the mosque, like Charles suggests. For him it boils down to “common decency and respect for the sacred.” Charles completely misrepresents Krauthammer and quotes out of context.