Jeff Merkley shows Dems how it's done on "mosque"

As I've been noting here, if you argue that building a center devoted to the study of Islam near Ground Zero constitutes sacrilege towards 9/11, or that it is "provocative," you are inescapably legitimizing the premise that all of Islam is somehow responsible for, or should be vaguely associated with, the attacks. These ideas are two sides of the same coin. You can't argue the first without validating, wittingly or not, the latter.

Now Senator Jeff Merkley gives strong voice to this notion in an Op ed for The Oregonian, and in so doing, shows his fellow Dems what real leadership looks like:

The debate swirling around the proposed mosque and Muslim community center in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center site has, for many, tapped into strong emotions of a national trauma that is still raw. But in the churning political and constitutional arguments, one question has not been adequately addressed: what makes a mosque near ground zero offensive.... [M]any mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site. I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attacked our nation.... Some have also argued that the construction of the mosque would hand a propaganda victory to Osama bin Laden. I think the opposite is true. Al-Qaida justifies its murder by painting America as a nation at war with Islam. Celebrating our freedom of religion and Muslim Americans' place in our communities is a blow to al-Qaida's ideology of hate and division. We strengthen America by distinguishing, clearly and unequivocally, between our al-Qaida enemy and our Muslim neighbors.... I have great respect for the sentiments of the survivors and family members of those who died on 9/11, and understand that some may not regard the situation this way. But our fundamental religious freedom and our national security -- in addition to fairness for our fellow citizens -- will be well served by drawing a bright line between our Muslim friends and neighbors at home, and our al-Qaida enemy abroad.

As Digby notes, Merkley has shown what's known as "principled leadership." And it makes the likes of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner look just awful. Imagine what this debate would look like if Democrats across the board had shown the guts to make the case Merkley articulated here, and had stood firmly in unison behind it.

