Reasonable people can and do disagree about whether a mosque should be built at Ground Zero. But not to the editorial board of the New York Times. Those who oppose the mosque are filled with "rage" and "madness"; they are "intolerant" and "suspicious"; their opposition rests on "misunderstanding"; and, worst of all, they "distrust" Muslims.
Why must the board stoop to such name-calling and motive-questioning? Why not just acknowledge the obvious: that reasonable, well-intentioned people can disagree about the mosque? Why must those who disagree with the board be driven by vile emotions, as though only the board members are rational, reasonable, knowledgeable, and well-intentioned? This attitude of the New York Times—"anyone who disagrees with us is stupid, ignorant, or evil"—marks it as a propaganda rag. I'm sure it makes the board members feel good to call people names, but it contributes nothing to public discourse.
The New York Times used to be a respectable newspaper.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 