Tuesday, August 02, 2005

9/11 Memorial desecration defended by New York Times

As described here and elsewhere, there is a cabal of moral relativists who wish to desecrate the 9/11 Memorial. Well, the NYT takes issue with those of us who actually have a problem with that. Tip o' the hat to Kira Zalan for bringing this to my attention. From the Old Gray Wench:
A New York Times editorial yesterday villainized the Take Back The Memorial campaign against the International Freedom Center as the work of a "sharply political" "handful of angry family members" out to impose "censorship" at the WTC memorial site. If you are one of the over 33,000 people who have signed the "Take Back The Memorial" petition (including over 1,700 9/11 family members), you might take exception to that charge.

The Times' criticisms are based on the false assumption that the WTC site was somehow destined to be a publicly-built venue for the arts and political discourse. Operating from that premise, the attempts by Take Back The Memorial to ensure that the WTC memorial site deals exclusively with 9/11 are characterized as "abrogating the rights of everyone else."

One particular passage reveals the Times blindness to the real issue. They write that if Governor Pataki attempts to "appease one small, vocal group of protesters," "he runs the risk of turning ground zero into a place where we bury the freedoms that define this nation."

"Bury"? The Times has the gall to use the word "bury"? There are actual Americans buried at Ground Zero, murdered because they lived in a free county, and the Times' main concern is not the victims but that Ground Zero have an art gallery able to exhibit "controversial images of 9/11 and America's role in the world," all in the name of "free speech."
"Bury"? Nice choice of words by the numbnuts in the editorial room, wouldn't you say? Maybe the NYT could have said something else to add insult to injury, like maybe "Angry family members nearly crumbled when they heard of International Freedom Center's agenda", or "Opponents of the International Freedom Center's agenda were jumping out of windows with righteous anger." Perhaps "International Freedom Center's plans might get hijacked by family members of the victims."