Despite what some readers and commenters seem to think, I don’t believe that all opponents of the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (which, as one wag put it, is neither at Ground Zero nor any more a mosque than a Vegas casino is a cathedral because it contains a wedding chapel) are bigots or that all opposition to it is necessarily rooted in prejudice.
Indeed initially I viewed the proposal with some measure of scepticism. But as the debate has rumbled on and as I’ve thought about it some more I’m increasingly convinced that the arguments against it, however well-meaning, are flawed and flimsy.
One of the recurring arguments against the plan is that, however well-intentioned its backers may be, it represents an unfortunate and unnecessary “provocation”. Even if those involved mean no harm and don’t mean to “provoke” they should have been wise enough to appreciate that their proposal was bound to provoke a hostile reaction.

Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate, free for a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first month free.
UNLOCK ACCESS Try a month freeAlready a subscriber? Log in