First it was Michael Arcuri:

“They have a constitutional right to build this, but with rights come responsibilities…Building a mosque near Ground Zero is insensitive, an affront to the victims of 9/11, and it lacks respect for the general public’s feelings… I think another location should be chosen.”

Arcuri saw the obvious—contrary to progressive innuendo, encouraging the choice of another location does not entail a violation of first amendment rights or freedom of religion. And after him, a deluge of Democratic representatives from New York followed suit.

Mike McMahon issued an eloquent statement. A highlight:

“This is not the first time that the construction of a house of worship at a sensitive site has been questioned and opposed… Muslim Americans deserve the right to practice their faith – as we all do. I believe a new location is the right compromise so that Muslim Americans can worship … while the families of 9/11 victims obtain the peace of mind they deserve.”

And Steve Israel:

“While they have a constitutional right to build the mosque, it would be better if they had demonstrated more sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. I urge them to do so before proceeding further.”

And Tim Bishop:

“Ground Zero is sacred ground and should unite us. If the group seeking to build the mosque is sincere in its efforts to bring people together, I would urge them to seek an alternative location which is less divisive. I dispute the wisdom of building at that location, not the constitutional right.”

They were contradicted by one fellow New York Democratic representative. According to Anthony Weiner, for a “member of Congress [to be] weighing in on this stuff,” would be a “violation of the clear separation of church and state.” The New York Post ably replied, “Huh?” If Weiner still believes that, when will he condemn his fellow Dems for clear violations of our founding principles?

That brings the tally of Democrats opposing the GZ mosque to at least five congressmen (the New Yorkers plus Altmire), one senate majority leader, and 54% of their own voters.

So what’s up? Are they cynically pandering to the prejudices of the Democratic base? Or have they realized what liberal pundits have missed—that while politicians have a duty to protect constitutional rights, they also have a duty to encourage their constituents to make the right choices.