Acceso usuarios
Many controversies that have taken place since the early 2000's around the place of religious symbols in the public sphere have revealed a new type of demand, based on a call for a better acknowledgement of moral and religious injury.
Through the examination of the practical effect of the moral offense argumentation in the recent Ground Zero Controversy, this article investigates the nature of this opposition between rights and emotions. Rather than an expression of an antipolitical or ethical turn in the American public debate, this recasting of the boundary between rights and emotions is a particular form of discursive strategy.
It enables the opponents to the Cordoba project to maintain the controversy alive, even after most legal and technical reasons against the mosque have disappeared.
