What's up with the conservative umbrage over the Coretta Scott King funeral service? As an expression of national mourning, it was filled with lots of the usual eulogizing, and was spiked with a few expressions of dissent. Which is consonant with Mrs. King's lifelong struggle for equal rights and freedom of expression.

Dissent, in our noble national tradition, rarely has been "appropriate." Dissent has caused discomfort to the powerful, and given voice to the impoverished or neglected. In the case of Mrs. King and her husband, their dissent was also an expression of truth.

Yet, here is how the conservative right characterized dissent in the name of Mrs. King (thanks to Media Matters, http://mediamatters.org/items/200602110001)

National Review's vile Jonah Goldberg: "mildly ghoulish."

Michelle Malkin: "abslolutely ungodly."

Mike Gallagher:s "one of the most despicable displays of ugly political partisanship we have ever seen."

Tucker Carlson: "So why...would you use a furneral to needle the president about weapons of mass destruction?"

And on it goes. Little concern for perspective, or context. Or, most important, truth.

Because, in fact, as Reverend Joseph Lowery said, "there were no weapons of mass destruction over there (Iraq.)" A simple, pointed statement of fact. An expression of dissent; that Lowery declared the statement in the face of the POTUS (and his father) only added to its poignancy.

I think it should have been met with a sense of celebration; freedom of expression given full voice.

Casting the Rev. Lowery's remarks as "ungodly" is a sly rhetorical trick; it defers attention from the accuracy of his remarks. And redirects them toward shallow issues, and unprovalble accusations.

What do you think?