Unless you live in a cave (and are not a terrorist) you already have heard about what has come to be called the Ground Zero Mosque. If you don't know what the flap is about, click the previous embedded link and read the article before continuing further.
I have refrained from commenting about the issue, here, until now, mostly because new information kept coming to light and I wanted to give this thing a balanced treatment. In general, I think most folks are quite confused about the mosque on both sides of the debate.
For example I keep hearing conservatives saying that that the Cordoba Initiative has no legal right to build this mosque in the proposed location. I've also heard liberals parroting the mantra of the imam (Feisel Abdul Rauf) who is behind this proposed structure, in saying that the building "is not a mosque; this is a cultural center."
So what's the big deal? Does Rauf have a legal right to renovate this structure so close to Ground Zero? Is it really just a community center and nothing more? Let's start with the legal challenges.
First, contrary to popular belief, Rauf and his organization have every right to build a mosque here. They're on solid footing with the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the freedom to practice their religion and they're on fertile ground from a real estate and property law point of view. So conservatives, please stop spewing the completely inaccurate blather that these Muslims and their organization have no legal right to build (or renovate) a structure at or near Ground Zero. They do. Kindly, get your facts straight or shut your pieholes…please.
Second, concerning the claim that this structure won't be a mosque: Rauf and his liberal allies get around the whole mosque problem by continually mouthing the words, cultural+community+center and not elaborating on the fact that this building will contain a mosque. Technically, the entire structure won't be a mosque, sure. But a mosque will be there and I highly doubt you'll see any Jews or Christians in there holding worship services. So from a certain point of view (the technical point of view) Rauf and his liberal allies are telling the truth when they say the structure won't be a mosque…technically. It all depends on your frame of reference…or rather, how you word things.
But here's another item which makes no sense: If there's no mosque, then why hide behind the Bill of Rights, Imam Feisel? If there's no mosque, then Muslim's won't be practicing their religion on the site will they? And if that's the case, then there's no infringement on the right to practice one's religion…so the whole freedom of religion thing isn't even applicable. After all, it's not a mosque; it's a "cultural center." (wink, wink…nod, nod)
That said, it has been stated that the "center" is meant to help foster an environment of peace, healing, interfaith relations, and better understanding between Muslims and the West, that it will exist to serve the community at large, meaning both Muslims and non-Muslims. If that's true, then why doesn't Rauf's proposal for this center include, a church, a Jewish synagogue, and perhaps, offices for the Council for Secular Humanism?
Moreover, if you were trying to reach out to Americans and show them that Islam is really about peace and fostering better understanding, why would you bend over backwards to bloody the noses of so many people in the process? Think about it; 70 percent of the country is against his proposal to put a mosque…(ahem) I mean "cultural center" on the GZ site and a majority of New Yorkers are against it as well. Yet, he is insisting on it. He is demanding it, in spite of the pain and outrage Americans are feeling at his proposal to build this thing so close to GZ.
Whatever Rauf's intentions with this structure, there's one thing we can be sure of: This isn't a matter of religious freedom. He could put this mosque anywhere he pleases (and he is doing just that). Rather, the issue is should he put it in the proposed location, given the circumstances? You see, it's a matter of propriety, of decency, of good manners. Just because some person, corporate or organizational entity has the right to do something, doesn't mean they should. The legality of a proposition isn't directly proportional to the morality of a proposition. I refuse to believe that a man as intelligent as Rauf doesn't understand this concept. And knowing this, what is Rauf's response? Why, to move ahead with his indecent proposal, of course, and to refuse any discussion of other alternatives. And while from a legal standpoint I have no problem with his proposal, I find it troubling and offensive in the extreme that Rauf and his organization could be so callous and insensitive to the ramifications of putting a new mosque on this site. I also find it insulting that he would actually claim to be trying to foster an environment of reconciliation, when his actions are doing just the opposite. I fail to see how driving a stake through the heart of this nation will help Rauf to achieve his stated goals. Instead, it will serve to inflame and further alienate the very people he claims he wants to reach out to. The whole damned excursion just smells bad. It smacks of duplicity and I don't buy it.
First off, good job waiting a while before chiming in. Emotional issues are best given some time to look for facts rather than just frothing at the mouth like everyone else.
I’m a liberal. I think the individual’s rights come first. That’s liberal ideology. I think a group or organization has no right to infringe on the individual rights and liberties of another, whether their reason be frailty of ego, profit, or fear. Their only justifiable reason for removing liberty is to reasonably protect the safety and freedom of others.
Let’s be honest, no one actually cares about this community center or the mosque inside of it. What is really happening is that Republicans think their flock is a bunch of bigoted, frightened, ignorant children who will race to the polls if they can just get them worked up over something. And yet, so many sheep jumped at the chance to be afraid of Muslims. The way they were afraid of blacks in the days of Jim Crowe. That is what your leaders think of you. Are they right?
On September 11, 2001, a group of radical religious fundamentalists killed a couple thousand Americans in order to make us react, the same way a child throws a toy to get their parents’ attentions. Does this mean that we change the zoning laws of lower Manhattan and remove all religious buildings? Would it be in horrible taste to build a Baptist church two blocks from the Oklahoma City Federal Building? Or a Catholic hospital in an African village that was ravaged by the Lord’s Resistance Army?
The fact is that the only sacred about “ground zero” is that thousands of people went to work there on the morning of September 11, 2001, in a nation that didn’t care that there was an Islamic prayer room in one of the towers, and in a town that has strip clubs, youth centers, and religious congregations of all manner and size within a few blocks walk. That is the definition of freedom, the heart of liberty. Now, suddenly, liberty and freedom are in bad taste?
The goal of terrorism is to strike fear and change behaviors, sow distrust, and divide opposition to try to invoke change. For me, they failed. I don’t care any more this week about who builds a mosque where in this country than I did ten years ago. So you have to ask yourself this: did they beat you?
You’re missing my point and conflating several issues. But thanks for the compliment…I think.