Moderates in 'Radical Headlock' Over 'Ground
Zero Mosque'
"The
goal of the terrorists was to make the world less free and to force the West to
restrict its own freedoms by generating fear and anger. This project, and the
reactions to it, shows how extreme Islamists and Christians manage, in their
mutual hatred, to put the moderate majority into a radical headlock, with
the goal of stifling the freedom we once fought so hard to obtain."
Feisal Abdul Rauf, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, has traveled the world to talk to moderate Muslims on behalf of the U.S. State Department. He now finds himself ensconsed in a fierce battle to prevent his initiative from being completed.
It would be a very bad idea,
if it were actually true:There are
plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Yes, you could say that this is the
stupidest thing that could be done.Even
if the builders had the right to do it.
But there are three hitches
to the current dispute: For one thing, the controversial building won't be
located at Ground Zero, the former site of the WTC-Twin Towers, but two blocks
away. Furthermore, it will not be a mosque, but a Muslim community center with
a prayer room. But the construction of a restaurant, a stage, a fitness center,
a pool, a basketball court and various other facilities are also planned, which
would all disqualify the building from being a mosque. We’ve also heard the occasional
argument that any building with an Islamic prayer room is a mosque … but then
the Pentagon would be a mosque as well. An interesting idea. We’ll get back to
that later.
Nevertheless, among opponents
of the building, there is always talk of the "Ground Zero mosque,"
and when people protest, especially people like Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich,
then things are getting critical. After all, these folks are well-known for a
casual approach to facts and a tendency to emotionalize things to the extreme,
which is not necessarily beneficial for the debate.
That the building would be a
stab at the hearts of every innocent victim's family is a classic Palinist blooper. Among other things, because her statement
implies that there were also victims who were not innocent. Might she be
referring to those non-Christians working at the World Trade Center during the
attack? After all, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Atheists - people that Palin
considers un-American and not part of the “real America” - were also victims of
the idiots in the aircraft.
Another Palin quote (that she
published on her popular Twitter
feed), brings us to the third hitch with this issue: "We all know that
they have a right to do it, but should they?” In the first part of her Tweet,
Palin says absolutely correctly: The "Community Center" has a right
to be built. It is legal. And that’s the critical
factor in a constitutional state. The "Park51" project is to be built
with private funds on private property. Finished. The
question of whether it should be built is presumptuous.
The author s opinion on
whether religious sites should be built has long been public knowledge: if schools
and educational centers were erected instead of all the churches, synagogues,
temples and mosques, the world would, in my opinion, be a better place. But my
opinion isn’t relevant in a pluralistic, free society - at least not until it
becomes general consensus and is enshrined by law. And for President Obama,
whether he likes it or not, there is no legal way to stop the project - so I
ask you, with what legal argument are people to be discouraged from abiding by
the law?
The charge that the plan is
in poor taste is extremely subjective and dangerous - especially for members of
other (non-) religious minorities that have also joined the protest and are
supporting the Christian Right in their efforts to bend the law.
A "Ground Zero"
Law, based on such subjective criteria, could eventually lead to prohibiting
the building of a natural history museum near a church because the scientific
thought it represents is offensive to believers.
But it was precisely this
equality before the law that was supposed to distinguish Western culture. And
anyone who wants to prevent the construction of the community center must look
for things that are legally relevant. Rumors of illegal financing, for instance. If there is anything to that, then more power to them -
funds in the construction budget from terrorist supporters would kill the project
faster than you can say "Ground Zero.”
Whether it would be wiser for
those who wish to build the center to choose a more distant location is a
justified question, but one that they themselves must answer. Moreover, another
question then presents itself: How far away is far enough? Four blocks, eight or
sixteen? Not in Manhattan at all? The
discussion isn't likely to be silenced quickly and yes, it is entirely possible
that this center could be counterproductive. But as hard as it might be to
detach oneself from it emotionally, that’s not the issue.
The goal of the terrorists was
to make the world less free and to force the West to restrict its own freedoms by
generating fear and anger. This project, and the reactions to it, shows how
extreme Islamists and Christians manage, in their mutual hatred, to put the
moderate majority into a radical headlock, with the goal of stifling the freedom we once fought so hard to obtain.
