Stability For Our Time

I haven't written much about it because really, there's no good answer. I believe in free expression of religion, and that Muslims have a right to buy property and to construct a mosque anywhere as long as it complies with local laws. On the other hand, putting a mosque that close to ground zero is like putting a Catholic Cathedral in Mecca.

Insensitive is putting it mildly.

Before we dig too deeply into it, let's get a couple things out of the way. First of all, it is a mosque, and it is at Ground Zero. Some supporters are calling it a community center, and saying that it isn't really at ground Zero; it's two blocks from ground zero. Well, let's look at both claims.

The church I go to has a coffee shop, a warehouse, a picnic pavilion, a bookstore, and there are plans to build a lodge, a school, and a retirement community.

It's still a church.

The Park 57 development is a mosque, plain and simple. It has an Imam, and regular prayer services will be conducted there.

The property is available because the building that used to be there was destroyed on 9/11 by chunks of the WTC.

It's at ground zero.

Second, there are sound reasons to oppose the building of this mosque, reasons that have nothing to do with fear, racism, or hate. The antipathy felt be some towards building a mosque on ground that was covered with the dust of bodies killed in the 9/11 attack is understandable. The juxtaposing of a mosque within a stone's throw of the biggest, costliest terror attack on the US is a provocation, one whose ramifications must be carefully considered. Calling the opposition racist and prejudiced is childish and inane, and signifies a weak mind.

The foolishness is not limited to supporters.

There are people running around claiming that the Imam is a radical that blames the US for 9/11, and that the purpose of putting the mosque at ground zero is to claim victory over the US. While there may or may not be some truth to the latter, the former is very exaggerated. These people rely on tenuous links that would fail the Kevin Bacon test in order to link The Imam is about as moderate as a Muslim can be without getting a fatwa called down on himself, and despite some mildly troubling statements, I don't see him as coddling terrorists. As for the victory claims, well, I think it's safe to say that if this mosque is constructed, there will be Muslim radicals who do see it as a sign of victory, and will be encouraged to more acts of violence. I think you would have to be in complete denial of reality to believe otherwise.

But the question is: "Does our belief that future violent attacks will likely be spurred by the building of this mosque give us the right to deny the Constitutional rights of those who want to build it?"

As a Christian and a conservative, I know how I want to answer, As an American and libertarian, I know how I must answer.

As Americans, we have rights given to us by our Creator. We deemed some of those rights to be important enough that we enumerated them in our Constitution, the document upon which all of our laws should be founded. Among those enumerated rights are both the right to free speech and assembly, and the right to worship in the manner we see fit. If these right are important enough to receive special attention in the Constitution, then they are important enough to outweigh concerns over potential future events. In other words, no matter how offensive and distasteful a mosque at ground zero is to me personally, no matter how much I believe it dishonors the memories of the 3000 innocent Americans slaughtered that day be the followers of Islam, no matter how strong the possibility that building this mosque may encourage other terrorists to act out their violent plans of conquest and oppression, the principles upon which our freedoms rest must not be infringed.

While I understand and sympathize with the protesters and their point of view, and defend their right to protest without being called racists, bigots, or hate-mongers, I have to say that as long as all laws and regulations are followed, the owners of the property have a right to build a mosque there if they so choose.

Yeah, we're racists. Completely. Like I said...

Opposing building a Mosque at Ground Zero is no more racist than opposing building a Cowboy Theme Park at Wounded Knee, or picketing a German History Museum being built next door to a burned Synagogue. It wasn’t Cowboys who killed Indians at Wounded Knee, nor are all Germans Nazis. But it’s still poor taste, plain and simple, and were it either of the latter, the “compassionate Left” would be up in arms.

I guess the bigger thing to look at are the Constitutional and statutory hurdles. While the Left keeps going on about the First Amendment and Muslim Freedom of Establishment & Expression --- and attempting to enact local laws regarding such --- they fail to realize that they're violating the 1947 statutes which brought the First Amendment down to State and Local levels --- no laws, hands off. They also ignore the 1995 statutes which expressly disallow funding to Faith-based organizations from *any* level of Government ... which leaves me wondering why New York City is giving them $40 Million in taxpayer money for this project?

People have lost their minds.

Commenting is not available in this site entry.