This column will come as a shock to some, but it must be written. It comes after a great deal of thought and soul searching, and after I wrote this article.
I travelled to 51 Park Place with my dad yesterday (we were in the neighborhood anyway). I saw firsthand that this location is not within eye distance of Ground Zero. There will be a large building blocking the view of this location and Ground Zero, and it will certainly not tower over Ground Zero and/or the Freedom Tower. This is close to Ground Zero, but not next door. The TV remembrance ceremony would not ever pan to the Cordoba Institute. I honestly believe this “Ground Zero mosque” is not even symbolically awful. It simply is a mosque in the neighborhood of Ground Zero.
I happen to believe the imam in particular is a fake-o moderate who wishes for a one-state solution vis-a-vis Israel and supports the Iranian regime. He claims to be a “bridge builder,” so he has a special responsibility to prove this by being transparent and clear in his denouncement of jihad as well as his financing, which he has not done. I thus support protests of Imam Rauf and his group. But I do not support blocking the Islamic center and mosque itself. Consider: (a) the reality that the location is not in fact within eye view of Ground Zero; (b) there is no pending allegation that this imam and/or the Cordoba Institute has broken any laws. After giving this serious thought, I don’t see why there is any cogent argument to be made to block this mosque. As I just said, I oppose this imam and support protests against the imam. But there is no “there there” that can or should be used to block Park51/Cordoba Institute from building at this site.
To put it in clearer perspective: if the American Nazi party were to want to be at that location and lawfully purchased the land, I say we would have to let them be there. (note that Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois)
I don’t think there is any argument to be made for banning Park51/Cordoba Institute/”Ground Zero Mosque” that could withstand first amendment scrutiny. I also don’t understand the sensitivity argument. Firstly, Imam Rauf and his group can be the most insensitive bastards they want to be, in accordance with the law. Secondly, since the proposed building is not within eye view of Ground Zero, what is there to be sensitive about? Thirdly, if Imam Rauf is so bad, why is it better to have this mosque located uptown or in Brooklyn?
When people think about it, they realize that it really is no better to have a mosque in Times Square (as an example), and that is why we are starting to see people from all walks of life writing that they want all mosques banned. So the argument that it is only this “insensitive location” that is the problem is simply disingenuous. However, I ask: do we really want the government to have the ability to ban a religious institution? Do you trust the government to have that sort of power and not abuse it? I realize many of the protestors are simply expressing their distaste of Imam Rauf and his group (as a lobbying tool, rather than through governmental action), and are misinformed about the exact location of this proposed community center/mosque, believing it to be closer to Ground Zero than it is. But some of the protestors have started to literally say all mosques should be banned, and some politicians are starting to hitch their wagon to such extremists. This is a problem for all of us.
I believe Islam is a religion with a mainstream that often promotes inequality and violence, as well as antisemitism and supremacism. I would like that to change, but that is what appears to be the case today, with “mainstream leaders” that excuse away wife beating and Hamas. (see: Tariq Ramadan) However, as I said before, my analysis of Islam is unchanged even if I believed Islam were the equivalent of Nazism itself. I am also aware of the fact that Nazism at first spread by speech. And that is a pitfall of the first amendment and a risk we have to take. But if we start to say “no new mosques,” (or even that a certain radius around Ground Zero should be free of mosques) then we’ll start to see a primrose path of the government being in a position to ban all sorts of other speech. See, as an example, the Netherlands, where, for good-hearted reasons, there are hate speech laws. These very laws are being used to punish Geert Wilders, and possibly send him to jail. In Canada, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn had to face bogus “hate speech” prosecutions. In France, while the hijab is banned in schools, so are kippahs and crosses. It is these sorts of situations that I would like to avoid.
And just to clarify – when there are allegations of laws being broken (such as the Muslim American Society, where there are allegations (and video evidence) that they have literally funded Hamas), then my analysis changes. The law provides the US government a tool to block/freeze the property of terrorist groups, if it is proven that they are in fact a terror front group. See this and see this. In contrast to the Muslim American Society, there is no such claim that the “Cordoba Institute” have violated these laws.
And with this all said – the first amendment does not require that the New York Times (as an example) publish Hamas propaganda. And on Sunday, Ali Abunimah (Electronic Intifada) published a load of human excrement in the NY Times, where he openly advocated the Hamas position. His whole column was rife with double standards, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies. The NY Times has no legal obligation to publish pro-jihad columns, and I believe that our efforts are much better spent opposing the NY Times, Washington Post(et al) for allowing their newspapers to advocate on behalf of jihad, than it is going after symbolic and ultimately less important issues, such as the Ground Zero Mosque, which would be a pyrrhic victory anyway, if won, as it could make all of us less free.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. Once we start to make exceptions to our laws for unpopular groups, we start to descend into anarchy.
I don’t like Imam Rauf and his group. In fact, a part of me believes he is as great a threat as Bin Laden, as he legitimizes Islamic radicalism. (see his support for the Iranian regime and belief in a one-state solution vis-a-vis Israel, as but examples of this) But as S. G. Tallentyre said, “Though I disagree with everything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
