Ground Zero Mosque-Why There?

August 16, 2010

The issue of the proposed Moslem Mosque and Cultural Center, so called the Cordoba Initiative at Ground Zero is very controversial and a difficult one because it is generated from at least three different origins: Religious, Political-Diplomatic and emotional.

According to a CNN poll conducted on August 6^th , 68 percent of Americans said they opposed building the mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.

It is also particularly a sensitive issue because of its symbolic nature. A symbol, according to Webster is: something such as an object, picture, written word, spoken word, sound or particular mark that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention. Symbols play a very important role in our lives. There are national symbols such as the flag, religious symbols such as the Star of David, the Cross and the Crescent. There are symbols that represent history, such as the phrase “never again” for the Holocaust, “we shall overcome” for the fight against discrimination. 9/11 has become the symbol of what happened on that day, in 2001.  A cemetery can also be considered to be a symbol. Ground Zero in many ways is a “hallowed ground.”

Both proponents and opponents of the project make valid points.

The proponents argue that the Center has a legal, constitutional right to be there. Freedom of religion is at the corner stone of our Society.

President Obama, said at the White House on Friday, marking the beginning of Ramadan that Moslems:

“Have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.” He also made the point in a CNN interview that he was not discussing the wisdom of having the Mosque at Ground Zero.

Mayor Bloomberg very eloquently said in speaking of the victims of 9/11:

“We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights - and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.”

Opponents, such as Christopher Hitchens argue that the Center’s claim to become a hub of moderation and bridge-making is questionable because of what its founder, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said on 60 Minutes, right after the attack on the World Trade Towers:

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” He added, “In the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”

Furthermore, the fact that he refuses to condemn Hamas and Hezbholla as terrorist organizations is most troubling for a man who claims to be devoted to peace. The lack of transparency both on the funding ($100M) and on the content of its educational program makes it even more suspicious.

This issue, from an ethical point of view seems to me to be one of a conflict of two fundamental values, which are tolerance and respect. Tolerance for the religion of others and respect for the pain and suffering of those that lost loved one in the hands of radical Islam and that oppose the Center. Tolerance should be rewarded by reciprocity.

Adin Steinsalz, the Jerusalem Talmudic scholar wrote in a Washington Post online forum:

“From the outside, one can see it as a question of sense and sensibility. In the context of the recent past, building a mosque in this place is just a lack of tact.”

My recommendations to Imam Rauf would be that now that he has established his legal and constitutional right to develop the center at Ground Zero, he should, on his own initiative, move it elsewhere. New York’s Governor Paterson says that he would be happy to help find a more suitable place.

As John D. Rockefeller once said:

I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.

| Add a comment | Permalink