I was going to let the issue of the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque' go by without commenting, but Bill O'Reilly's latest tirade on
The View (no, I don't actually watch the show) got me angry and here's my take on the issue, as pithily as I can put it:
Under normal circumstances, I would have ben the first to dismiss the building of a place of worship—be it a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.—as an unnecessary extravagance. I would probably have gone so far as to say that we don't need to expand whatever extent religion already has; and I would definitely have ventured to advocate, instead, the building of a more universally beneficial type of building, such as a school, hospital, or no building at all and a park or garden instead.
But given the airtime that was given to this issue, and the ink and bile that was spilled over it, I have to come out now, as a strong supporter of the 'Ground Zero Mosque.'
First of all, there was a lot of deliberately misleading information on the so-called 'mosque.' Calling it a 'mosque' was supposed to make people conjure up images of a lead-domed building with sky-piercing, imposing minarets. And they did. The building in question is, in fact, a multi-faith cultural center that will provide the Manhattan community with more 'secular' amenities such as a gym, pool, daycare center, etc..
Secondly, the debate in question should never have taken a national dimension. But it did (thanks, Palin!). The only people making a decision on it should have been local authorities responsible for issuing building permits and the like; the only laws to be observed should have been safety and zoning laws; the only additional considerations should have been on the aesthetics of the building—and that, only if NYC has any.
By overtaking the national airwaves, the debate over this cultural center reached a level of perversion that many self-righteous (read: mistaken) citizens across the nation embraced as justified. Suddenly, an organization whose whole reason-for-being is combatting bigotry discredited itself by coming out against this building; then a bigot in X or Y county felt proud to say that allowing such a building was 'insensitive' or 'un-American' (question: who died and made you a moral dictator of America?); then a zealot in Florida threatened to organize a Koran-burning event that escalated attacks and violence against our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, while also aggravating any existing ire of Muslims across the globe. Yes, in just a matter of weeks, a debate that never should have gone beyond the requirements of local formalities became national and eventually medieval.
Thirdly, it should be understood that everybody has the right to voice his or her own opinion on whatever issue; but nobody has the right to pervert long-standing constitutional principles on issues of 'sensitivity,' especially when doing so means depriving others of the first freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
I'm sorry, angered Americans-at-large: it's not up to you to decide whether a church or mosque or whatever else gets built in your country. It is not up to me, either....
I'm sorry, Manhattan residents: it's not up to you to prevent the construction of a building you don't 'like.' Comply with the decisions of the people you have chosen to represent you in enacting and enforcing local building and zoning laws.
Lastly, I'm sorry families of 9/11 victims: your pain and anger, however real and 'raw' (to use a word that was thrown around by Palin & Co.), do not entitle you to abridging the rights of any group, much less those of Muslims as a whole, who—as a whole—were never against us.
We were attacked by religious zealots with radically perverted views of Islam and the world, and with a total lack of consideration and respect for human life. Perhaps an example closer to home would serve to better illustrate it: the latter are the equivalent of the many (pseudo-)Christian groups in this country whose hateful and bigoted ideas spring up every day in dark and dreary basements across America, and whose abusive rhetoric or violent actions often reach the public scene.
Above all, remember that we are a state of laws; laws that condemn harmful behavior on others, and laws that defend liberties of individuals who set foot in this country (including minorities that can easily be overwhelmed by a majority). We have those laws for a reason and, despite whatever defects our legal-judicial system may have, intolerance of this kind is not one that should be imposed on or expected of it, no matter what the angry or otherwise emotional multitudes say about it.
It's a matter of principle.
