Point-Counterpoint on the Proposed Mosque in NYC

The proposal to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center on private property about two blocks from the site where the WTC towers once stood has launched pro and con activists into a fevered pitch. The President has even taken the politically unwise step of entering the fray, further heightening international tensions and contributing to politics as a cult of personality.

Conservative Christians and families of 9/11 victims are protesting at Ground Zero, at the proposed construction site, and in towns across America—some even burning the Quran. But NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg observes that intolerance and rage are not legitimate reasons for refusing the construction. The Mayor and the President have both defended the proposed mosque as a private property, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state issue. This should be the end of the discussion. The President went on to point out that just because a thing is legal does not make it morally correct. Raising this question has had the effect of pouring chum into the shark-infested waters. The issue was already complex and challenging. Now sharks on both sides are escalating their chum-frenzied attacks. Where will it end?

On one hand, the “mosque blockers” invoke Mr. Obama’s moral stance and state that we were attacked, and have in fact been repeatedly attacked before and after 9/11, by non-state terrorists who have declared war on Israel and the Great Satan, America. The radical Islamists who have attacked us seek a return to Sharia rule and do not wish to co-exist with infidels like the apostate, feckless, and immoral Americans. Islam’s goal is to restore the Caliphate. Infidels who do not convert shall be put to death until all the world worships Allah and acknowledges the Prophet Mohammed.  Mosque blockers are determined to counter the monolithic Islamic threat. They say Ground Zero is hallowed soil to be preserved. They say the Islamization of the WTC site emboldens the enemy, dishonors the memory of the fallen, and undermines our society.

On the other hand, the “mosque apologists” point out that we were not attacked by Muslims but by Muslim extremists. That is an important distinction. It’s not fair to generalize about 1.5 B Muslims from the actions of 150 K radicalized terrorists.  Allowing the mosque is not the same as welcoming Sharia or capitulating to the al Qaeda or Taliban extremists.  In fact, there are many other mosques already in Manhattan, and they are crowded, so the proposed expansion is based on a real need not arrogantly and mockingly undermining the apostate infidel. Further, the idea of refusing construction based on religious grounds goes against our core principles as a Nation. Mosque apologists cite Mr. Obama, too.  But they cite the moderate, pragmatic, law-abiding Obama, not the moralistic, fear-inducing, threat-mongering Obama.

So the issue is tolerance or protection, globalization or tribalism, patience or pre-emption.  Helen Keller said the aim of education is tolerance. But what if we become so tolerant that we lose our identity? Is tolerance a path to global peace, or to the destruction of our country and “way of life”? (Is the American way of life even defined anymore?) Is this a time to be patient and open and trusting, or to preemptively assert protective boundaries? After all, another aphorism may apply: Good fences make good neighbors.

I worry that the debate will be won by the side that makes the most noise. When did politics stop being about getting things done? Now it seems to be about taking sides, and politicians must not only cater to the extremes, they must increasingly become identified by extreme positions to be electable. President Obama has stirred the pot but has not shown leadership in terms of pragmatically managing the debate toward a solution. The country is divided, and no one is really at the helm of the national debate. If politics is not about getting things done, then politicians stop being elected leaders and become elected puppets, reactively catering to the noisiest subset.

What follows in the comments below are citations for the two most strikingly clear arguments I have found to explain the two sides of this issue. First is Newt Gingrich’s call to action in favor of blocking the mosque.  His is the argument of tribalism, protectionism, and preemption. Next is a quiet article by Petula Dvorak about a small, ecumenical chapel in the Pentagon, where Muslim services are held every Friday on the very spot where American 77 impacted on Sep 11, 2001. Hers is the position of globalism, tolerance, and openness.

Does this issue matter to you? Do you have a position? If so, which side are you on, and why?