The issue of building a mosque at Ground Zero has sparked considerable debate across the country. That debate has taken shape politically, religiously, and morally. Most of the essential angles have been covered. However, it is unfair to characterize it as a debate. A debate assumes at least two opponents producing rational arguments and responding thoughtfully to the arguments of others. What we have seen is the summer of the straw man, specifically among those who are in favor of the mosque. The pro-mosque group argues that any restriction would be a violation of first amendment rights. They state that any protest must then be unconstitutional. I’ll leave aside the irony that many who make this argument have shown frighteningly little regard for the Constitution in other aspects of life. However, the anti-mosque group has responded that they are not interested in seeing any governmental interference. The basis of their protest is not legal (it is against the law to build) but moral (it is indecent to build). They wish the builders to stop because they recognize that it is wrong. The pro-mosque group has frequently responded by repeating their original argument louder and slower. Debate will not happen.
There is actually an analogy here that is frequently overlooked. Let’s turn our attention to the actions of Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. They travel the country protesting at the funerals of fallen soldiers. Their signs and sayings are extremely offensive. In fact, their practices have been condemned by men of goodwill and common sense all over the country. Yet, they continue unchecked because it is their legal right. The courts have upheld the legality of their behavior several times. What they do is not illegal, but make no mistake, it is wrong, not legally, but morally. Even though we may not be able to ban it, we are right in condemning it. So it is with the mosque at Ground Zero. It is wrong. That doesn’t mean the government should intervene to stop it (though I wouldn’t mind if it stopped trying to assist in its construction). It does mean that I can simultaneously honor the Constitution and disagree with the mosque.
I always appreciate your thoughtful comments.
In my view, it really is not accurate to call it a mosque “at ground zero”. It’s a mosque (or Islamic cultural center) in Lower Manhattan (actually 2 blocks away from ground zero).
My sense is that the political right has manufactured this as an issue. Admittedly Salon is left leaning media, but the time line of the anti-Mosque movement is documented here
When one’s message is weak, a good strategy is to be shrill about something else. That in my view is what some are doing.
I find Ron Paul’s comments valid: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque!: “Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.”