Thoughts on the Ground Zero Mosque, Patriotism, and Other Concepts

For the last couple of months, the big socio-political issue captivating the nation from the media and blogosphere to the President (who has better things to do) is the proposed building of an Islamic center in the shadow of where the World Trade Center once stood. I have delayed composing my own opinions on this proposal not because I did not know what those opinions were but rather; I struggled to find the language to properly express them. For me, and I hope for many others, contemplating this mosque goes well beyond the idea of a building and as such the task of finding the proper words to contribute to this discussion should not be taken lightly.

The first of the many issues being raised and debated is whether such a mosque has the very right to exist in such a place. The answer to this is not a matter of opinion but one of law and by extension speaks to the very fabric of the American society. The First Amendment, among other things, guarantees the freedom to practice one’s religion without persecution. While the Constitution is certainly an imperfect document, its basic tenets have served us well enough for nearly 250 years and so the answer to whether this mosque has the right to exist can be nothing but a resounding yes.

Those who honestly believe the mosque can be opposed on Constitutional grounds are troubling but more troubling is how the mosque debates seem to seek to demonize the very notion of having an opinion. While the mosque has the right to be built, citizens also have the right to express their opinions on the merits of having that mosque in its proposed location as well as the various other issues surrounding it. There are plenty of sound reasons for thinking that a mosque near the World Trade Center is a good or bad idea and the current trend to frame every “good” or “bad” into a marker of morality or of patriotism is alarming.

Attempts to define patriotism or to determine who has it have existed for centuries and in turn remains a concept too large to be flushed out here. Instead all I can do is put forth what I think the duty of a “true” patriot is in debates such as this. A patriot should not be required to have or believe that devotion to one’s national concepts derives from having the “correct” opinion nor should merely having any opinion be the grounds for claiming patriotism. It is my strong belief that it is the duty of the patriot, in times of national debate, to put forth an educated opinion. “Educated” as used here goes beyond the notion of classrooms and seeks to connote the type of opinion based the knowledge of the “real” issues at hand rather then to back an opinion up on things like “just because”, Racism, White Guilt, Political bias, God or any other “knee jerk” label. Know where your opinions are derived from and seek to understand the derivation of the opposing opinion. The quest to get someone to change their opinion pales in comparison to being able to stand behind your own. There is no greater position in a debate then to have either literally or figuratively read the same books your opponent has.

Now that I have spoken briefly about my personal philosophy on having opinions, I return to discussing the various opinions I have on the issues related to this mosque building proposal. While I believe wholeheartedly in the mosque’s right to exist, the notion of opening it on September 11th 2011 (whether this is a real notion or media creation) should be dropped. As a 9/11 family member, my thoughts on commemorating the anniversary have long been conflicted. I believe it is important for the city and the nation to remember the lives of those murdered on that sadly ironic beautiful morning but another part of me has always struggled with the grief of me and the rest of my family never being truly private. Ultimately, while I understand the nation at large perhaps wanting to use the day to promote togetherness and healing, I think, in New York at least, the focus should not be on the philosophical bridges we can build but on the buildings that burned. Of course the philosophical and political impact of 9/11 continues to evolve, but the bleak reality and fact of what happened that morning in Lower Manhattan, Washington D.C., and Shanksville is that nearly 3,000 people were executed for committing the unspeakable crimes of going to work or boarding an airplane and should remain the rightful focus on that day.

When (like it or not there probably is no "if") this Islamic Center and mosque are built the organizers of its programs and services must also be realistic about the fact that their funds and affiliates will be scrutinized. The fact is that a lot of funding for Islamic programs in America comes from our shady “ally” Saudi Arabia whose state mandated Wahabbi sect of Islam is an ideological cousin to the Jihadhi-Salafist philosophies promoted by Bin Laden and his associates and there have been a number of cases of Islamic centers laundering terrorist money (often unknowingly).

Let me be very clear, I am not suggesting, nor is there any evidence that those behind or who would worship in this center are in any way connected to terrorist groups, but it’s location does make it an ideal target to be exploited by those groups into something it does not represent (as is suggested by yesterday’s public expressions of “support” for the project by Hamas) and thus it is right to demand that the people behind the project are properly vetted. I know many people will view this opinion as clear support of racial and religious profiling and provisions of the supposedly evil Patriot Act concocted by Bush and Cheney. While I concede it is not exactly the warmest and fuzziest aspect of national security, this type of monitoring has been taking place for decades. In addition one must not dismiss such policies as anti-Islamic as these policies are enacted against Christian establishments with potential neo-nazi/Christian Identity influences or violent Jewish groups. To expect all facets of National Security to be transparent is both unrealistic and naive, no matter what you call your God.