The Ground Zero Mosque

" ...Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And 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. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure."

-President Barak Obama, 8/13/10 (source)

As I read these words, and having listened to them spoken, what immediately comes to my mind is a Georgetown speech the president gave last year ... one in which he insisted the Crucifix behind him be draped in cloth, covered, obscured from view during his address. Do these words match those actions?

It would seem that great minds do indeed think alike, for I've been planning to post on this subject for some days. And as the temperature around this mosque is reaching feverish levels, I could delay no longer.

Let me first address 2 of my colleagues points. One ...

"Surely, the fears and resentments that many Americans feel today is no different than than felt by the majority of Americans about the Mormons, or the Catholics, or the Jews in the past."

I disagree. That would be an apt comparison prior to 9/11 (or perhaps even prior to the assault on the American Embassy in Iran and subsequent infamous hostage standoff, which put radical Islamists on the radar screen of average Americans). The more applicable comparison post 9/11 would be the American resentments of American-Japanese after Pearl Harbor (and in doing so demonstrating the radically different response of the 20o1+ America). The pretexts for the prejudices and bigotry you named above were economic, social, even ancient in origin. The "resentments" against Muslims, when they do exist, are a result of an act of war.

And secondly, " ... I think that there are Christian sects that are every bit as dangerous to "American society" as radical Islam (the congregation of one Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for example... or the increased popularity of neo-Nazi "churches")."

Now my dear friend, one must be careful when making such blanket statements. I believe Jeremiah Wright and his faith (perhaps ideology is more appropriate) to be destructive ... to the soul, not a bridge, nor airport terminal. Wright's words poison the mind and tap the prejudices of the weak in order to socially and economically impact this nation. I am not, however, concerned with Wright's, nor that of his flock, potential for detonating a nuclear device in down town New York. Nor do the prospects of a suicide bombing from his sheep worry me anymore then the possibility that Black Liberation Theologians might high jack the plane I'm flying on. I'm sure you meant that the poison spewed from Wright's mouth is every bit as venomous as that from radical Imams, rather than as dangerous; but given one group has the proven capacity to carry those words into acts of war and murder, and the other has not, we must make that distinction very, very clear.

Additionaly, to put it bluntly, I haven't heard anything about a boom in Neo Nazi Church construction. In fact, I've never even heard such a phrase until today, when I read it here. I think it's about time we stop finding some miniscule "white" example of prejudice or violence to throw into our discussions about radical muslims so as to check the "I'm not not a racist" box when expressing our thoughts and opinions ... don't you?

Now, as to the Mosque.

I doubt anyone would challenge the legal "right" to this construction, presuming all the various "landmark status" court challenges were won, zoning permits acquired, and the normal local hoops successfully hurdled. "Right" is not at issue. However, a Right minus responsibility is a breeding ground for self gratification. Or in this case, group gratification.

Personally I am opposed to this construction because I find it distasteful, in the extreme, and here's why: it is undoubtedly accurate that between 3% - 5% of Muslims are actual jihadists. However, a much larger group is at the very least "sympathetic." I arrived at that conclusion based on several "insider" accounts of former radicals, and the simple math versus action. If the 3% are perverting the religion the other 97% cherish then why hasn't the funding dried up? Why no protests in front of known radical mosques? Why no "Summit of Imams" set on rooting out this evil in their community and faith? In short, where is the presence felt of the other 90+ percent when confronting this issue? I ask this in part because the Imam procuring the land and managing this entire operation is not without controversy. In a Time Magazine article he refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization. He noted in a 60 Minutes interview that the policies of the US government are an "accessory" to 9/11. He also was quoted in a 2008 interview for "Malaysia Matters" regarding 9/11: "when people feel they've been humiliated, when people feel they've been frustrated, when people feel they've been ignored, when people feel justice is not meted, then they feel the need to conflagrate."

Now while I've heard the word "conflagarate" about as often as I've seen a NeoNazi Church, I must still conclude that this man sees the 9/11 attacks as something other than an act of war, or heinous mass murder.

And do you know what date the Imam chose as the "grand opening" of the mosque? 9/11/11 - the ten year anniversary of the attack. It is a fact of history that conquering Muslims erect structures over the sites of peoples they've defeated or battles which they won. Ask Spain, and the entire Eastern Roman Empire. Is this mosque just such a monument?

"How dare you", someone will undoubtedly utter. Well let me ask, with all the talk of being "sensitive" and careful to not offer offense to this group and that group, and this minority, and that sexual transgender organization, where, I ask, is the sensitivity to the 9/11 victims and the nation as a whole? Is this out reach? Have we interned Muslims, as we did the Japanese? Have there been some mass spike in Muslim hate crimes? Have mosques been torched like black churches of the old South? No, on all counts. In other words, why do I get the feeling that the US and her citizens are doing all the reaching in this out reach?

And this leads me to a larger concern I have.

What do you imagine the odds are on the ability of Japanese Americans to erect a Shinto Temple at Pearl Harbor, and open it on 7 December, 1951? I'd say about as good as opening "Lee Harvey Shooting Gallery" at Daily Plaza in 1973. Now let me be clear - I do not, and I emphasize do not, want the US government (nor state, county or city) telling private citizens where and when they can build a house of worship. But that's the crux of the concern - in 1951 no "official" arm of government would have been required to stop the Shinto Temple. Local politicians would have publicly lambasted the attempt. High end donors would be ringing their Representatives off the hook, if not parading down to their offices. No US construction company would have taken the job, no union head nor their members would of participated, and would have threatened a general strike were they told to do so. Mothers in local neighborhoods would of held bake sales to raise money to purchase the land on the chosen site. And no proprietor of commercial real estate would have sold the spot with knowledge of his Japanese buyers intent. And what's more, no Japanese-American investor or temple monk would even entertain the idea. The shear momentum of opposition would have effectively overwhelmed the project with nary a single official authority raising so much as a finger. And in the event that finger was raised it would have been through clever indirectness such as land marking the site as historical.

So what has happened to us?

You may say being more tolerant than life in America circa 1951 is a "good" thing, even towards those whom have attacked us. Perhaps so. But my question is this: I won't call it "grit", that's a bit too positive an adjective, so lets say "unhesitating gull." Would an America without the unhesitating gull to take the actions I described above, to prevent the Shinto Temple, be an America capable of marshaling a victory over the Axis Powers? In other words, if at that time had our survival instincts as a nation been so dulled by PC that internment camps and opening all letters in and out of the nation, etc, were rendered unthinkable, would that America be able to issue rules of engagement that basically boiled down to "win"? Would that America be capable of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Of taking Guata Canal? If Lincoln wasn't of the constitution to suspend habeus corpus (no pun intended), does a CIC incapable of such action win the Civil War? The atrocities against the American Indian are well documented, but would an America repulsed at the idea of unsettling Indians in order to settle the West ever expand our borders from ocean to ocean? What I'm driving at is my larger concern here - if we are incapable of marshaling resistance enough to prevent the construction of this mosque, then have our national survival instincts become too dull to win in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the over all war against radical Islam?

That is my greatest fear. That a nation who would see a mosque built at Ground Zero before the towers are resurrected is in decline. Defanged. Incapable of beating back the wolves of authoritarianism and draconian 7th Century ideas of piety. Yes it's insensitive to 9/11 victims and any empathetic American. Yes it is probably meant as a slap in the face of the great Western superpower. But more than any of that it demonstrates the dulled state of mind Americans are in circa 2010. Saddled with the death grip of self imposed political correctness I fear America's survival instincts have lost their sharp edge ... I pray that I am wrong.