And Freedom for All

At the risk of offending some of my friends and conservative followers, I am going to ask what seems to be an obvious question: what legal basis exists for opposing the Muslim construction plans in New York City? If you have been on vacation from the news for the last few weeks, you may not be aware that plans are underway to build a mosque and cultural center around the corner from "ground zero," as the former World Trade Center site is called. The sentimental motivation to oppose such a thing is crystal clear; New Yorkers have a justifiably raw nerve regarding the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. Many of us who live far from the fallen towers are nearly as sensitive as those who felt the vibrations on that horrific day.

Sentiment aside, how does one justify opposition to a religious building in the land of the free. It seems to me the First Amendment freedom of religion clause must apply to Muslims. I am aware that the spiritual leader at the forefront of this fracas, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf made some incendiary remarks soon after 9/11. Yet are not even these protected speech under our Constitution? I understand that Sharif El-Gamal, the developer, has a mysterious source of capital, allowing him to pay millions in cash for the building. Again, this is not illegal, as Soho Properties, is not a publicly traded company. The financials are no one's business until tax time; then the IRS will have a private audience. If I remember correctly, the Japanese used to own a good share of Manhattan (now I think it has transferred to the UAE,) and the Chinese were recently making offers on a large chunk of California real estate.

My point is that it is not illegal for foreign concerns to openly invest in US properties. If we oppose the development of this particular site for religious reasons only, the charge of discrimination seems appropriate. On the other hand, if the forces behind this project are proven to be enemies of the US, another door opens. National security concerns would dictate that we not knowingly allow North Korea or Iran, for example, to construct an airbase or bio-chemical facility on our soil. Our own citizens (think Michigan Militia, for example) can not plot murder and mayhem without incurring the wrath of the government they oppose. The problem with the NYC mosque is that to date no state sponsored terrorist organization has surfaced as a contributor (unless you count the rumors about Saudi Arabia.)

What appears to me to be happening among pundits of every persuasion is naked religious discrimination. Commentators I generally admire have made virulent statements denouncing the project for no other reason than its affront to Americans' sensibilities. "I don't like your kind, so you can't live here," sounds like the reasoning of bigot. Yet isn't this so sadly American. First the "Indians," then the blacks, Irish, Poles, Vietnamese, and countless others have had the door slammed in their faces. Our track record ain't so great.

Lest my true sentiments be misconstrued, I must say that I think the construction of an Islamic center near ground zero is about the dumbest move I can imagine. My advice to whoever is pushing this thing is to drop back and punt. Worse than thumbing their nose at the opposition, these people are tweaking the New Yorkers' noses. From what I have gathered about those hearty islanders, it doesn't take much to start a fight. While I am not recommending nor condoning violence, I predict that there will be hell to pay if this project gets much farther off the ground. And it is not only New Yorkers who have been itching for a fight since 9/11. Toby Keith echoed the feelings of a large part of America when he suggested that it is unwise to mess with the US of A. People are still looking for a target for that boot in the a** Toby sang about.

Bottom line, Christians can't afford to let religious bigots stop the mosque, any mosque from being built. Martin Niemoller is credited with saying that when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something--but then it was too late. We must protect the religious freedom of everyone, or there will be freedom for no one.