The “Ground Zero” Mosque that Isn’t

01 September 2010 | 22:51 Code : 8548 America
By Hooman Majd
In the great debate over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, it has been pointed out by proponents of the project (whether they support Islam, religion in general, or not) that the name is a misnomer: there are no plans by anyone to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It’s a convenient name, though, guaranteed to stir emotions in the age of anger, fear, and Tea Parties. For anyone who is a New Yorker, or anyone who has visited Ground Zero and paid attention to the geography of Lower Manhattan, it is clear that the proposed Islamic cultural center, on Park Place, is a long two blocks away from the actual site of the World Trade Center, is on a street where there is no view of the site, and is in a neighborhood of stores, offices, delis, a strip club (yes, the kind where naked women offer lap dances to paying customers), and a gambling joint (off-track betting on horse races). Hallowed ground? Hardly. The site itself, where an office tower is being built and a much smaller memorial planned, may indeed be “hallowed ground” where innocent civilians perished, but that hasn’t stopped businessmen from using the site for one purpose only: making money. The developer will rent space in the office tower at market rates—one tenant is to be Conde Nast, the magazine conglomerate that publishes The New Yorker as well as Vogue, Vanity Fair, and Lucky, a magazine devoted solely to shopping. Hallowed ground and hallowed air: even if a mosque were to be on one of the floors in the tower, right in the very airspace where Americans were reduced to ash, would a place that is designed for worshipping the almighty, the same almighty all followers of the Abrahamic faiths worship, be more or less disrespectful to the memory of the dead than a commercial enterprise designed to celebrate shopping?

None of this matters, of course, for the debate should not be about what is appropriate or whose feelings might be hurt; whether it is what might be the proper distance from Ground Zero for an Islamic center, or what kind of enterprises (vulgar or not) should be allowed to exist on “hallowed” ground. The debate shouldn’t exist at all, in fact, simply because America is nation of laws, and in a free nation, what is right may not always be appropriate to some segment—sometimes even the majority—of the population. There is no question, for example, that many white Southerners were highly offended, in the sixties, their feelings hurt even, that blacks should be allowed to eat at the same lunch counters, sit on the same seats on buses, or drink from the same water fountains, but one could hardly argue that their feelings should have been taken into account, as the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) has suggested Muslims should do with the feelings of the families of the victims of 9/11, arguing essentially that the sensitivities of those families in this case are more important than the rights of Americans protected by the constitution. (Of course not all families are opposed to the mosque: some quite vociferously defend it, so whose feelings should the Muslim backers of the mosque be sensitive to?) By that standard, the ADL and every other organization that opposes the mosque would have to agree with those who believe that cartoons of the prophet Mohammad should be banned, for they offend, they hurt the feelings of millions of Muslims, and are clearly insensitive.

In a nation of laws, one can be truly sorry that people are hurt, but one cannot set aside the law because of it. In the mid-1970s, Nazis planned to march through Skokie, Illinois, a heavily Jewish suburb of Chicago that was home to many Holocaust survivors. Nothing could have been more provocative or more insensitive to American Jews, and yet many Americans who supported the right of the Nazis to march, no matter how abhorrent their philosophy, were Jews themselves. And although most Americans opposed the Nazis and their plans, the Supreme Court sided with the Nazi party (whose argument was that Illinois couldn’t force them to get insurance when others could march for free), in a decision that confirmed that the First Amendment, protecting free speech, applied not only to popular beliefs but to immensely unpopular ones, too. (One cannot, of course, equate Muslims with Nazis, but the analogy of ‘unpopular’ versus ‘right’ is nonetheless appropriate.)

The mosque isn’t so much a question of free speech as it is a question of freedom of religion, which is also protected by the constitution of the United States. Newt Gingrich, the former (idiot) congressman who suggested that because Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow churches or synagogues then we shouldn’t allow a mosque at Ground Zero, doesn’t understand America if he thinks that the standard we set for ourselves should be a Saudi one. Islam may be unpopular today in America, many may even blame the faith itself for terror attacks against Americans, but following the faith, being a Muslim, cannot ever be proscribed in the U.S., just as being a devil-worshipper or a witch or an atheist cannot be, either. Freedom of religion allows anyone to build a house of worship on private property, and free speech entitles followers of any faith, religion, or even cult to loudly proclaim their views, as it also entitles them to disparage other faiths, if they so wish. The pastor of a church in Florida is planning a “Koran-burning day” on the anniversary of 9/11 this year; as ridiculous, inflammatory, offensive, and downright stupid as that may be, he has every right to do so, and Muslim Americans may not like it, but most will understand that the price of freedom, which includes their freedom to practice their faith as they wish, to wear what they wish (unlike in France), to say what they wish (even if it is Holocaust-denial, as President Ahmadinejad can engage in when he’s in New York but is illegal in Austria and Germany), is that others who believe completely differently from them have all those rights, too. There is a reason that for all the hatred of American foreign policy, for all the dislike of the U.S. across the globe, so many foreigners want to come and live in this country, where they can be free, where the law protects them, just as it protects every other citizen. As President Obama made clear in his recent interview with Brian Williams of NBC, if a church or synagogue, or a Hindu temple, can be built on Park Place near Ground Zero, then a Muslim mosque can too. It’s as simple as that: whether we like it or not, Muslims have the same rights as anyone else in America, and if that changes to the point where discrimination against a religion is allowed by a city, state, or by the federal government, then America is no longer America. One of the wives of a victim of 9/11, someone who has more reason to be hurt than those most shrilly condemning the mosque in far off places, is in favor of it because, as she said on MSNBC, her husband’s death will have been in vain if America sets aside its values in response to the horrific crime that took his life.

In the end, whether the cultural center that houses the mosque is built or not (and at this point it will only not be built if the developer decides not to, which is his right), the debate has in fact shown what is great about America. The Nazis didn’t march in Skokie after all—instead marching in other neighborhoods—not because they weren’t allowed to, but because they couldn’t be bothered to once they won their case in the Supreme Court. America (from the president to the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg), and without a court battle, has already affirmed the right of Muslims to build their mosque wherever they wish, as long as it conforms to local, state and federal laws. And all those opposed, from politicians like Newt Gingrich and others who are running for office to the television and radio personalities who cynically fan the flames of hatred and bigotry in an election year, have already lost the argument, whether they know it yet or not.

 

Hooman Majd is a journalist and writer based in New York and the author of “The Ayatollah Begs to Differ” and “The Ayatollahs’ Democracy” (September 2010).