Ground Zero mosque: A bittersweet moment in American religious history

For the most part, the very public battle over the Islamic center has exposed two hideous trends. The first is the bizarre glee with which some on the political right rushed to denounce the mosque, dishonestly declaring it the "Ground Zero mosque" and marshaling misplaced analogies in demanding its prohibition.

Photo: NYCmayorsoffice/Edward Ree

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | Opinion
Source & Credit: New York Daily News
By Eric Trager | August 5, 2010

The decision by New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve the construction of an Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero marks a bittersweet moment in American religious history.

To the extent that the decision affirms this country's commitment to religious freedom, it is a sweet moment. Religious freedom is, of course, one of the cornerstones of our democracy - the cause that brought the Pilgrims, Eastern European Jews and liberal Iranian Muslims, among many others, to our shores.


And to the extent that the First Amendment bolsters this legacy, there were simply no justifiable grounds on which to reject the construction of the Islamic center. After all, it was not being built on public lands; public funds were not being used for its construction, and the leaders of the organization behind its construction have not been accused, let alone convicted, of any crime. In a country that prides itself on religious freedom, these are the standards against which the construction of any religious institution should be considered.

But the sweetness ends there. For the most part, the very public battle over the Islamic center has exposed two hideous trends. The first is the bizarre glee with which some on the political right rushed to denounce the mosque, dishonestly declaring it the "Ground Zero mosque" and marshaling misplaced analogies in demanding its prohibition. In this vein, Commentary's Jennifer Rubin compared its construction with the erection of a monument to Japanese Emperor Hirohito at Pearl Harbor, while Newt Gingrich opposed the mosque's construction "so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."

Never mind that, whereas Hirohito was singularly responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor, American Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11 (and, in fact, many American Muslims were murdered in the attacks). And never mind that America is not Saudi Arabia, and hence does not aspire to Saudi standards of religious tolerance.

The real outrage is that these opponents of the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" apparently agree with Osama Bin Laden that Al Qaeda's way is the true Islamic way, rightly understood. It is only through this leap of logic that the institutions of a billion-strong faith become synonymous with the greatest crimes of its most radical adherents.

Yet the public battle over the Islamic center has exposed a second, equally disturbing trend: the prominence of apologists for acts of Islamist terrorism within the American Muslim community. As critics of the Islamic center rightly noted, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the project's principals, parroted the Saudi line immediately following the 9/11 attacks, telling "60 Minutes," "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

Never mind that many of the 9/11 hijackers' brand of Islamism predated America's active involvement in the Middle East, or that U.S. foreign policy affects people in every corner of the Earth, yet only Islamists have targeted American civilians for mass murder.

These are mere quibbles. The real outrage is that the imam of an Islamic organization that aims to "improve Muslim-west relations" rationalized the 9/11 attacks, rather than condemning them outright.

Still, it's worth pointing out that, as offensive as Rauf's post-9/11 comments were, they pale in comparison to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's now-infamous post-9/11 declaration that "the chickens have come home to roost." Yet Wright didn't lose his church, and Rauf shouldn't lose his center.

Things would be otherwise in a perfect world, but instead we have a democracy. And in a country founded on the principle of liberty, we cannot prevent people from using their own, privately funded podiums to project odious beliefs. The best we can do is make them famous for those beliefs, and hope that their congregants demand a new way forward.


Eric Trager is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Pennsylvania.


Read original post here: Ground Zero mosque: A bittersweet moment in American religious history