Just because you can.

There has been a big debate over the plans to build a Mosque in lower Manhattan.

Honestly, what I was going to write today was basically that the people who are trying to build the mosque on this location while having every right to do so, if their intent is to foster ties to the non-Muslim community need to be mindful of the sensitivities of the people who are opposed to the mosque’s construction.

Originally, I had thought the ‘community center’ was being built on Church street or just below the site and it turns out this isn’t at all the case but, I did see where the building being used for this project was intimately involved in the events of September 11th in that is was struck by debris falling from the south tower.

Seeing the location though made me rethink my position, I found myself not as incensed as I had been originally and at the same time taking the kind of attitude of not really thinking it as big a deal as was being made out of it and in some ways it isn’t. Look, it is a free country and the people in question do have a right to build where they want but some interesting questions have come up in the whole process and they’re things that should factor into the discussion.

But when I read statements like this one by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, “The fact we are getting this kind of attention is a sign of success.” I swing back in the other direction.

So, the goal is to piss people off?

Here’s the thing, there are other situations with precedent where a group found the placement of a religious institution close to a spot that had historical significance bothersome and in that case, while it did take a bit of time, ultimately the edifice was relocated:

Carmelite nuns opened a convent near Auschwitz I in 1984. After some Jewish groups called for the removal of the convent, representatives of the Catholic Church agreed in 1987. One year later the Carmelites erected the large cross from the 1979 mass near their site, just outside Block 11, the notorious torture prison in Auschwitz I, visible from within the camp. The Catholic Church ordered the Carmelites to move by 1989, but they remained until 1993, leaving the large cross behind.

Again, there was a battle regarding sensitivity of one group to another and ultimately the issue had to be legislated. It may well be something along those lines would have to happen here. Unfortunately there are just far too many questions regarding the people behind the building of the Center itself not to question their motivation and what’s interesting is that there are true moderates of Islam in this country who realize just that:

We are sitting on a tinderbox. A serious attack on a mosque in which people die could trigger a revenge attack, which would in turn create further attacks against Muslims. Because everything happening in America is seen in the Muslim world, murder and mayhem would follow globally. I believe those who chose the site for the Islamic center (to be called Park51) should have been more culturally sensitive. But now that plans are developed, there are ways to calm the situation.

For a start, the imam in New York should ensure that the cultural center — which he has clarified is not simply a mosque — invites Christians and Jews to include a church and a synagogue so that the building is truly a symbol of interfaith worship. That is the American way. Also, the center must include a special memorial to those who died on 9/11, as proposed, so that people of different faiths can pray for their souls and thus begin to heal the wounds.

 Now, I like the thought expressed in the second paragraph because what it does is put the people who say they want to build the Center as a means of outreach right on the spot, making them put their money where their mouth is. Also, I like the idea of having three houses of worship under the same roof, certainly that is more in the spirit of building unity among people of all faiths.

I don’t think it’s going to happen and I have the feeling as more time goes on we’ll see that the argument as it is framed by the supporters is disingenuous at best.

But then again if we’re going to have this discussion about freedom and tolerance, let’s not forget this:

The statues were destroyed by dynamite over several weeks, starting on March 2, carried out in different stages. Initially, the statues were fired at for several days using anti-aircraft guns and artillery. This caused severe damage, but did not obliterate them. Later, the Taliban placed anti-tank mines at the bottom of the niches, so that when fragments of rock broke off from artillery fire, the statues would receive additional destruction from particles that set off the mines. In the end, the Taliban lowered men down the cliff face and placed explosives into holes in the Buddhas.

and this:

Several death threats and reward offers for killing those responsible for the cartoons were made, resulting in the cartoonists going into hiding. Four ministers have resigned amidst the controversy, among them Roberto Calderoli and Laila Freivalds. In India, Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, a minister in the Uttar Pradesh  state government, announced in February 2006 a cash reward of Rs 51 crore (roughly about US$11 million) for anyone who beheads "the Danish cartoonist" who caricatured Mohammad.

and this:

Dozens of militants, Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Security Forces  men fled into the church to fortify, along with forty monks and dozens of other Palestinians who arrived at the site for different reasons. In total, about 220 men were in the location. Among them were the governor of Bethlehem, Muhammad al-Madani, and Abdullah Daoud, the Palestinian intelligence chief in Bethlehem.

and this:

It was constructed over the site of the Second Jewish Temple which was destroyed during the Roman Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. In 637 CE, Jerusalem was conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate army during the Muslim conquest of Syria.