Reality or Rhetoric?

"I'm ashamed to be an American today," said Rakif Gathwari to a jeering crowd during a July hearing concerning the building of an Islamic community center within a few blocks of the site of the former World Trade Center.


Ashamed to be an American; ashamed to be part of a country made great by the acceptance of people of all nationalities or religions. Ashamed to be a part of the country that overcame government sponsored sexism and racial segregation. Why? Because in the aftermath of 9/11 some Americans discovered a new subject for bigoted rhetoric, a subject that many Americans could easily be convinced to hate, or at the least oppose. There is not shortage of websites and blogs to inform Americans of the "evils of Islam" and the plans that Muslims have to take over the world. They interpret passages from the Koran, twisting words, demonizing doctrines, and trying to make them seem vicious, less than civilized, sometimes even less than human.


The latest, and one of the most public displays of this takeover of rhetoric is the protests surrounding the building of this Islamic community center; among it's opponents are such prominent political figures as Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. They would convince us that America has not yet healed from the figurative wounds of 9/11, that it is distasteful to have such a community center on such "hallowed ground" ; "hallowed ground" that seems to be unaffected by the presence of other less-than-tasteful enterprises near by. Conor Freidersdorf wrote the following in Forbes Magazine:

You've probably heard about "The Ground Zero Mosque," an Islamic community center planned in Lower Manhattan. But I bet you haven't heard of The Ground Zero Strip Club.

There are actually a couple of adult entertainment venues that show up on Google Maps if you search around the former site of the World Trade Center. Internet reviewers seem to like New York Dolls best, due to its sexy, disproportionately Russian staff, mirrored stage and purportedly high-quality lap dances.

As yet, I haven't heard anyone wonder why our political class is silent as the sex industry operates on sacred ground. It would be a bizarre complaint: It's Manhattan, where you can find anything mere blocks from a given location. The closest strip club to Ground Zero happens to be two blocks away, a fact that has nothing to do with our reverence for the place where so many Americans were killed by terrorists. As you've probably noticed, it doesn't even make sense to call it The Ground Zero Strip Club.

But it makes no less sense than naming an Islamic community center "The Ground Zero Mosque" — as much of the media have done — because it's going to be located a couple blocks away.

Where is the outrage? Why aren't people bothered that this "hallowed" locale is graced by strip clubs? Could it possibly be that the outrage is not so much over the memories of those fallen in the Towers and in subsequent search efforts as it is over the fact that Muslims want to build a community center? I had hoped not, but I'm not so sure now. As ads are running and protests mounting, Mr. Freidersdorf finishes with this:

"Join the fight to kill The Ground Zero Mosque," intones a video advertisement released by a group called National Republican Trust PAC. "A mosque at Ground Zero must not stand. The political class says nothing. The politicians are doing nothing to stop it. But we Americans will be heard. "

As an American in good standing, I'd like to be heard — and to make sure that James Madison, a colleague of mine in citizenship, is heard too. The fourth president of the U.S. once wrote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's a line that National Republican Trust neglects to remember. Perhaps "the political class" isn't doing anything to stop the construction of an Islamic community center because the Constitution forbids it.

So the question is: Will we put our own laws under our feet to deny Muslims their legal right to build this center? I think it would be absolutely wrong to deny American citizens their legal rights based on their religion, it would be blatant discrimination.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), (U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 et seq.), section 2(a)(1) states that:

"No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—
   (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
   (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

Are people really willing to put that aside to deny them the right to build? Unfortunately some of them seem to be. I am not from New York, and I will admit that that may have some effect on my feelings, but I watched the second plane hit the tower on TV at my school on 9/11, I was affected by it, and I admit that I harbored some anger towards Muslims in general for a while. But I over came that, I let go of the hate, and realized that the actions of the few do not dictate the feelings of the whole. It would appear that some people have not. Sarah Palin expressed just this sentiment in two recent Twitter posts. She said:

"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts, pls reject it in interest of healing."


I'm sorry Sarah, I usually agree with you, but on this one I have to disagree. If you have not let go, if you have not used the last nine years to figure out how to forgive, or at least not hold people responsible who in reality are not, that is not the fault of Islam or it's followers. But I think what  bothered me the most was her request of New Yorkers, to

"pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real."


It was raw, it was real, when it was happening and shortly after. But nobody, not even Sarah Palin, has the right to hold innocent people responsible for the misdeeds of those extremists. There is no legal reason, there is no moral reason, and there is little emotional reason to deny these people the right to go forward with their construction. The question is whether we can stay grounded in reality, or if people will allow themselves to be drowned in rhetoric.