The debate over whether to build a mosque at Ground Zero grinds on. By now almost everyone knows it would be a YMCA/JCC-like neighborhood Islamic community center not even visible from Ground Zero. The Washington Post recently published an aerial picture of the neighborhood to make that clear and provided an interactive walk around the area on its website. More importantly, America’s commitment to private property rights and the rule of law (not to mention religious freedom) have been clearly upheld by President Obama, New York’s Governor Patterson, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg, and the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission. Score one for what we stand for and what has helped to make us great. So the debate has moved on. According to the sometimes clear voice of Charles Krauthammer, “No one disputes the right to build; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so.”
So let’s take a look at the decency aspect of the debate. Some argue that it is insensitive to those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks to build a community facility with a mosque so close to Ground Zero. Again the sharp-tongued Mr. Krauthammer tells us that, “putting up a monument to Islam in this place is not just insensitive but provocative.” Newt Gingrich has argued that the Muslim congregation shouldn’t build the center because “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” Nazis were the ones who perpetrated the Holocaust, so where is the parallel here? The American Muslims living in lower Manhattan who would swim, chat, and pray in the proposed Community Center did not perpetrate the 9/11 attacks. What message is this sending to the very segment of our society we most need to close ranks with against Islamist extremists? 9/11 was not an attack by Islam against Christians or Americans (though you could argue that Al-Qaeda did mean to attack America). Many of those who died in those attacks were foreigners (from over 70 countries) and around 300 of them were Muslims. Does sensitivity to the loved ones of those who died there not extend to the loved ones of the innocent (non Al-Qaeda) Muslims who died there? What is Newt talking about?
Then there is the question of judgment. The Cordoba community center would certainly help meet the needs of its neighborhood, but would it contribute to better understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims in the community, which its promoter Feisal Abdul Rauf says is one of its purposes? Though this particular property was available to the Cordoba group, was the choice of this spot wise? In retrospect, perhaps not, but such judgments, especially ex anti, are always difficult to make. After forthrightly defending the right of the Cordoba group to build there, President Obama stated the next day that he had no opinion about the wisdom of doing so.
The question is whether building the Cordoba House Islamic Cultural Center in that spot ultimately serves the purposes it is intended to serve. The website of The Cordoba Initiative for Improving Muslim-Western Relations states that the “Cordoba Initiative seeks to actively promote engagement through a myriad of programs, by reinforcing similarities and addressing differences.” It seeks to improve mutual understanding. The need is obvious on both sides. The proposed center seeks to influence how Americans feel about Muslims and vice versa. Those Muslims who continue to hold to the old prescriptions for harsh eye-for-eye punishments for offenses, for example, some of which do not even violate the laws of most Western countries, must either modernize their thinking or not come here. Such extreme views are largely found among Arab Muslims and often have little to nothing to do with Islam.
As if one was needed, Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally planned for August 28 from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial provides an excellent example of how difficult it is to determine the wisdom of political events that offend people you don’t intend to offend. After announcing the date of his rally, Beck learned, to his chagrin, that he had chosen the 47th anniversary of, and the same spot as, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream speech.” Rev. Al Sharpton, for one, has objected to Beck’s plans for that reason. Should Beck be “sensitive” to Rev. Sharpton and change the date or location? Does Beck’s use of that platform show disrespect for King and what he stood for? I am not aware of Beck saying or thinking anything disrespectful of King, who was one of America’s truly great men. But I don’t have a TV, so what would I know? When informed of the coincidental choice of dates, Beck said: “Whites don’t own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King. Humans embrace their ideas or reject their ideas…Too many have forgotten Abraham Lincoln’s ideas and far too many have either gotten just lazy or they have purposely distorted Martin Luther King’s ideas of judging a man by the content of his character.” No disrespect there.
But is it unwise for Beck to continue with that date and place? That is harder to say because it has to do with the impact his rally might have on the attitudes of blacks (especially) toward his purpose of honoring American military families, or his broader message of limited government. If I were Beck, I would keep the date and place and incorporate a tribute to King’s contribution to peace and freedom, which is what our military men have been and are fighting for. If I were Feisal Abdul Rauf, I would build the Islamic center as planned and make it a success at expanding Americans’ understanding of Islam. I would make it a fitting and honorable tribute to those Muslim Americans who died on 9/11.
Warren Coats retired from the International Monetary Fund in 2003, where he led technical assistance missions to central banks in more than twenty countries. His most recent book, “One Currency for Bosnia: Creating the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” was published in November 2007. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago and lives in Bethesda, Md.