The ongoing debate about the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” is a test for the real foundations of our country, and the maturity of our political debate. This issue has the danger of sliding further into political immaturity at best, and ugly xenophobia and discrimination at its worst. But it also has the opportunity for us to model to the world and to ourselves the best of what our country stands for—the liberties and values that overcame slavery, segregation, wartime ethnic hatred, mysoginism, and many other ugly parts of our history.
The debate at its core should be about the appropriateness of an Islamic center close to the site of one of our most painful recent memories. We are a country founded on religious freedom, and we are a leading voice globally in advancing this most basic liberty. Any discussion about whether Muslims should have free and open places of worship and share their culture is antithetical to all that this country stands for. The August 23rd Washington Post lead piece about opposition to the construction of a mosque in Tennessee is exactly the ugliness that we should oppose, just as our country has—at its greatest points—protected the rights of other believers and non-believers alike.
Personally I am opposed to building this mosque on this site, but I am more concerned about how this debate will impact our broader debate and development on the issue of religious tolerance and debate, and our efforts to counter real security threats. We have much to lose if we do not change the tenor and focus of the debate.
I am not opposed to this construction in order to limit Muslims’ worship; quite the contrary. I hope there is a suitable location found elsewhere. I am opposed because I fear how painful it could be for those impacted so seriously by 9/11. Just as a peaceful German cultural center would be misplaced near a Jewish cemetery, this center is misplaced near Ground Zero. Nazism represents a radical fraction of German history, just as Muslim-based extremism does with the broader faith of Islam; yet one must respect the views and pain of those who died and suffered at the hands of these radicals and extremists.
I fervently support religious freedom for Muslims, but this needn’t come at the expense of the feelings of 9/11 survivors and families. The stated purpose of reconciliation can be done at a less-controversial location.
But regardless of where we come out on the debate, let us advocate for and engage in a serious, mature discussion with an eye to finding an outcome that truly honors American tradition. A discussion of this kind must be characterized by three elements: First, we are a country founded on freedom of religion. That is an unchangeable liberty, and we must respect that for our Muslim brethren. They have every right to build a mosque where they can worship freely, as any other faith. Second, the wounds of 9/11 are real valid and still fresh for many. We must seek to respect those wounds—whether we share them or not—in light of the importance this day plays in our history. Third, civility. We have only made progress in this country when serious people engage in serious dialogue with a serious commitment to civil dialogue and progress. This issue is no different. Anything short of this dishonors our tradition, and plays into the hands of those that claim that we are not true to the values upon which this country was founded.