Even after Manhattan’s Landmarks Preservation Committee denied historical status last week to the Ground Zero building proposed to become a mosque, the debate over the Islamic center’s right to exist has not withered. The issue actually had potential to simplify after Mayor Bloomberg showed unwavering support for the mosque, saying anyone who disagrees with him should be ashamed of themselves.
But even after the mayor’s castigation of mosque opponents, the critics and supporters of the controversial Islamic cultural center have continued to opine. Governor Paterson has also chimed in now, telling New Yorkers he understands their qualms with the project, and that he would be willing to provide state aid should the mosque choose to move to a different location.
One thing is for sure: the mosque will be built. But arguments presented thus far have bounced from one extreme to the next, and few analysts have confined themselves to moderation. The proponents are weak and overly defensive, while the critics are self-destructive.
What the naysayers don’t seem to understand is that the only terms upon which Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s mosque project will be halted is if he is proven to have dangerous connections to radical Islamic groups. Any other protest will appear as a claim that the religion of Islam is inherently a reprehensible and dangerous ideology. When Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich says the mosque is a slap in the face they are following a dangerous logic. It concludes: the mosque is bad because it’s next to a place where people from a mosque did bad things.
Read the full story at the Cornell Insider. Tagged as: 9/11, Cornell Insider, Ground Zero, Ground Zero Mosque
Leave a Comment