Anti-Islamic Illogic

In the hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding the proposed construction of an Islamic cultural center in New York City, some of us seem to have forgotten a few salient facts.

First: the center is in no way a part of ground zero. It's two blocks away. So are numerous other businesses and centers, none of which were asked to pass any kind of "9/11 litmus test."

Deferring to the opinions of the 9/11 victims' families on this issue (no matter whether they support or oppose it) makes little sense in this context. The families are rightly involved in the planning of the land left vacant on the World Trade Center property, but they should not have sway over the use of sections of the city that lay some arbitrary distance away.

Second: The building is private property, paid for with private funds. The proposal violates no law whatsoever. Any opposition is therefore only a ploy for the purpose of capitalizing on emotions.

We hear that this construction is "insensitive" to various Americans. But is it not equally insensitive to subject an oft-maligned minority group to the court of public opinion over something that encroaches on no one else's freedoms?

Third: An Islamic center can only be a "win" for the terrorists if we insist on giving their fundamentalist interpretation of Islam priority over the other 1.57 billion peaceful Muslims living on this planet.

That's what terrorists (of all kinds) really want -- to have their views validated. If you oppose this center, they've already won by defining the terms of the debate for you. It also does a total disservice to those Muslims who have suffered at the hands of terrorists. The numbers of these people dwarf the loss of life on 9/11 (some victims of which were also Muslim).

It is worth noting that the group who first stoked this controversy is itself an extremist Christian organization called Operation Save America, and that their opposition is not simply to the location of this particular center. They have traveled the country, staging protests at Muslim venues of worship (including in my city of birth, Bridgeport), intimidating Muslims, and driving divisive wedges into local communities.

These people consider the Islamic faith an affront to their own religion, and see themselves as confronting a dangerous rival on the verge of taking over their country. This is exactly the same view that extremist Muslims have, and that the Christian crusaders in the early part of the millennium had.

But even if that were not the case, it remains to be demonstrated that the parties involved in this project pose any legitimate threat to American security. Until such a threat is credibly established, it is a myopic worldview that automatically associates these people with terrorists. And if such a threat does become apparent, then the correct line of action to take will be to arrest them, not call them names.

If Republicans truly value the sanctity of individual property rights and the free exercise of religion (as they so often assert), they ought to be fighting especially hard for this work to go forward. Even if they don't like where or why it's being built, the issue is a classic example of the kind of liberty the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect (both from government and mob intervention).

These Muslims are our fellow citizens, and deserve all of the same inalienable rights to the use of their property for the practice of their religion as the rest of us.

The protection of those rights must supersede public sentiment, anti-Islamic fear mongering, or any other form of the current opposition. If we are willing to subjugate our most deeply cherished rights whenever an unpopular private decision is made, then we will be hypocrites. The rest of the world will correctly recognize us as hypocrites. And the real terrorists will have yet more confirmation that they can easily undermine the institutions that we claim as most important to us.