The nasty argument over Park 51 (formerly known as Cordoba House), the proposed Islamic community center/mosque goes on.

The thing about this particular shouting match (debate is far too dignified a term for much of what’s been said) is that, in my opinion, whoever “wins” (that is, gets what they want) will ultimately lose.

If the more extreme opponents of the facility (I believe a distinct minority) had their way the government would actually step in and prevent it from being built by using every possible legal means at its disposal.  For example, Carl Paladino, a GOP candidate for governor of New York, says in an ad “As Governor, I will use the power of
eminent domain to stop this mosque and make the site a war memorial instead of a
monument to those who attacked our country.”

If the power of eminent domain were actually used in relation to Ground Zero why not declare the site itself a victims’ memorial and not a site about about two blocks away. The idea makes no sense other than to block an unpopular project.

The government taking action against Park 51 would, in fact, undermine the constitutional concept of freedom of religion and of speech and would only confirm, in the minds of some,
the false allegation that most Americans are intolerant. In fact, even it it were just vocal advocates (and not the government) that succeeded in halting the project that notion would gain unfortunate credence.

That said, the most vocal (and, oh, so self-righteous) proponents of Park 51 will be the ultimate losers if they steamroll the complex through with little or no concern for the legitimate feelings of Americans (including victims’ families) who feel the $100 million dollar 13-story Islamic structure on a site where the landing gear from one of the planes used in the attack landed is insensitive at best and a deliberate provocation at worst. While the vast majority of Muslims aren’t terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, the terrorists did, unfortunately, belong to a not-insignificant group that claims to be acting on behalf of their faith.  

The proponents will lose because the developer’s claim to be seeking to build bridges will be revealed as obviously false — and they’ll look, shall we say, naive. People seeking to build bridges actually reach out to people on the other side of a political chasm. From what I’m aware of (and please correct me if I’m wrong), there’s been little sign of interest in working things out from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric in charge of the project. Instead, he rejected an offer to discuss possible solutions with New York Governor David Paterson who understandably wondered “how much more foresighted would it have been if the imam who is the developer
of the project had been willing to hear what we are actually talking about?”

And, let’s be clear, Americans aren’t offended by a mosque near Ground Zero. There are already at least two. It’s the perception that this proposed mega-facility is intended as a thumb in the eye of Americans that is causing problems. If that’s not true, the Imam should make some effort change that perception — if he cares to.

The only way we can all win from this affair would be if the two opposing sides would actually respectfully talk things through with mutual respect. Perhaps another answer (other than relocation) could be found. Maybe part of the facility could honor the victims of the attack with a  dedication that would reinforce the truth that mainstream Muslims stand in solidarity with America not al-Qaeda. I believe that to be true but it would healing to have a place in lower Manhattan where it was actually articulately stated.

I don’t often agree with former presidential candidate Howard Dean (which makes neither him or me a bad person) but I think he displayed wisdom when he wrote at Salon.com:

This center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be
perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each
other happens. That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is
their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are
“justified” or not. No doubt the Republic will survive if this center is built
on its current site or not. But I think this is a missed opportunity to try to
have an open discussion about why this is a big deal, because it is a big deal
to a lot of Americans who are not just right-wing politicians pushing the hate
button again. I think those people need to be heard respectfully, whether they
are right or whether they are wrong.

He went on to write: