The 9/11 Mosque

You have probably heard that a mosque is planned to be built two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. This has created a huge controversy. The planned mosque will be 13 stories high and cost $100 million.

Opponents of the mosque complain that it is sacrilege to build a ,osque so close to the site where 3,000 people will killed in the name of Islamic superiority.

Supporters of the mosque see nothing wrong with this. One poster on Huffington points out that the mosque site is two blocks away from the WTC site and rhetorically asks how far is far enough? My own answer for that is outside the debris field from 9/11. The current building was struck by the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes which clearly makes the site part of the attack.

More rational supporters point to the First Amendment. I have long held that you don't count as a supporter of the First Amendment unless you uphold its use by people you disagree with. My initial opinion is that the mosque is distasteful and disrespectful but should not be blocked.

There are other issues.

Years ago the KKK sued and got the right to place a cross on the Ohio statehouse grounds on the basis that other religious symbols were allowed so theirs should also be included. If they had simply put up a cross I would have agreed but they had various slogans painted on their cross. That should have transformed it from a religious issue to a political one. The same is true for the mosque.

Why is does it have to be so close to Ground Zero? Its supporters say that it is in the spirit of reconciliation. There are reasons to doubt this. The very existence of the mosque so close to an act of Muslim extremism seems designed to stir division rather than healing.

The backers of the mosque have refused to identify themselves. Two other mosques in Manhattan have links with groups that provide financial support to terrorists. I see no problem with refusing to allow anyone associated with terrorists to build a mosque (or anything else).

The name of the building will be the Cordoba House. This is supposed to be in honor of the period in Spanish history when Cordoba was under Islamic rule but welcomed Christians and Jews in peace and brotherhood. A different reading of history shows that this was a period when Muslims had seized parts of Christian Europe through jihad and only allowed Christians and Jews as dhimmis. This period is as offensive to Christians as the Crusades are to Muslims. Further, the ultimate goal of al Qeada and the 9/11 terrorists was to establish exactly this sort of government in the US. Again, if this is meant as a $100 million incitement for the overthrow of the United States then I have no problem with having it moved.

Another factor is that the First Amendment requires equal treatment under the law. A Greek Orthodox church that was damaged on 9/11 has faced a number of obstacles to rebuilding including a restriction on the sight of the dome. In contrast, the mosque is getting a fast track. A proper application of the First Amendment would require the mosque to follow the same standards that the church has to follow.

Which brings me full circle back to the First Amendment. The mosque seems to be getting preferential treatment over a church which invalidates most First Amendment arguments.