Discuss Not Argue

Time for DNA (at least me) to weigh in on the Mosque at Ground Zero Issue. It really is an interesting issue. Recently, I've come to think the wholesale dismissal of arguments to move the Islamic center (which I was guilty of until about a week ago) isn't entirely warranted. I agree that no government should interfere with the building of a mosque (or any other form of harmless religious expression) no matter what. If I had to rank the amendments to the Constitution, the First would be first (followed closely by the Fourteenth). But I do disagree with the assertion that "there is NO good argument" against the builders of the mosque themselves moving it to a different site than the former-Burlington Coat Factory two blocks north of the WTC. A few good arguments discussion points below....

"Mischief in Manhattan" from Ottowa Citizen is quite obscure — from the Ottowa Citizen— but it very strongly asserts a very strong Muslim perspective. I'm very curious to see if it has any effect on our dear reader(s) opinion(s). In this article, the co-authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah say:

 "New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran."

There is also an argument that we should put more responsibility on moderate muslim-Americans to be understanding and less provocative. They could easily pour $100 million of capital they are proposing to spend on this center towards other means of demonstrating their sentiments. For example, why not expand the mosque that is already four blocks north of the WTC to include a cultural center? Why not promote inter-faith dialogue at the other 200 plus mosques in New York? There are also questions about how "moderate" Imam Rauf, leader of the proposed center, really is, especially that he would not unequivocally denounce Hamas. I'm not suggesting that any sympathy towards Hamas (they are democratically elected after all) makes someone immoderate, I'm just saying it should be considered, and America classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization, and Hamas vehemently denies an American ally, Israel's, right to exist. And of course, people can reasonably ask where the $100 million is coming from. 

Someone who has these questions should not automatically be assumed to be Islamophobic (or Republican). I think they are legitimate questions. And yes, we have little-to-no positive evidence that Rauf or members of the Cordoba Initiative subscribe to the type of tyrannical Islam that the authors of "Mischief in Manhattan" are talking about in the last paragraph of their article. Still, there is a legitmate fear of a any ideology that can "destroy liberal democratic secular societies from within," whether that's the fear-mongering ideology of Fox News and the Religious Wrong or stealth fanatical Islam here in New York.