I need an explanation. Maybe I am just not getting it. Maybe I am insensitive. Maybe I just don’t understand. But I need an explanation. I need someone to explain to me what is at the root of the issue with the building of Park51, the muslim community center and mosque.
A man named Mike Lupica, who writes a column for the New York Daily News says, “Ground Zero mosque debate is about common sense, sensitivity to 9/11 vics, not religious freedom.” In this column, written August 16, he spends a lot of words chiding President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg for trying to tell the American people what is right and wrong and very little explaining his thesis. He quotes Bonnie McEneaney, a woman who lost a loved one on September 11th. She says, “The question isn’t about [first amendment rights]. The question is about sensitivity. To me, this is solely about sensitivity, the feelings of the friends and relatives who lost loved ones on 9/11.” Then, in his own words at the end of the piece, he says, “Everything Bloomberg and Barack Obama say about this sounds right. But if the only constituency that matters here – the ones left behind by the victims of Sept. 11 – think they’re wrong, they are.”
He has two points that I can read here: 1) The issue is about sensitivity to the victims’ families. 2) If the victims’ families do not want Park51 built, then it should not be built. In other words, they get to decide.
Newt Gingrich, via Twitter, refers us to a column by Charles Krauthammer at The Washington Post. Mr. Krauthammer, again, cites reasons of “common decency.” He uses the common tactic of comparing the situation to Pearl Harbor or the site of a Nazi concentration camp. But the argument boils down to the same thing. When comparing to Pearl Harbor he says, “…while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.” But he doesn’t say why. Why would that be offensive? I think it would be a useful mental exercise to put into words the answer to that question. Why would it be offensive to have a Japanese cultural center near Pearl Harbor? I want to hear the answer to that question.
What are the “profound reasons of common decency” that prevent the building of an islamic cultural center near the site of the attacks on September 11th, 2001? I would like to read those reasons articulated.
What I am hearing right now is a response something like, “if you don’t know now, I can’t explain it to you.” But I think the argument deserves a real explanation.
What is under the surface of the opposition is not just opposition to the building of Park51, but opposition to Islam; opposition to the muslim faith. What else can be read from the arguments? One has to guess what is meant because the arguments are not fully formed. The arguments are incomplete. There has to be a reason that building the community center is offensive. What is that reason?
I am more than willing to have an open discussion with anyone who is interested. I want to know the answers to my questions. This is more about understanding the opposition to the project for me than entering into a debate about whether or not Park51 should be built. Because, I think that the First Amendment rights extended to all Americans are indisputable.
UPDATE:
House Republican John Boehner says: “This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history.” This skirts the issue again. He’s depending on people to just agree with him or not ask him any questions. Here’s the question: How does that respect look? (I assume by not building the community center.) Then the question is: Why does respect for that tragic moment in our history have to involve not building a mosque?
The Republican Whip, Eric Cantor said, “I think it is the height of insensitivity, and unreasonableness to allow for the construction of a mosque on the site of the World Trade Center bombings. I mean, come on.” Why is it insensitive or unreasonable? Please answer. I want to hear the reason.