Ground Zero Mosque
The Ground Zero Mosque (officially Park51 and formerly the Cordoba House) is a proposed Muslim mosque under construction two blocks away from the former World Trade Center, which Muslims destroyed on 9/11, killing almost 3000 people.[1] The plans are a collaboration between the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), a Muslim organization created in the aftermath of 9/11 to promote "integration and tolerance based on Islamic values of compassion."[2]The vast majority of Americans oppose the plan as "insensitive" to the families of the 9/11 victims. [2]
Contents
Reaction of 9/11 Families
Several organizations that represent families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks have criticized the plan as "insensitive and uncaring" to those families and stated that the construction of a mosque so close to the site of the worst terrorist attack in American history is "deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah."
Public Criticism
Sarah Palin stated that "to build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks."[3][4] Former Senator Newt Gingrich compared the mosque's construction to placing a swastika next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.[3] Bill Keller, a born-again Christian and preacher, has stated that because the mosque is a "a spit in the face of the people of New York," he plans to build a $1 million Christian center near the World Trade Center as well.[2]
Obama's Support
Despite overwhelming public opposition to the mosque's construction, President Obama, at a White House dinner held to mark the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, stated that Muslims have "the right to build a place of worship and a community center" near the site of the attacks. Through his comments, Obama, purposefully or not, aligned himself with Islamic terrorist associations like Hamas, which continually argue that Muslims "have to build everywhere"[1] in an attempt to draw more converts.
Faced with an intense popular backlash, Obama backtracked from his comments the next day and stated that "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there."[1] The White House, however, steadfastly maintains that he was not backing away from his comments, but rather clarifying them.
"Declaration of Victory"
Many critics of the mosque's planned construction worry that the placement of a mosque so close to the site of an Islamic terrorist attack is tantamount to allowing a declaration of victory by al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations that supported the 9/11 attacks. This became more and more evident when government of New York City offered the Islamic group the option to build elsewhere in the city, at reduced cost, which the group quickly refused.[5] Dr. Gamal Abd Al-Gawad, director of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, Egypt, stated that the mosque's presence and location would "remind Americans of what Muslims did on 9/11" and that "it's not good for Muslims and Islam to be in the heart of such a controversy."[6]
Faulty Comparison and Appeal to Judaism
Some supporters of the mosque, including the AMSA itself, have compared the plans for the mosque to plans by Jewish groups to construct a center (albeit one much smaller) within a few miles of the former World Trade Center. By comparing themselves to the Jewish people of New York and the world, the AMSA is hoping to draw similarities between themselves and Israel, a staunch American ally. This comparison, however, ignores the fact that neither Israel nor any Jewish group has committed an attack against Americans, either on American soil or abroad. This comparison has also drawn criticism from watchdog organizations like Jihadwatch.org, which faulted the comparison because
Radical Jews have never bombed the West side of Manhattan nor killed 3000 Americans in the name of Judaism (their emphasis).[7]
Other supporters compared the Muslim plans to construct a mosque to the demand by the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) to march through the village of Skokie, Illinois, (home to many Holocaust survivors) in 1977. Despite the controversial nature of the march and overwhelming public opposition to it, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU's defense of the NSPA that their actions were covered by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. These supporters, however, fail to note several key differences between these two situations:[7]
- The NSPA's planned march was nothing more than a "disgusting publicity stunt" and a temporary action (a small group march for the city's center). This stands in sharp contrast to the construction of a mosque, a far more permanent and imposing structure.
- Although the First Amendment does protect many examples of free speech, the Supreme Court decided in Roth v United States that standards could be applied to obscenity or otherwise ruthlessly inflammatory speech. Some could argue, as many of the 9/11 families have done, that the construction of a mosque near the former World Trade Centers would constitute exactly this type of "speech."
