Over at the HuffPost, Bill Hallowell presents a rather scathing critique of Mark Halperin’s advice to conservatives on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” a critique we have some sympathy for, but in which he also veers into some questionable territory.
Hallowell hits Halperin, rightly, for making the claim that the Republican Party is driving this issue. The party is not in the driver’s seat, but has been a willing passenger on a runaway train that is likely to smash into a thousand pieces and injure all of us in the process.
Hallowell doesn’t make this point, however; rather, he uses his critique of Halperin to jump onto another train, one that also is out of control and moving at dangerous speeds. Halperin devotes “no words at all” to
questioning why the Cordoba Initiative has chosen to build a massive monument to Islam just blocks away from where the World Trade Center once stood. Halperin’s article is limited to telling Republicans why they should silence themselves on the issue. Before I continue, allow me to clarify something. I’m all for religious freedom; I’m not attacking Islam, but I am questioning the intention, knowing the sensitivities involved, of planning to build a mosque at that location. Naturally, Halperin is more concerned with providing advice to Republicans than he is in actually getting to the bottom of the issue at hand — why the Cordoba Initiative is obsessed with placing an Islamic beacon at the center of America’s greatest travesty.
The issue, Hallowell says, is not how the GOP is using the controversy — which, may be true — but the motivation of the Cordoba Initiative, which he refers to as an obsession.
Hallowell is guilty here of doing what too many have done over the last decade: Transforming the site of a horrible terrorist attack into something more than it is, turning what had been America’s most powerful symbol of capitalism (the World Trade Center) into a holy site. The WTC site has become “the center of America’s greatest travesty,” greater than the Civil War, greater than Pearl Harber, greater than the assassination of presidents — a conflation that has resulted in nine years of war in Afghanistan, a slew of lies that led us into war in Iraq (which continues, despite President Obama’s proclamation to the contrary), and an appalling abandonment of our commitment to the rule of law.
As a secular holy site (yes, an oxymoron), Hallowell can ignore questions of law. The Cordoba group has “every legal right to build” and, while “most Muslims are peaceful,” that is not the issue. What is, Hallowell says, are “the moral implications of doing so at, near or around Ground Zero,” implications he calls “evident.”
Whether leftists agree, the vast majority of the public sees the move as insensitive; it is widely opposed by nearly every measure. Should plans for the mosque forge on, there will be a great deal of resentment, which will, in turn, damage reconciliation efforts. If those individuals who wish to build truly care about bridging divides between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans as they’ve stated, they’ll choose another location. Wouldn’t this spread the goodwill that Halperin seems to believe can only come if conservatives remain silent?
The vast majority also opposed ending Jim Crow in the ’60s, which did lead to resentment and backlash, but ultimately resulted in significant and irreversible progress. The danger in granting the majority a right to impose its will on the minority — whether racial or religious — should be pretty clear at this point of our history.
I wrote last week about the mosque debate in my column, and I think it bears repeating: The mosque debate should have been left as a local zoning dispute, the question of what should be built near the WTC site defined by the needs of New York City and its residents.
Hank Kalet 