Saturday, August 14, 2010
The mosque near ground zero
A reader asks why there has been no debate on MoJ about the proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque 2-4 blocks from the World Trade Center site. I'm guessing there hasn't been any debate because there isn't much disagreement among MoJers. I could be wrong, so let me throw this out there: I support the building of the center at the proposed site, and I strongly oppose the idea that the government should forbid a religious body from building in a particular area based on the identity of the religion in question (as opposed to neutral zoning requirements, though even those can get tricky). I realize that this liberty is not extended to Christian churches in many Islamic countries, but that doesn't change the analysis, in my view. Further, if one legacy of 9/11 becomes "no Muslim presence anywhere near here!," I think we've played into the narrative sought by the Islamic radicals -- some grand religious and cultural war. Thoughts?
UPDATE: I like the way William Saletan puts it:
This was never a war between us and the Muslim world. It's a war between us and al-Qaida. The central battleground in this war isn't Iraq, Afghanistan, or Lower Manhattan. It's Islam. That's the ground al-Qaida is fighting for. It's the ground Imam Rauf wants to take back. He wants to build an Islam that loves America, embraces freedom, and preaches coexistence. Let's help him.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/08/the-mosque-near-ground-zero.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
"I support the building of the center at the proposed site, and I strongly oppose the idea that the government should forbid a religious body from building in a particular area based on the identity of the religion in question[.]"
These are two very different propositions (as Rob, I know, is very well aware). I would be surprised if there were close to as much disagreement among MOJers about the second as about the first. But I'm not sure law ought to have anything decisive to say about the first (though it often does so decisively, via such constitutional mechanisms as the endorsement test).