It could be argued that America was committing Terrorism by killing thousands of innocent Japanese people for their Political Means.
Well, the counter argument, right or wrong, was that dropping the bombs saved millions of both American and Japanese lives, as the Japanese would not have surrendered otherwise; but that was a declared war between traditional nation states, this is not. If Japan had had the bomb, would they have used it to win? Would Germany? Given some of the atrocities committed to win WWII by both of those countries, it would not be far fetched to think they might. Killing is reprehensible, and ugly no matter the guise, or form.
If we get back to the First Amendment of the Constitution, as it's oft quoted here as the open and shut rationale for allowing the mosque, the US Constitution says: "
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." It seem to me this language doesn't guarantee any place of worship may be built anywhere, but only that the Congress may not prohibit a religion, just as it may not declare a state sanctioned one.
If you take a look at Reynolds v. US, which was an early test of the First Amendment in this regard, based upon Mormon polygamy, the court specifically states "
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." Furhtermore
"to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." This allowed Reynolds conviction of polygamy to stand, and allowed the Court to block other offensive religious practices, such as sacrifices. Although we discuss it as such, in the US, the separation of church and state is by religious opinion, and not by practice, and thus is not absolute.
As many have already pointed out, allowing the mosque to be built, or not, in
that location is not the same thing, as whether or not a mosque
maybe built in lower NYC, which would seem to be a Constitutional violation. As the "landmark" building group is arguing, the existing building is of such architectural significance (it was the
original Burlington Coat Factory), that it should not be torn down. I suspect the argument is a red herring, since it seems abandoned, but nonetheless this whole discussion revolves around location, so it seems pertinent. Likewise, if Imam Rauf had kept the building as a community center, his original intent , and not included the mosque, this project would not be making headlines.
Equally relevant to the discussion, but one I have not seen raised, is whom does the mosque serve? Since religious census data is not gathered, we don't precisely know. Some allege there are only 3K muslims in Lower Manhattan. If so, that's a very small congregation for a 13 floor structure. And there already are two mosques within a 10 block radius from Park51.
Here's a piece on the City's 600K Muslim population.
Columbia News ::: SIPA Conference Discusses New York City's Growing Muslim Population
I do think reciprocal tolerance of other religions in Islamic countries is a relevant point in this discussion, since tolerance, or the lack thereof, is the at the heart of terrorism.
Given the high level of sensitivity those who live and work in that district (I have a cousin who, post 9/11, attended funerals, every Saturday and Sunday for 24 straight months) have about this area, there should have been much better community ground work laid, so as to foster support for
that location. I was pleased to read in this interview of Daisy Khan, a founder of Park51, that they are planning to include a memorial to those who died on 9/11, unfortunately it seems to be an add-on to the original proposal. Here's the interview:
Ground Zero Mosque Founder Daisy Khan Interview: Muslim Ties to Lower Manhattan, Building Support and More - Metropolis - WSJ
FWIW - even if it's built with Saudi money (our recycled oil dollars...), building a mosque there, to be used for peaceful prayer, sends a powerful message of inclusion, strength and tolerance that represents the best of what the US stands for. I applaud Bloomberg's anti-discrimination speech, and cringe at Obama's, seemingly politically motivated, partial recantation of his.
Where was the need for that?
