Chuck Hobbs, Esquire
- Talk about politics making strange bedfellows? President Obama, this past Friday, finally staked his position on the highly charged “Ground Zero Mosque” debate, unequivocally stating that the mosque’s sponsors have a right under the Constitution to build it on property near the site of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center Twin Towers.
A number of Republicans immediately jumped on the offensive, declaring Obama “out of touch” with the American people. Juxtaposed to this course, Republican Mark Mckinnon, a former consultant to President George W. Bush, lauded Obama’s stance as “bold and decisive leadership.” Former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer warned against Republicans trying to exploit the mosque as a campaign issue, particularly in light of Bush’s attempts to distinguish between radical Islamic terrorists and law-abiding American Muslims.
We now realize that Fleischer’s warning has fallen on deaf ears, as other prominent Republicans, most notably Sarah Palin and New York Representative Peter King, are now seeking to turn the tide of mid-term elections by portraying the Obama administration as more sympathetic to Muslims as opposed to “mainstream” Americans.
While reasonable minds may disagree on that point, it is clear that only weeks after Republican leaders Lindsay Graham and John McCain were openly calling for hearings to review the 14th Amendment, other conservatives are seemingly willing to questions the First Amendment, too.
This certainly is not the GOP that I joined in college, one where the Bill of Rights was once considered sacred.
Digressing, I fully respect the feelings of NYC residents who oppose the placement of the mosque near Ground Zero’s hallowed ground. Over the past few months, by listening to and reading their opinions it is clear that many of those living near the devastation maintain wounds that are still too raw to enter into an academic debate as to whether the mosque would pass legal muster.
Despite my personal feelings that the mosque’s location is an insensitive choice and in poor taste, I fully agree with both Obama and the previously mentioned former Bush officials that the Constitution provides no basis for the government to keep the mosque from being built.
No, it is not Obama that is out of touch with the American people on this issue, rather, it is a certain segment of the American public that has either forgotten or is willing to ignore the basic tenets of both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I am disappointed that some of the same conservatives who otherwise are strict constructionists now conveniently want to loosely construe the fact that for over two centuries, America has neither established an official state religion nor infringed upon the right of those wishing to exercise their religious beliefs as they wish.
Even the latest efforts to make an end run around the Constitution by having the site of the proposed mosque declared a “monument” will likely fail legal challenges based upon the fact that the opposition’s underlying premise remains their objection to a mosque instead of, say, a cultural center, basilica or temple.
Still, I will concede that there is a fine line separating what is “legal”, in this instance the right to build the Mosque, as opposed to what is “right”, which is respect for those who died at the hands of 19 young men who died believing that they were religious martyrs.
Forty-five years ago, for example, segregation was “legal” throughout much of the South but it was not “right.”
Similarly, with respect to the mosque’s placement, just because the Islamic Center is now permitted to build near Ground Zero does not make it the right thing to do, and I support those who are willing to peacefully protest its construction in hopes that its builders will examine their true motivations for building at that site and select another location.
A classic example of the “legal” vs. “right” premise is that this past August 6th, the city of Hiroshima marked the 65th anniversary of the detonation of the world’s first atomic bomb, an act that ended the Second World War while ushering in the nuclear age.
U.S. Ambassador John Roos, this year, became the first American official to pay silent respect at the very site where over 100,000 Japanese were killed by the atomic explosion and the ensuing radiation Fallout.
That, indeed, is telling considering that following the war, America easily could have placed any number of museums or commemorative markers to celebrate our decisive victory over the same Imperial Japanese military that had raped and plundered most of the Pacific Rim prior to attacking Pearl Harbor in 1941.
The fact that America chose not to build such shrines is indicative of a respect for those civilians who lost their lives in spite of the well-worn political and military cliché that “to the victors go the spoils.”
As to the elephant in the room, which is the fact that some Muslims view opposition to the mosque as a form of modern day Crusade against Islam, the truth is that while there is a great degree of unfamiliarity with Islamic beliefs by many Americans, there is an even greater lack of familiarity with something less theologically complex yet more ominous—which is where do moderate Islamic adherents stand with respect to terrorism?
Whilst the machinations of Al-Qaeda and Hamas do not represent the millions of Muslims worldwide who seemingly eschew violence in favor of peace, until there is a more concerted effort among non-radical Muslims around the world to reject, repudiate, and yes, round up those who allegedly sully their beliefs, then suspicions, both real and perceived, will only increase.
