Some in the media have called out NY Mayor Bloomberg's support of the idea of having a mosque near Ground Zero – a topic that is the subject of fierce debate as a developer tries to get permission for this. One article I read (or TV news story I heard, I can't recall the specifics of the report) lauded his tolerant attitude and said it was typical of the mayor.
Mayor Bloomberg was clearly pleased that President Obama seemed to agree after Obama finally addressed the issue in a speech at a White House Ramadan dinner several days ago. The President seemed to unambiguously support the idea at the time.
Of course, the very next day Obama back pedaled. And now the GOP seems intent on making the topic a key issue for the campaign season (see the related New York Times story).
The question seems relatively simple, at least on the surface: should not a society that places the highest premiums on free expression and freedom of religion be tolerant in this regard? Isn't advocating against having a mosque near ground zero the same thing as saying that we hold all Muslims accountable for 911 – the religion at large – and not just its most extreme members?
Isn't targeting an entire religion the most extreme and objectionable form of profiling?
And wouldn't acceptance of a mosque at Ground Zero be a shrewd PR move, and a good way to help bridge the span that separates the West and the Islamic religion, and a way to counter the propaganda that we have it in for the entire people?
When described like this, it sounds like it would be a beautiful thing, right?
Embracing the idea allows Bloomberg and Obama play to their archetype roles that embody diversity, acceptance, and offer examples of the faces of a more world-friendly America.
That is why Obama's back pedaling struck a dissonant chord for so many, including myself (at least, first – see the Washington Examiner story).
But wait a second… let's play this out and get real about it.
Say this friendly, happy middle of the road mosque (I am sure it would not be advertised as anything but while the developers lobby for it) does get established near Ground Zero.
Let us further imagine (it does not seem like too much of a stretch) that the mosque starts attracting radical elements, and that its leaders espouse radical, anti-American views. Take the scenario one step further and speculate that some in the congregation openly call for a second 911 (not necessarily the leaders – after all that would be clear sedition, tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater – and would have legal repercussions).
Would it be possible to go backwards at that point and say "freedom of religious expression is fine but this is really too much?" Would there be any legal remedy to what would clearly be such an unacceptable situation? Who would make that call? And at what point does anti-American rhetoric veer from religious expression that is protected under our constitution into something that can't be accepted and must be stopped at any cost?
