Yesterday was August 22, 2010.  In the op ed column of The New York Times, there were great editorials from Frank Rich, Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd, and Nicholas Kristof.  In addition to those columnists, there were essays in The Washington Post.  The reason that these essays and editorial comments were written has to do with the proposal by a Muslim cleric.  His name is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.  It is the proposal of the imam that he would renovate a 15-story structure in lower Manhattan, about two blocks from Ground Zero.  The structure would include a mosque.  The building would also serve as a community center and has several other features, none of them having to do with the religion of Muslims.
The proposal of Imam Rauf has set the right-wing Republican hearts aflutter.  The bulk of the fluttering is by Republicans such as Newt Gingrich.  Why all of this is taking place is difficult for a person in my position to understand.
The purpose of the structure is to promote harmony and understanding among the faithful in the city of New York.  Imam Rauf was a favorite of the Bush administration and now has become a favorite of the Obama administration.  During the last stages of the Bush administration, Imam Rauf accompanied Karen Hughes, a State Department official, in her efforts to explain the foreign policy of the Bushies to the Muslim world.
But the point is that in building his mosque, which is really a restoration of a pre-existing building, Imam Rauf is intent upon promoting understanding and peace among the various faiths in New York.  I may be taken in but from what I understand, Imam Rauf is not a flame-thrower.  He seems to be a man of peace.  The State Department in both the Bush and the Obama administrations has sent him on trips around the Muslim world to make it clear that this country is not at war with the Muslim faith.  As a matter of fact, at this very moment the Imam is on such a trip in an effort to help this country.  But this means very little to the bombastic Newt Gingrich.  He contends that it is like painting a swastika on the side of the building housing Holocaust artifacts.
The President of the United States, Mr. Obama, started out a week or so ago to explain what was happening in New York.  In all likelihood, it would have been better had the President said, “This is a local matter and the federal government does not need to get involved in it.”  But on the contrary he did get involved and, before long, he stuck his foot in it.
When Obama started out to explain what was taking place in New York, he cited the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion in this country.  That’s great stuff and I fully agree with him.  The following day Obama, in his desire not to be controversial, supplemented the previous day’s statement about the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion.  He now said that Imam Rauf had taken into account that he is building his new mosque only two blocks or so from the World Trade Center.  Mr. Obama also said that he had not commented on the wisdom of building a mosque on this particular site.  Presumably Mr. Obama would be more pleased if Imam Rauf were to build his new mosque on the Battery or in mid-town New York.  But the fact of the matter is that this country guarantees freedom of worship – or non-worship.  New Yorkers are free to worship or not worship uptown or downtown.
Now, when it comes to the location of the proposed mosque, it should be noted that the area surrounding the World Trade Center is far from being sacred ground at all.  For many years, my offices were at 32 Sixth Avenue, 195 Broadway, 140 West Street and then at 5 World Trade Center.  Every day I walked through that area of ground and saw really nothing sacred about it.  Apparently the mosque is to be constructed a block or so from my old offices at 140 West Street, where I worked for the New York Telephone Company.  If it had been constructed when I worked for the New York company, I believe I would have said, “So what?” as most New Yorkers have said.  But when it comes to the sacredness of the area surrounding the mosque, Mr. Obama should review his facts a little more carefully.
There are in this neighborhood of the proposed mosque, a selection of porn shops and I am told that two establishments even closer to Ground Zero, offer lap dances.  I am not really a connoisseur of lap dancing.  I assume that it borders on prostitution.  If lap dancing ever becomes sacred, I would like to know who blessed it.
In New York, a resident would consider someone from two blocks away as sort of a foreigner.  New York is an extremely tolerant place and I am truly sorry that the President elected to stick his foot into the controversy.  But I got into this essay because of the dispute about the mosque, and its religious, cultural and political considerations.
Yesterday after reading the op eds in The New York Times and The Washington Post, I had conversations with Howard Davis, my old-time friend who lives in Yorktown.  I also had a conversation with my daughter and her husband, who live in the upper reaches of Park Avenue.  Curiously, they were not excited at all about the controversy involving Imam Rauf’s mosque.  As New Yorkers, they may even say, “What the hell? What else is new?”  In the final analysis, Imam Rauf’s mosque will have to be debated on dozens of zoning boards that are building permit issuers.  The structure in all likelihood will see its completion five or more years in the future.  And all of that assumes that it will actually occur.
As most of my readers know, I am not associated with any religion.  I am not a Catholic or a Protestant or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or anything else.  This fact permits me to comment on the proposed mosque without fear or favor.
My final thought, after having read all of the editorials, is simple and straightforward.  Certainly in this country there should be freedom of religion.  My only comment is that all of the arm-waving by the religious leaders would be greatly appreciated if people such as myself were to have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom from religion.  I am reasonably certain that no politician would ever take up the cudgels on my behalf to establish that we all have a freedom from religion.  But in the final analysis, I am willing to live with our current constitution which guarantees freedom of religion.  I guess that I am moved to say, “What could be fairer than that?”
 
E. E. CARR
August 22, 2010
Essay 490
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: Oh gosh, this was a huge debacle in late 2010. I’d written it off immediately as “obviously they should be allowed to build there” and hadn’t thought more of it, but it really was interesting in retrospect. It revealed a lot about to what extent the population actually cares about things like the first amendment. Not surprisingly, oftentimes the answer was “we like the first amendment, so long as it does not protect something we find objectionable.” This is of course problematic. I hope the mosque gets built. I will have to check up on it soon.