It would be a sacrilege to build the proposed mosque at Ground Zero.

by Charles Krauthammer

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there – and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That’s why Disney’s early ‘90s proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition fearing vulgarization of the Civil War (and wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.”

Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message, or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely, that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi – spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege.

Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history – perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

No German of good will would think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi – yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of good will would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called US policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician....The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want – but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz – and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.

Related Article: Build the Mosque

This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.

Published: Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Hear related audio on this topic."

Like this article? Help us create more. Aish.com exists
only through the support of our readers.

Visitor Comments: 107

(106) Beverly Kurtin, September 12, 2010 10:33 PM

What's next?

Absolutely, build the COMMUNITY CENTER where it is planned to be. There was what amounts to a Mosque in the World Trade Center on the 17th floor of one of the towers. Muslims along with adherents of other religions. When we first arrived in Dutch New Amsterdam, we were denied permission to build a synagogue. Now we want to tell the Muslims what they can and can not do with property they own? How hypocritical. The ignorant lunkheads who insist on calling it "Ground Zero Mosque" ignore that is it not at "Ground Zero," nor is a Mosque per se; it is a COMMUNITY CENTER. It is NOT at "Ground Zero." So what is the problem? I'm Jewish; there are Jewish/Muslim organizations all over the country. Jewish organizations in New York are supporting the building. Who are the dullards who are fighting to prevent the First Amendment from being activated? I am ashamed to be an American if this is what America has become.

ladydi, September 6, 2011 6:54 PM

Building their mosque at that site is a slap in the face to all those innocent people MURDERED on 9/11. Where is your compassion? Obviously you didnt know anyone who was burned alive or crushed that day......shame on you!!!!!

(105) Anonymous, September 7, 2010 3:36 AM

Yeah, but

Are you familiar with the area? The proposed site is not right at ground zero, it's a couple blocks away. The block is somewhat seedy, with cheap-o stores and ugly architecture. There is nothing "sacred" about the proposed site even if one accepts the rest of the author's argument. While I think it's rather insensitive to build the mosque there, and jewish groups should not be affirmatively advocating for the building of mosques anywhere (thank you very much Michael Lerner), the first amendment is WAY too important to US to be trampled upon in this manner. There is a huge difference between blocking commercial development by Disney and a religious institution. First they came for the muslims . . . .

(104) Angie, August 31, 2010 10:51 PM

dont build mosque

(103) neal d, August 31, 2010 3:13 AM

to our own misery

what lies beneath should stay covered the souls that walk an empty place . those that say build a mosque ,do not mourn .There they raise their hands in contempt to what is good and just. A mosque there is a victory for Islam and a nail for the coffin . look at the koran 47:4 the want to take off your head one way or another.

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.


  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment
stub

About the Author

Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer is a sydicated columnist for the Washington Post, and a contributor on Fox News. He has been named by the Financial Times the most influential commentator in America, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Distinguished Commentary.

Related Articles:

Sponsors