Should there be a 'ground zero' mosque?

There's a debate raging in New York City at the moment. It's regarding plans to build a Mosque just steps away from 'Ground Zero' - the site of the former World Trade Center that was obliterated by fundamentalist terrorists in 2001.


To be honest, I totally understand the uproar.

I remember arriving in New York for the first time in 2001 - finding a city utterly in shock. 9-11 was when the impact of terrorism was brought brutally home to Americans in a manner unprecedented before or since. It was difficult not to feel resentment and outrage towards Islam, especially when the news channels showed Palestinians dancing in the streets in celebration, and even 'moderate' Muslims arguing that "America has brought this on itself."

That's a quote from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf by the way - the man slated to be the new Imam of the 'Ground Zero Mosque.'

Ultimately, though, there are several reasons I think the 'Ground Zero' mosque should go ahead.

Primarily, the fact that this mosque will not be built on 'Ground Zero.'

It will actually be located two blocks away, on the site of a building that was damaged by falling debris on 9-11, but not destroyed by it. It's uncomfortably close, I'll agree - but where exactly does the 'Ground Zero' perimeter end? What is an 'acceptable distance' from the site of the disaster to build a mosque? Manhattan's not a large island, so carving out an arbitrary 'no mosque' zone is difficult.

Secondly, because the building site is privately-owned and building the mosque is privately-funded.

I'm enough of a capitalist to argue that the 'outraged public' has no right to dictate what can and can't be built on private property. Sure, there are zoning laws - but a mosque isn't exactly the same as a strip-club or liquor store (and I don't think Joe Sixpack should be dictating where those can and can't be built, either.)

Thirdly, there's that little thing called the 'First Amendment.'

America was founded on the notion of freedom of religious expression - and it's unconscionably unconstitutional for the 'outraged public' to dictate which houses of worship get preference in their neighborhood. If they'd allow a church, but ban a mosque, then they violate everything the Founding Fathers fought for.

And finally, with the economy the way it is, I don't think New York City should turn down millions of dollars of private investment.

The mosque means revenue for the city and for the construction industry. Ultimately, that's why New York Major Michael Bloomberg approved the move - because he's a pragmatist and a businessman at heart (and runs New York like a private business.)

That all being said, I'll admit that I don't like the idea of this mosque one little bit.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf might be hailed as a 'moderate' Muslim, but he's made some very sketchy comments in the past regarding America and 9-11.

I also think the furor this has caused will reflect negatively across the world.

Because conservatives expressed so much outrage, Islamic extremists are undoubtedly going to view the mosque as a 'victory' against the 'evil America.' In their eyes, Rauf is building a testament to the Islamic faith just steps from where 3,000 people were murdered in that faith's name.

This is why I understand the outrage, and aren't as willing to dismiss the anti-mosque conservatives as 'bigoted' or 'ignorant' as many on the left-wing do. I completely understand why they're so opposed to this mosque - and while I'll stand up and defend its construction, part of me secretly wishes they'd succeeded in not letting it be built.

Government Steals Land

PITTSBURGH – The government will begin taking land from seven property owners so that the Flight 93 memorial can be built in time for the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the National Park Service said. Story here.

On September 11th 2001, an airliner flying from Newark, NJ to San Francisco, Ca., was hijacked mid-flight by terrorists. They planned to plunge the plane into the Capitol building or the White House in Washington D.C.

Fortunately, the brave passengers aboard the airliner were able to overpower the hijackers and prevent them carrying out their plan - but in the process of retaking the hijacked airliner, it plunged to the ground in the middle of Pennsylvania. There were no survivors.

Almost a decade later, the National Park service intends to build a memorial to these brave men and women - but have run into a slight problem. Much of the land on which they want to build the $58 million, 2,200-acre permanent memorial and national park actually belongs to other people.

So what have the government done? Condemned it.

'Condemn,' in this context, means to appropriate for government use. Basically, the government has told the seven landowners who have deeds to the crash site that their property is being taken for the memorial whether they like it or not.

Tim Lambert, who owns five acres the government are planning to use for the park, very diplomatically states that he's 'disappointed' by the government's decision. His grandfather had bought that land in the 1800s - and he'd always intended to donate the five acres in question before the government preempted him by commandeering it.

Park service spokesman Phil Sheridan tried to justify the decision:

"We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller, but sometimes you just can't come to an agreement on certain things."

That reasoning rings hollow. As Tim Lambert revealed: "No negotiations have taken place with the park service. We never sat down to discuss this."

In fact, the landowners had been given the explicit understanding that the government would never use 'eminent domain' to simply 'seize' their land. Unfortunately, that's a promise the park service weren't willing to keep.

While I understand the passion of those who want to build a memorial to the victims of United Flight 93, I think it's horrible that the land for the memorial is being acquired in this way.

In some cases, it's not entirely the fault of the government. Certain landowners - like Mike Svonavec, who owns the crash site itself - have been spectacularly uncooperative with the governments attempts to negotiate. (Svonavec offended many by placing a collection box on the crash-site, calling for donations for the memorial, while actually using the money to pay for security on his property.)

However, like in the case of Tim Lambert, the others weren't even offered the chance to negotiate about it. They simply received notice that their land was being seized.

As fitting as it is for the victims of United Flight 93 to be remembered in a memorial, I doubt any of them would have wanted that memorial to come at the price of stealing other people's land!

Glenn Beck looks to the Third Reich for inspiration...

"When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts."

Glenn Beck (in Nike sneakers, right)

Coffee Bean wrote, as usual, a very intelligent, thought-provoking response to my evisceration of former local radio hack Glenn Beck. I was furious with him for his revolting exploitation of the 9-11 terrorist attack - creating what he dubbed 'The 9-12 Project' to 'return America to the mindset it had the day after the Twin Towers fell.'

Jodi shared my opinion of this idiot, responding: "On 9/12 I was angry, scared and depressed. I felt utter helpless and hopeless. So, yeah. Can't wait to feel THAT again."

Coffee Bean tried to explain what she believed the 9-12 project was all about - in a way that was far more clear, concise and heartfelt than anything Glenn Beck had said. (We really should petition for Fox News to give her Beck's job - we could get Kathleen Turner to do the voice-over work if Coffee Bean's not happy about speaking on air.)

CB wrote:

"[The 9-12 project is about] remembering how awful 9/11 was and how we were all Americans first. [It's about] trying to get people to come together and start becoming more aware of what is going on in our country. He's trying to get people to start paying more attention to their neighbors and develop deeper relationships..."

I think that's a wonderful, admirable intention and would entirely support it- if I believed for one second that this was truly the intention behind Glenn Beck's project. I don't, however. I know exactly what he's thinking and exactly why he chose 9-11 as the launching point for his despicable little crusade.

If Beck was genuine in his intentions, he'd have turned not to the devastating tragedy of September 11, but to some positive, unifying date in American history. At the risk of sounding hokey, the 7-4 project (July 4th) would be an ideal choice.

Independence Day is when Americans come together to celebrate the principles of individual freedom, equality and liberty - the ones that inspired peaceful men to take up arms against the British and fight for their freedom.

The 9-12 project, on the other hand, celebrates a very different 'unifying event.' The day after the Twin Towers fell, Americans huddled together in fear and anger, unified in blind nationalism and hatred of an unknown enemy.

It was those numb months following the attacks of September 11th that led to the Patriot Act, the opening of Guantanamo Bay, the invasion of Iraq and the approval of 'torturing' prisoners. Using fear as a winding sheet, the administration pressured the American people into condoning a course of action which was in violation of every founding principle of the United States.

And, for some reason, it's that mentality Glenn Beck wants to re-inspire in Americans with the 9-12 Project. Nationalism, fear, hatred and suspicion. It's a technique that's worked extremely well for other regimes in the past.

The obvious parallel is the Reichstag Fire of February 1933, when communist terrorists set the seat of the German parliament ablaze.

In the aftermath of that devastating attack, the German nation fell in support of a man whose political currency was 'fear' and 'hatred.' That man was Adolf Hitler - and the Reichstag Fire is often accredited as the defining event which led to his election as supreme Chancellor.

Even at the risk of falling foul of Godwin's Law and Leo Strauss's indictment of the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument, I think it's fair to point out the similarity between what happened after the Reichstag Fire and what Glenn Beck wants to achieve with the 9-12 project.

If there was even a shred of positivity behind what Beck wanted to achieve, he would have based his 'project' around a positive event. Instead, because he wants to exploit America's fear and suspicion, he chose to hijack a true American tragedy and exploit it for his own ends.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not equating Glenn Beck with Hitler - far from it. At best, Glenn Beck is attempting to be a second-rate Goebbels - and almost a decade too late even for that.

All I'm pointing out is his bankrupt morality - the disgusting way he took a real tragedy from recent American history and manipulated it to his own ends. What made it even worse is his abject contempt for the real victims of 9-11 - the ones who lost family when the Twin Towers fell.

"When I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm sick of them." Glenn Beck, on his radio show

Beck is a wannabe little fascist, puffing up his feathers, squawking patriotic soundbites and trying to sound relevant in a world that has thankfully moved on from 'the day after 9-11.'

It's that 'moving on' which terrifies him. Glenn Beck's career was built on 9-11 (his Tampa, Fla. radio show was only syndicated nationally the days after the Twin Towers fell.)

By pushing so hard to give birth to this vile '9-12 Project', he's revealed how desperate he is to keep that fear and uncertainty alive - because that's all his pathetic 'career' is based on...

...that, and a rather uncanny similarity to the actor who portrayed 'The Voice of London' in the popular movie V for Vendetta. Watch the clips and compare for yourself:

Authentic propaganda from Glenn Beck himself:



'The Voice of London' from the classic movie V for Vendetta: