Dear George,

I disagree with Uriah Fields’ view on the proposed Ground Zero mosque. The idea of taking a building damaged by one of the 9/11 attack planes and there erecting a lasting monument to the religion which inspired those attacks, is hurtful beyond measure – to the 9/11 families, to the friends, coworkers, and community members of those killed, and to the many Americans and sympathetic others around the world who honor the victims’ memory.

Why is this so difficult for some to comprehend? Why is it suddenly “bigotry” or “islamophobia” to suggest moving the planned mosque, something that would be a simple, obvious act of kindness? Exactly when did it become “unconstitutional” for private citizens to demonstrate an open heart and generous spirit toward those who are suffering grievous personal loss arising out of a unique, and uniquely horrifying, national tragedy?

The 9/11 attacks, and the loss of life and consequent suffering they caused, are a singular event in our nation’s history. Those who died and those near and dear who survive them had no connection with their attackers. They did nothing to incite or precipitate the attacks. They had no time to prepare, and no possibility of escape or defense. They did not volunteer to be sacrificial victims representing our entire nation; that tragic role was thrust upon them without warning, without reason, without justification.

It is heartwarming that, after all this time, nearly 70% of Americans still recognize this and have rallied to honor those who died and to support those who survive. I am grateful for the calming, wise, compassionate voices of Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. David Patterson, Gov. Howard Dean, and others who have the courage – myopic political correctness be damned – to advocate the moral course, in this singular context: Build the mosque elsewhere, not at a site 150 yards from Ground Zero, a mere 2-minute walk from where the Twin Towers stood, so close by that it was physically damaged in the actual 9/11 attack.

Prof. Akbar Ahmed, who chairs the Islamic studies department at American University, has an even better suggestion: Rather than raise $100,000,000 to build a glitzy, superfluous mosque to serve a privileged few in the financial district (NYC has hundreds of mosques – dozens in Manhattan alone, and several within a mile from Ground Zero, including Imam Rauf’s own congregation for 25 years, located half a mile away), why not use those funds to help the millions of flooding victims in Pakistan. That worthy use would hurt no one and, if done appropriately, would do much needed work toward encouraging moderate Islam there.

Many mosque proponents have taken the easy route and demagogued this issue beyond all reason: Mosque opponents are bigots or “islamophobes”; we are indicting the entire religion of Islam for the actions of a few; we hate or fear Muslims. Obviously none of that is true. Everyone acknowledges and honors the First Amendment right to religious freedom. No one has suggested anything at all concerning the many mosques near Ground Zero that pre-date 9/11. No one has advocated violence or illegal acts targeting Muslims. And many American Muslims, including some who lost family members on 9/11, recognize and share the legitimate sensitivities here and oppose using this site for a mosque.

What is true is that mosque opponents do not whitewash reality: the Islamic faith and cultural norms it has engendered were central to the 9/11 attacks. The attacks were a direct product of accepted teachings, beliefs and practices of Islam, and were perpetrated in the name of Islam. If the 9/11 terrorists had been inspired by some other religion or ideological dogma, there would be equally strong objections to an attempt to glorify that belief system at this site.

Far from representing the extremism of an isolated few, the 9/11 terrorists’ “victory over America” was and still is widely celebrated across most majority-Muslim countries. A mosque at this site would be seen as an enduring symbol of this “victory”, and from the moment construction began Islamic terrorist groups and those sympathetic to their aims would feature this mosque site prominently in every recruiting video they manufacture. To celebrate Islam by building a mosque at this place is not only inappropriate and insensitive, it is unwise. The mosque planners who selected this site above all others for their project have demonstrated extremely poor judgment on many levels, in addition to execrable taste.

They might take a lesson from the NRA. After the Columbine school shooting massacre in April 1999, people in Columbine, as well as some in the media and across the US, protested the National Rifle Association’s annual national convention and business meeting, which for months had been scheduled for the following week in nearby Denver. The NRA responded by doing everything it could to avoid adding insult to injury. Because of legal requirements, the annual business meeting could not be cancelled; still, out of deference to the wider Denver community’s loss and grief, and sensitivities across the nation, the NRA did cancel 4 days of planned convention events, and limited their gathering to only the few hours needed for the business meeting.

The planned NRA convention was to be held not 150 yards away but nearly 20 miles distant from Columbine High School; the NRA speaks for a right just as central to our Bill of Rights and as deeply embedded in American life as the freedom of religion; and no group or organization in American history has ever been more determined than the NRA to stand on its rights, always, no matter what.

Nevertheless, within hours after the Columbine tragedy, the NRA, as powerful and intransigent as they historically have been, demonstrated their sensitivity to the pain of the community and the country, and did the moral thing. They did NOT insist upon their clear legal and constitutional rights to hold their long planned and already paid for convention, with highly publicized local sightseeing, gun-centered recreation, and nights out on the town. Instead, they minimized their presence near the affected community as much as possible – paring 4 days down to 4 hours – and still fulfill their legal obligations.

If an incident so unexceptional in American life as Columbine could move a hardnosed, for-profit trade organization to abjure its legal and constitutional rights in the interest of community healing, how much more should the enormous, unique horror of 9/11 impress upon a religious group that, under these exceptional circumstances, they should do the same.

Moving the mosque to a non-controversial site is not about “bigotry” winning out over freedom of religion. No, this is about core civic and human values coming to the fore in a situation that has no equal. It is about what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”. It is about what one hopes all religious leaders would aspire to, and what the mosque planners themselves say is their aim: Building tolerance, dialogue and community.

It is troubling that these Islamic leaders still insist on their original plan when they must be aware now, if they weren’t before, that this will inflict untold further anguish on those who have already experienced and still suffer horrors that, until 9 years ago, were unimaginable. If the mosque planners are sincere in their stated peaceful purposes, they will abandon what Gov. Palin describes so perfectly as “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts”.

Jean Wyant (Electronic mail, August 24, 2010)