Ground Zero Mosque

I'm sure we have all heard the uproar about the building of a mosque just blocks from Ground Zero and how it has become a national issue. My issue with the mosque is that it is an issue. The debate about the discussion didn't become an uproar until the National Republican Trust PAC created a television ad denouncing the creation of the mosque and the networks of NBC and CBS refused to air it.

This morning, the New York City local ABC affiliate aired the Democratic Attorney General Debate, which the video of is embedded below. If you fast-forward to the 9:15 mark, the question is asked of the candidates on their views on the building of the mosque and if the funding for its creation should be investigated (the bracketed comments I include are for clarification only). I have the candidates' comments written and/or summarized below the player.




Westchester County Assemblyman Richard Brodsky responded,

The, uh, mosque being built in that area is offensive to me as a matter of my role as a citizen. Uh, it seems to me that a certain degree of human understanding and sensitivity would say that there are things that may be legal which are not what we want to do in treating each other like citizens. As to whether it is legal or not, that is a much different question. And the law will be applied to those folks as it would to any other group as to the legality of the mosque. As to the funding sources, we will investigate any funding of any organizations which violate the law, threaten to violate the law, or whose activities are illegal and we will do that without fear or favor.

Eric Dinallo, a former NYS Superintendent of Insurance and Assistant Attorney General, said

I understand the issues of the emotions around this. I was at the Attorney General's office [located at 120 Broadway - three blocks from Ground Zero] when the World Trade Center was attacked. Outside of my window, you could see the destruction and time it took to come back from that. And, [at] the Insurance Department [which I was head of], I settled the case that moved $2 billion from the insurers to the redevelopment for downtown. But I think that people still have to maintain the concept in their hearts and minds [that] this state -this society- is built on Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Worship, Freedom of Congregation, and that I think that it needs to be looked at the funding source; but, just because it was a mosque, it is not a reason to put in such a deep investigation. For that purpose alone.

Nassau County District Attorney, Kathleen Rice, answered,

You know, I understand the sensitivities surrounding this particular issue. But I think one of the most fundamental bedrocks of our great country is the ability to allow each and every individual to worship the religion of their choice. And I think that in the absence of any evidence of any wrongdoing or breaking of any law, that that bedrock needs to be preserved. But, of course, if there is evidence [of improper funding sources], as Attorney General, I would investigate it.

State Senator Eric Schneiderman said,

I, uh, I think that the mosque should be built. I think that religious freedom is what this country is all about. Arguably, one of the reasons we were attacked on September 11th is because we have a pluralistic, open society where everyone is free to worship and, uh, interact. I have proposed already looking at issues related to funding sources of banks that are based in New York and other companies that move money around that may or may not be going to terrorist groups - particularly: money going into Iran. But that has nothing to do with the religious freedom issue. The local Community Board that represents that community approved the mosque. I'm not going to second-guess them.

Then, when asked if he would investigate the funding, Schneiderman said that he would investigate the funding as well as any funds that are transferred through New York that are related to terrorist activities.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sean Coffey as well agreed to investigate the funding to ensure it came from legitimate sources.

Well, I, uh, would also purse investigating the funding to make sure that it is coming from legitimate sources. This is a very tough issue. I mean, there is a lot of emotion around Ground Zero. As a young 17-year-old, 16-year-old, I helped build the World Trade Center when I was an apprentice in the Carpenter's Union - I helped lay sheet-rock there. And I lost some friends that day. I completely the pain that the families are feeling. But, we're special. We're Americans. We're tolerant. We strive for a more tolerant society. I served 30 years in uniform [in the Navy] defending those ideals and, as painful as it is for some folks, I think that we're better than our worst - as people would put us - in the worst light. And so, uh, I would go ahead and permit it to be built.

He too said he would investigate the funding.

In retort, Brodsky, said that the next Attorney General would have to apply the laws equally, but each person should be allowed to have opinions on the issue because of the memories 9/11 instilled in us. Coffey retorted that what we have to do is reach past the divides that the anger from 9/11 brought us.

Before I continue, I think I should explain some New York City politics. When a development project is proposed and would require the amendment of current zoning laws, the developer must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The stages are simple enough, but take years to go through. First, the developer fills out the proper paperwork; if just one "i" is not dotted properly, it gets sent back. Next, the development project is reviewed by that community's Community Board. The Community Board consists of City Council members from that area and local representatives that are chosen by the Borough President. The Community Board has a public hearing so local residents can weigh-in. The Community Board's approval only serves as a recommendation and holds no weight in law. Next, the proposal is brought to the Borough Board, which is another advisory board that is chaired by the Borough President and mainly deals with the effect the project would have on the borough as a whole. Then, the proposal is brought to the City Planning Commission; if this board, which is chaired by a mayoral appointee, does not approve the measure, it dies (unless the City Council intervenes). Next, the City Council decides to approve it; the City Council looks at the impact the project could have on the city as a whole. If the City Council rejects the plan, it is dead. If approved, however, the plan is sent to the Mayor for his signature or veto. Notice the way ULURP happens: discussions on the project by the community, then discussions by the borough, and the discussions by the City as a whole. Look at what is noticeably absent: the State and the Nation.

Of the five Democratic Attorney General Candidates, only two live within the 5 boroughs of New York. Sean Coffey and Assemblyman Brodsky live in Westchester County. District Attorney Kathleen Rice lives in Nassau County on Long Island. Senator Eric Schneiderman and Superintendent Eric Dinallo both live in Manhattan. After moving from Long Island to the City, I saw how much of a difference there is when it comes to living in a place from living near a place and hearing about a place. There is a certain je ne cest que about a tragedy's impact radius and the level of understanding that people that are further away from it have from those that are right there. A good friend of mine from high school lives in TriBeca, only blocks from Ground Zero; his problem is the amount of people that are moving away from the neighborhood to other parts of the city. I live one block from the Brooklyn Bridge and that issue is foreign to me. If I, someone who lives 30 minutes by foot, cannot understand the emotional impact of the residents, how can someone from Westchester County, or Albany, or Washington or, for that matter, Alaska? 9/11 was a national tragedy, but each person and each community has to deal with it in the manner that they know best and outsiders should not be involved. The further away from the impact zone, I find, the less say you should have.

My issue with the mosque is that it is an issue. Gound Zero is in New York. New York was hit. New York should choose how to deal with it. Yes, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC were hit and both tourists and commuters from the Greater New York area were killed. I do sympathize, but just like any national tragedy, it may affect people that weren't there, but that impact is different from those that were.

I think Senator Schneiderman was the most correct when he said that we were attacked because we are a pluralistic society. The people that attacked us hate us because we allow for multiple opinions. They see the connection between our pluralism and our prosperity and denounce us because they want that prosperity while not losing power.

In the weeks following 9/11, there as a small Internet meme that depicted what the Ground Zero redevelopment project should look like. The photoshopped picture was an extend middle finger made from images of the World Trade Center.

Now, personally, I like the idea of the mosque. I can understand the issues surrounding it and the images that reminds us all of and I am completely sympathetic. I too have moments of shock when watching the scenes of the buildings falling or the people under the rubble. But I also want to look forward. President Bush, that night, said "America was targeted because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." I think the mosque should be built because for those reasons. We can tell the rest of the world, Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11, but we are a beacon for freedom and we will not let any attack on us silence our core values. I think that building a mosque simply blocks from Ground Zero is the ultimate way of giving the middle finger to the Islamic Extremists that attacked us. We can say to the rest of the world that we have a mosque and a synagogue and a church all in blocks of where you tried to attack us; your aims to destroy the fundamental values of the United States failed.

Part of the reason why the saying "turn the other cheek" is such a great comeback is the history behind it. 2,000 years ago, the left hand was considered unclean and not used since it was used for wiping oneself. Also, an open-handed palm face slap was considered a sign of embrace (a back-handed slap was for beating). So, when the rule was made to turn the other cheek, it was less of sign of personal integrity and more of a sign of putting someone in their place. I think the 'Ground Zero Mosque' would do just that.

Let me leave you with a clip from "The West Wing" that I find to be on target: