That is what the opponents of the proposed “Ground Zero” mosque should be asked, with an answer demanded. Because the “Ground Zero” mosque isn’t at Ground Zero, it is at a nearby site the people who want to build it happen to own. It may or may not be possible for those who seek to build Park 51 to acquire an alternative site in the vicinity of the Lower Manhattan population they seek to serve, particularly since anyone who would sell to them at this point might end up demonized as well. And the Governor’s proposal — to hand over state land to a religious institution — is just as unconstitutional as having the state ban new mosques.
Even if they were successful in purchasing an alternative site while not losing their shirt on the old one, however, the fun could begin anew. “Terrorists” could be accused of planting a “trophy” in an area that was part of the “frozen zone” most affected by the attacks that day. What was that, south of 14th Street? South of Canal Street? South of Chambers Street? West of Broadway? As you recall, it shrank over time. Or building in the very area where the death dust fell, including much of Brooklyn. Or of planting their “trophy” in the very city that was attacked. Or in the metropolitan area where most of the victims lived. Etc. Who would dare to do this, or allow this? Are you in favor?
This isn’t about where a mosque has a legal right to be built. Polls show that most Americans, even those opposed, know that is anywhere. (Most, though apparently not all, would probably also know that means anywhere other than a site specifically set aside for a religious institution by the government). This is about where a mosque could be built without those who build it being demonized, or held to have insulted all non-Moslem Americans, defiled the memory of 9/11, planted a trophy for “their” victory.
And only the demonizers know that. Collectively, because any “compromise” might be as acceptable to some such people as a Palestinian-Iraeli peace settlement would be to certain elements in those communities. It doesn’t matter if the Governor, Archbishop, head of the Anti-Defamation League or head of the Democratic party pronouces a site an “acceptable compromise.” Although each of these should be demanded to designate their Islamic Exclusion Zone as well, the Archbishop and ADL first and foremost.
Even at a “compromise site,” the builders of Park 51, and those who went there, could still be demonized as having insulted the America they attacked, by Sarah Palin, Newt Gigrich, Rick Lazio, Rush Limbaugh, and others. It could still be called the “Ground Zero mosque,” still be the site of protest, and still be threatened by a McVeigh type nutcase who listens to talk radio all day, in addition to a Bin Laden type nutcase opposed to mixing with the infidels instead of killing them.
So, what are the boundaries of the Islamic Exclusion Zone? Reporters should grab their maps and marking pens and go interview the opponents, and proponents of “compromise,” as to what an acceptable compromise would be. And if no answer is given as to where they would be willing to not object, then one answer should be implied. Although mosques open all the time in the U.S., a cultural center, run by followers of Islam and including a mosque, dedicated to interfaith communication, should not be built anywhere.
And perhaps the polls should be adjusted to find out what the general public’s Islamic Exclusion Zone is: how many might in fact be made queasy by the realization that is what they are in fact creating when forced to face it, and how many others would answer “the United States.”
With September 11th rolling around, in fact, the reporters might also ask the opponents where, other than the actual Ground Zero, the families of Moslems killed on 9/11 should gather, so as not to offend the non-Moslems memorializing their loved ones at that site at the same time.