Why the "Ground Zero Mosque" WILL be Built

A Mosque on Ground Zero?

Recently there has been quite an outcry from the public over a proposed community center and house of worship called Park51, more commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque."  Some history may give some perspective to the issue.

10 Year Rewind

The year is 2000. The date is September 22, less than one year before the 9/11 attacks. President Clinton signed into law the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. The law was sponsored by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and had the full backing of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In fact, there was no formal vote on the bill as it passed with unanimous consent and no objections in both houses of Congress.

Besides the full support of both Republicans and Democrats in both houses, this law had the support of the Christian Legal Society, the Family Research Council, and the American Center for Law and Justice.  Most everyone agreed with the sentiment of bill sponsor Orrin Hatch when he stated, "At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together."

Provisions of RLUIPA

From the text of the law, it is quite clear what the intentions and scope of the law are.  The law states that "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution" unless it can prove that there is a "compelling government interest" and that the regulation is the least restrictive means of meeting that interest.  In layman's terms, that means that religious institutions can build pretty much wherever they want.  This is to protect churches and other houses of worship from hidden religious discrimination based on "neutral" grounds of "preserving neighborhood character" or "traffic control."

The law goes on to say that "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination."  Again, in layman's terms, you can't impose the regulation because the house of worship is associated with a particular religion.

Fast Forward to the Present

Currently, there is a political and social firestorm regarding Park51, formerly called the Cordoba Institute, and more commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque". Many politicians (most of them Republicans) have condemned the placement of the muslim community center and mosque, located 2 city blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center buildings. Below is a sampling of them:

"Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor." -Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, 1995-1999 (R-GA)

"Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls (sic) refudiate (sic)." -Sarah Palin, Former Gov. of Alaska, via Twitter

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else." -Spokesperson for Harry Ried, Senate Majority Leader, 2007-present (D-NV)

In addition the American Center for Law and Justice has circulated an online petition do stop the building from being erected (found here) despite their pro-church (and presumably mosque) interpretation and support of the RLUIPA (found here). Another initial supporter also reversed course on the issue:

"Nine years after terrorists forever altered the New York City skyline, an Islamic leader is threatening to do it again--this time, by building a mosque three blocks from where the twin towers collapsed. To the families of 9-11, this 13-story project is the ultimate insult." -Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Conclusion

Like it or not, the organizers of Park51 certainly have the right to build their community center and mosque wherever they are able to acquire the land to do so. The fact that some early supporters of the very law they are now fighting have reversed their positions is indicative of post-9/11 politics. However, this is what is called an unintended consequence. The fact is that there is very little that the government can legally do to stop this building from being built.

Nor should they. In my opinion, the rights of people to practice their religion should not be impeded. to quote Steve Chapman, member of the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, "The law was an effort by Republicans (and many Democrats) to protect the rights of believers-- especially despised minorities. The law recognized the importance of assuring the same freedom for them as for everyone else. That objective made sense 10 years ago, and it still does."


As always, civil discourse in the comments would be appreciated.

More by this Author

  • Fractal Geometry :: Fractals in Nature
    5

    A fractal is defined as a "rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole," according to their...

  • Types of Chemical Reactions
    3

    Chemical reactions take place at the molecular level, when the atoms and molecules of the things you start with (reactants) turn into something new (products). All chemical reactions can be split generally into six...

  • Examples of How Logical Fallacies Are Used
    7

    A logical fallacy is an error in the reasoning process, not in the veracity of the premises. Therefore, logical fallacies are not factual errors, nor are they opinions. They are attempts to bypass the steps of a logical...


Comments 8 comments

pilgrimboy profile image

pilgrimboy 6 years ago from Ohio

As you know from reading my post, I could not agree more. This is a good, thorough take on the subject from a legal perspective. Good job!


dosters profile image

dosters 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Thanks pilgrimboy! I tried to be as objective as possible in my analysis and to save it for the conclusion. I felt like as hot as the issue is right now, some perspective on the laws in place would be helpful. Thanks for the post!


steve8miller profile image

steve8miller 6 years ago from Ohio Great City of Dayton

Good hub. You need to show Tiger this one. I would rather have him deal with you, than me. lol I love people who attempt to fight facts. Keep up the good unbiased work here.


dosters profile image

dosters 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Thanks Steve. Feel free to send him over here!


Jason R. Manning profile image

Jason R. Manning 6 years ago from Sacramento, California

Although I voted your hub up, I inevitably have to act as a wet blanket. Your post was factual, insightful and properly representative of the law. So what is my beef? Technically, I have none, rather a sad reflection that we as a national, all creeds, religions, and political holdings came together to vilify the Florida Pastor, thus hopefully closing the window of stupidity. Having said that, our collective admonishment, and rather impressive array of team work served as an example to the Muslim community how to protect the beliefs of others. Where is the reciprocal support from them? Alas, it is sad that America worked as one to pressure a Christian Pastor to acquiesce, but we do not come together as a nation to pressure a Muslim Imam for fear. Remind me again of who the intolerant ones are?

Good hub nevertheless. Good Day.


driftergal 6 years ago

except for the fact that muslims have a history of building mosques where they have won a victory it might be ok. Think about that for a minute.


dosters profile image

dosters 6 years ago from Chicago Author

Jason-Thank you for your post and insights. While I did not address it in this hub, I would vilify the Pastor in Florida if he were burning ANY books. Destroying books, words, and ideas makes you a coward in my book.

driftergal-I was aware that fact, and aware that they have done so in Jerusalem, Cordoba, and other places. Christians have a history of doing the same thing, such as Mexico City (placing a cross on the Aztec temple), Jerusalem, and Sevilla, Spain. It is a common religious control tactic. I don't agree with it, and for the record, I don't think that is what is happening here. The mosques your refer to are generally built purposefully exactly on the grounds of a previous religious building. Close is not the same.


dilshanh profile image

dilshanh 6 years ago

In my opinion, the 9/11 attack and the construction of mosque in Ground Zero is not to be related. Its not fair to blame the construction of a mosque, due to blunders of some ignorant extremists involved in the destruction of the WTC.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working