It has been eight months since my last Collegian column and it has been an almost absurdly eventful period. As I write this back-to-school piece, the sheer volume of topics on which I could expound shock me as I think back over all the happenings since last December.
For instance, the two-thousand-plus-page health care bill, which was declared dead on arrival. in 2009, passed through Congress and was signed by President Obama. More recently, the two-thousand-plus-page financial reform bill also passed. The sheer size and complexity of these two pieces of legislation, whether one believes in their efficacy or not, is enough to provide a political junkie or policy wonk like myself with material to fill dozens of columns.
Add in some of the other big events of 2010, all of which have been politicized to some extent, and the challenge of selecting what to comment on in this first column increases by an order of magnitude. I feel afflicted by the apocryphal Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.”
At the very end of 2009 came the failed Christmas Day Bomber, which in concert with the aftermath of the attack at Fort Hood prompted doubts regarding the administration’s effectiveness in responding to terrorism. Next, there was the earthquake in Haiti, which resulted in another demonstration of the overwhelming generosity of the American people, yet raised troubling questions of the ability of governmental and non-governmental organizations alike to deliver that aid to those who needed it most.
Then came the explosion and sinking of a BP drilling rig far out in the Gulf of Mexico leading to perhaps the largest marine oil spill in history, which prompted critics of every stripe to weigh in with opinions and assessments of blame on every aspect of the disaster and its causes.
The environmental repercussions of the spill may take years to quantify, possibly even decades, but will perhaps only pale in comparison to its legal and political ramifications.
Throughout all the turmoil, we have experienced the roller coaster ride of the spotty-at-best recovery of the United States economy, which its status became even more questionable with the European debt crisis that began in Greece at the end of April. Economists, politicians, pundits and prognosticators have registered their myriad views, but the mass of ideas have only added to the amount of contradictory information that fills the newspapers, airwaves and blogosphere.
However, editors encourage Op/Ed writers to make their commentaries topical and to take on the issues that are uppermost in people’s minds, be they local, national or international in scope. It is not enough for me to whine about the difficulty of deciding what subject to tackle by summarizing how many there are to choose from, although I will return to some of them in the coming months, so I feel compelled to register an opinion on at least one current controversy.
I just hope a few of you have stuck around long enough to read it.
I refer to the so-called “Ground Zero mosque,” the latest kerfuffle to capture Americans’ attentions. My own feelings on the matter are very mixed, but there is one aspect of the debate on which I am certain.
The spot where the World Trade Center towers once stood is a place of pain … not only to the families of those who were killed in the attacks, but to millions of others who watched as the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001 played out on television.
Like all places marked by collective memories of overwhelming sadness, a higher level of sensitivity is proper when making decisions about structures that are built in their vicinity. It is not a matter of infringing on our freedom to build nearby. Rather, it is the far more difficult proposition task of being aware of the emotions one’s actions can arouse in those closest to that pain.
I recognize that some portion of those who oppose the building of a mosque in that place do so from an Islamophobic position. We could argue back and forth as to the relative numbers of protestors motivated by these negative feelings, but I contend that the majority of protestors are motivated by a completely understandable sensitivity to its proximity to Ground Zero.
To be sure, it would be unconstitutional for anyone to forbid the Park 51 project from going forward, assuming the developers adhere to all other legal and regulatory requirements. Further, anyone who lobbies to hold the Park 51 developers to a different standard than other religious institutions elsewhere in New York City advocates the denial of the builders’ Constitutional rights.
However, most of the commentary I have seen advocates no such thing. I submit that opponents are not demanding, but are in fact begging the developers not to build so close to Ground Zero. In disregarding the fringe elements on either side, the rest of us should strive to puzzle out a solution somewhere in the middle.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and other representatives of the group behind the project have repeatedly stated that the purpose of building the mosque is to foster understanding and tolerance of Islam, improve relations between the Muslim community and area residents and begin to heal the wounds of 9/11. Taking them at their word, a reasonable person must wonder why they seem so reticent to even consider a different location now that they have heard the outcry of so many.
To characterize anyone who questions the location of this mosque so close to Ground Zero as an extremist is, in reality, the most extremist view of all.
Ben Rudnick is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
