Location, location, location: concerning Park51

Regarding the Park51 mosque and community center, President Barack Obama was correct: “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.” He was right the next day, too, when he said, “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of putting a mosque there.”

Those two sentences summarize a national controversy that is shouted about on talk radio and endlessly debated by talking heads. As it has been publicized, it is not news, but merely the right and left trying to evoke reactions from one another and to proudly call, “Gotcha!” But stultifying partisanship aside, there is a rational way to approach Park51. We ourselves must see the issue through different lenses.

The first way is through the First Amendment. If Sharif el-Gamal, chairman and CEO of Soho Properties, and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf complete the Park51 structure, they are absolutely within their rights. That should be respected, if not without protest, then without Quran-burning.

What we must ask is: Should they build it? Is it compassionate? Is it right? I say no.

Ask Sally Regenhard if it’s compassionate—her firefighter son died on Sept. 11. When interviewed by the New York Times, she said, “People are accused of being anti-Muslim. ... This is simply a matter of sensitivity.”

Ask C. Lee Hanson, who lost his son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter on Sept. 11. He said to the New York Times, “The pain never goes away. When I look over there and see a mosque, it’s going to hurt.” Other Sept. 11 families who have opposed the construction in offensive words are not taken seriously, but their pain is real.

What would be the reaction be, for instance, if an American businesswoman were to purchase land in Hiroshima and build an American cultural center? Or what if a businessman from Japan bought part of Oahu for a Japanese cultural center? There would be outrage, calls for sensitivity. I call for sensitivity now.

Rauf preached in a New York Times op-ed, “Members of all faiths must work together if we are ever going to succeed in fostering understanding and peace.” I believe there is no higher goal, but Rauf apparently defines “working together” as “ceding to me.”

Why that particular location, so close to ground zero? Donald Trump, in a letter published in New York Magazine, offered 125 percent of the purchasing price “not because I think the location is a spectacular one (because it is not), but because it will end a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive issue.” Trump made both a financially and compassionately compelling offer, and it was turned down flat. Why? If another location for the structure (the goal of which is “healing”) does not offend the bereaved, why cause pain by staying? Is that not what Rauf says he wants? To foster interfaith dialogue and common ground? The most conservative polls show more than half of New Yorkers opposing construction. Other polls show 61 percent of Americans against construction. This decision should be simple for a self-styled bridge builder. So is Rauf genuine?

In an article for the Ottawa Citizen, two board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, said no. The pair wrote, “The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as ‘fitna,’ meaning ‘mischief-making.’ ... The Koran commands Muslims to, ‘Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book.’ ... [This] is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtably an act of fitna.”

Mr. Rauf, cease your fitna and your publicity-seeking. A mosque is not offensive. A mosque there is offensive. Either back up your act of openness to compromise and move Park51, or give it up and admit you do not care.

The author is a Columbia College first-year and a member of the Philolexian Society.