The topic of the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has been in the news so much and is the subject of so much political grandstanding and office talk that I'm making an exception to my lazy habit of ignoring the news and actually thinking about it.

I think it should be built.  For lots of reasons, the most important being that religious freedom is for all, or else it’s meaningless.  If it's eroded even a little for one group, it can be eroded for anyone.  Like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post said in his excellent editorial, if you believe a religion of more than a billion followers carried out 9-11, then you could oppose their house of worship being built anywhere on American soil.  But it was an extremist sliver of Muslims that did it, not the entire religion.  If you don't blame an entire religion, Cohen says, then you have a moral obligation to support the Mosque.  He says lots of people fall into the category of denying that all of Islam is to blame, but still oppose the mosque.  One of my co-workers was in that category in a discussion I had at work the other day.

Some of the reasons for opposing the Islamic center that I've heard and read are the following:

It's too close to ground zero.  I disagree.  It's not like they're proposing a mosque with a giant dome and minarets right on top of the World Trade Tower foundations.  The center is a few blocks away.  And the city approved it.  It should be the city's choice whether a building is appropriate given the zoning of an area, not national politicians and uninformed masses from around the country.  And either a religious group has the right to build houses of worship in this country or it doesn't.  How near or far it is from a landmark is immaterial.  Should the Catholic church be prevented from building churches next to elementary schools because some priests are pedophiles? 

It will offend the 9-11 victim's families.  I don't like feelings to be hurt, but it's not about feelings, it's about the constitution and whether or not religious freedom is real here.  And the opinions of the victims are reportedly split on this.  Some are fine with it.  Why should religious freedom be second to the feelings of a subset of people?

Saudi Arabia wouldn't allow a Christian church to be built like this.  I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this.  Saudia Arabia as a model for America?  Good grief, I can't think of a worse argument.  Enough said about that.

The imam who proposed the Isamic center isn't doing enough to condemn Islamic terrorists.  My co-worker said this, and I'm not exactly sure where she got the idea, but it struck me as extremely unlikely that someone who is soft on Islamic terrorists would have the nerve to propose building an Islamic center in Manhattan.  In fact, Imam Rauf is on his third trip to the middle east to discuss religious tolerance and Muslim life in America.  That’s not something a promoter of Anti-American bile would do.

The rights of the majority should prevail over the rights of the minority.  This is the implicit argument of some politicians - that the minority is wagging the dog with the Islamic center.  They have a short historical memory.  The majority is NOT always on the right side of morality.  For example, if we'd waited for the majority to see the light on civil rights or voting for women, we'd probably still be waiting.  (Happy 90th anniversary to the 19th amendment this month.)

As a member of a minority religion myself, I feel the reality of the slippery slope of religious intolerance pretty keenly.  If it's OK to ban an Islamic center because people simply don't like it, then it could be OK to ban a Mormon temple if people don't like Mormons.  I don't want people to assume I’m a polygamist, repressed, opposed to birth control, homophobic, or any other negative and inaccurate stereotype that exists about Mormons just because I'm a Mormon.  And neither should all Muslims be judged by the actions of their worst.  I hope America is better than that.