Conservatism versus the Mosque?

President Obama’s steadfast support for the “Ground Zero” mosque, which only a day later turned lukewarm, nationalized an issue that many New Yorkers, including myself, have become familiar with for months on end. What’s fascinating now is how all the big time players from opposite ends of the spectrum- headlined by Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin on the right, and NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Obama to the left- have waded precipitously into the furor over the Park51 Mosque. There’s been such heated rhetoric- to my dismay, particularly from conservatives, such as the aforementioned Gingrich- but from liberal pundits as well who have ignorantly labeled opponents of the mosque bigots.

As for my stance, and this is the first time saying this (and possibly the last as well), I happen to agree with President Obama. The lukewarm, rather than steadfast, President Obama, that is.

And this will probably really rile things up, but I propose that President Obama’s recently clarified stance is a conservative one.

Has time off during the summer made me crazy? I hope not, but for my fellow Republicans, who are up in arms reading this right now, let me elaborate.

There are two important facets of the discussion that we must treat as mutually and necessarily exclusive- the personal aspect versus the constitutional one. With that being said, let me say this forthrightly:

I believe that building a 15 story mosque, just two blocks from the site of the deadliest attack on American soil is wrong, ill-advised, and counter-productive to the professed goal of the mosque’s founders, which are to “bridge the divide” and foster “coexistence and harmony.”

Yet, my own feelings, or anyone else’s, for that matter, play second fiddle to the words of the Constitution. And this is not an opinionated revisionism of history- the support and strength for inserting a Bill of Rights into the Constitution was to assertively and unquestionably embed specific liberties and rights so that future governments, however many years later, could not relinquish them. And if a government sought to relinquish such Constitutional liberties, or entrench others, the founders of our Constitution arranged an arduous and difficult process for doing so- supermajorities in both houses of Congress, and 75% ratification amongst state legislatures. In the words of Patrick Henry, who uttered perhaps the seven most patriotic words during the American Revolution- “give me liberty, or give me death!” the Bill of Rights are needed to “reserve your unalienable rights. You must have the most express stipulation; for, if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it necessary to reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up.”

Which brings me to the issue of religious freedom, which one can find in the very first amendment of our cherished Bill of Rights; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof […]”

We can see how distinctly how my personal opinion of this mosque, and my desire that it not be constructed, comes into conflict with the words of our First Amendment.

And, perhaps more so than others, I truly do wish this mosque not be built. I find the leader of the mosque, the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, to be uniquely naïve in refusing to label Hamas a terrorist organization, and uniquely offensive in condemning the United States as an “accessory to the crime” of 9/11.

But my personal disdain for this Imam once again pales in comparison to the rights and liberties afforded by our Constitution. Liberties are entrenched on that document to prevent an activist government from stripping them away.

In this sense, I don’t support the construction of the Cordoba Mosque. But I acknowledge that our system of constitutional governance, which has allowed myself and other Americans since 1790 to live in the freest republic the world has yet seen, precludes the opinion of one, or the objections of a vocal faction. As a pure measure of religious freedom, the mosque has a right to be built at Park51. And it is a right which, despite how others and I may feel, cannot be taken away or uprooted. And it is a liberty that might one day prevent an anti-Semitic government from halting construction of a synagogue near protested grounds.

President Obama was right to vocalize the constitutional right of Muslims to construct a house of worship on private property that was duly purchased.

I wish President Obama had been more forceful in conveying to the leaders of the Cordoba Initiative that constructing a mosque near Ground Zero would only inflame tensions and not build bridges between them. But his no comment on the “wisdom” of constructing a mosque at Ground Zero is a step in the right direction.

As an aside, I wholeheartedly agree with NY gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio on his demands to investigate the fundraising sources for the $100 million mosque. Just as it is a bitter pill to swallow- albeit, the constitutional and lawful one- that this mosque is perfectly allowed to be constructed on this property- the leaders of the Cordoba Initiative should understand that they must be transparent about their donations to raise $100 million. If foreign governments or terrorist organizations are making contributions towards this $100 million, this issue would become one of national security and immediately be prone to different regulations and laws, and depending on the size or scope of such hypothetical fundraising, different constitutional principles as well.

However, if the books for this Park51 mosque are free of eyebrow-raisers and terrorist ties, then any other objection to the construction of the mosque falls deafly flat on its very face.

And if being conservative no longer denotes relying steadfastly on traditional and constitutional principles, then I do not know what does.