In actuality that question has already been answered.  The First Amendment does not say:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless those rights make us uncomfortable.  Please believe me when I say that this is not a thread we should pull on. 

​

Here’s the part where Counter-Ideological Warfare comes in.  Critics of the “Ground Zero Mosque” suggested that Osama bin Laden and the hijackers’ greatest triumph would be to see a mosque built as a monument to their “victory.” 

​

First of all, I think bin Laden’s reaction would have probably been the exact opposite.  Imams like Feisal Abdul Rauf were Osama bin Laden’s worst enemies because he deeply resented, and was openly hostile, to Muslims with moderate Islamist orientations. 

​

But even beyond that, the construction of a building pales in comparison to the terrorists’ victory if we allow them to deconstruct the moral code of this country.  It would have been extraordinary to have had brave leaders who possessed the fortitude and courage to do what is right, even if it happens to be unpopular at the time. 

​

The Cordoba House controversy was the perfect opportunity for our leaders to challenge Americans to 1) acknowledge the pain of the past but, at the same time, move forward with greater understanding and tolerance; 2) remember that the War on Terror was not a war against Islam; and 3) attempt to reconcile the American way of life with the peaceful believers of the world’s second-largest religion.

​

Enlightenment on issues like these is not needed just to enhance diplomacy or soothe hurt feelings.  At times, it’s a matter of life and death.  If President George W. Bush had been more knowledgeable of the enormous disparities between the Salafist jihadists of al-Qaeda and the secular Baathists of Iraq, for example, his war plans may have looked far different in the first place.

​

Three decades have passed since the First Gulf War and still we all have a dangerously inadequate knowledge of the many divisions, complexities and nuances within the Islamic community.  Many Americans and American leaders continue to view the Muslim world as a single terrifying entity.

​

Many of the words, concepts and traditions prevalent in the Middle East were then — and to this day remain — unfamiliar to most Americans.  Don’t you think it’s important to at least have a basic understanding of who and what we are fighting against?

​

​To be clear, I’m not saying that our leaders necessarily failed us by not demanding that the Cordoba House be built near Ground Zero.  I’m simply saying that, at the time, a new narrative was of the greatest consequence in both domestic issues and in our broader struggle against Islamic extremists, and that we needed leaders with the guts to tell us so. 

​

According to a Time magazine poll taken at the time, 61 percent of Americans who responded opposed the construction of the Cordoba House project, and over 70 percent felt that continuing with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center. 

​

Although I disagree with the majority, I vigorously defend their right to their opinion. Whether we agree or not, most Americans are perfectly capable of having a reasonable and civil discourse on sensitive matters.   

​

Unfortunately, that level of maturity did not serve the purpose of those with a political agenda, so what happened next in the debate has become the standard.  Civilized dialogue turned into cultural warfare as the conversation metastasized into an opportunity for politicians and crazy people to exhibit absolutely despicable behavior. 

​

All of their talk about “of course they have the right to build it there but...” and “radical Islam is not a majority of Islam but...” was nothing more than a smokescreen for the politically motivated to incite their small but suspicious audience with hate-filled rhetoric.

​

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich seemed to speak for many Republicans when he then proclaimed: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington” and “we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor” and “there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.” 

​

That’s just great.  Now we have lowered ourselves to Saudi Arabian standards?  Martin Peretz, the editor in chief of The New Republic, wrote, “I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment, which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”

 

These are not harmless games being played.  What in the past may have been dismissed as “politics as usual” has become truly dangerous.  Enlightenment is not necessary to simply soothe hurt feelings; it’s a matter of life-and-death.  If President George W. Bush had been more knowledgeable of the enormous disparities between the Salafist jihadists of al-Qaeda and the secular Baathists of Iraq, his war plans may have looked far different.  

​

There was only one big winner in this controversy:  al-Qaeda, who mocked us while we essentially did their recruiting for them.  Once again, we gave terrorist organizations a perfect opportunity to frame America’s image for a vulnerable portion of the Muslim world.  

​

As former FBI terrorist interrogator Ali Soufan put it at the time, Osama bin Laden’s “next video script has just written itself.”  Zabihullah, a Taliban operative, told Newsweek, “By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor.  It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.  The more mosques you stop, the more jihadis we will get.” 

​

Zabihullah went on to explain how this issue is such a boost for their cause that it now leads the agenda in Taliban meetings with existing members and potential recruits.