Over the last few days I have been excoriated and raked over the coals for "supporting" a "mosque on Ground Zero". Some have accused me of defending Islam, of being a terrorist sympathizer or are amazed that I would defend "people that hate me on every level." This is the level of irrational discourse that is being fueled by a debate that is not even worthy of the energy. But the truth is that it represents something bigger.
Some of what I wrote in an editorial titled "Making Mountains Out of Mosques"
The original site of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and the Journal Records Building is now a sad yet poignant tribute to what happened in Oklahoma City one awful morning on April 19, 1995, when a Catholic born man, Tim McVeigh, bombed the building, killing 168 people in the process. And injuring 450 others.
It's a pretty safe assumption that -- even in Oklahoma -- at least one of the people killed or injured, nineteen of whom were children or babies, was Muslim. Or Jewish, Or Hindu, or Wiccan. The building was located on NW 5th street between N. Robinson Avenue and N. Harvey Avenue. And yet on the same block, right there on N. Robinson Avenue, horror of horrors, stands the First United Methodist Church.
The Church was severely damaged in the bombing forcing it to relocate for three years. According to the Church's web site, within 36 hours of the bombing, "a banner was hung on our church declaring our 'can do' spirit for the entire world to see, 'OUR GOD REIGNS AND WE WILL REMAIN!'".
And this:
And so it is. The new flames of anti-Muslim violence are being fanned with a fervor that has infected even the most rational of minds. What was proposed as an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, where a Burlington Coat factory stood before it, has morphed into a mosque on Ground Zero.
While most Americans recognize the constitutional right to build the mosque, just as many still want to forbid it somehow. Distinctions between what's right and what's wrong, indecent and decent, fair and unfair are forming the foundation for arguments that violate the very essence of what America's First Amendment is all about, while those with the biggest stake in preserving freedom of religion become increasingly shrill in their objections to its expression.
As Republicans and conservatives of almost every stripe seize the controversy as the perfect mid-term election wedge issue, they are pouring gasoline on an already incendiary anti-Muslim tinderbox with the same degree of pressure – and ability to control it – as a ruptured oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.
But in all of the feedback I have received, not one mind has changed, nor one person against the mosque (AKA cultural center) shifted their position. Yeah, it's constitutional but it's WRONG and INSENSITIVE.
As editor and publisher of Annoy.com, I was one of the first web sites to republish the cartoons originally published in Denmark's Jyllands Posten newspaper, which sparked the furor among Muslims globally. Those images remain on the site to this day.
Despite threats of violence, I wrote in defense of publication of the cartoons:
"We are not oblivious to the fact that religious and cultural differences are far more complex than anything we could articulate in this small space, but our fundamental belief is this. Freedom of expression is not reserved for those wishing to express their religious beliefs, but also those who question them."
I also created a cartoon of Mohammed on a crucifix and wrote
"While all the world’s major religions -- Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, and Hinduism – shoulder responsibility for fueling extremist factions spewing hatred, violence and intolerance, Muslims do need to drop the victimization act and realize that just as they condemn and judge others with impunity, so too must they learn to cope with being subject to criticism.
Until people stop, in Allah's name, stoning woman to death, killing homosexuals, cutting the hands off children stealing food to survive, flying passenger planes into skyscrapers, car-bombing innocent people, forcing their religious convictions onto others, and other such atrocities, and until Muslims loudly and clearly reject and condemn the violence perpetrated by those who have hijacked and perverted their religion, the likelihood of cartoonists depicting Muhammad as a gentle, olive-branch carrying dove is not particularly high."
Was it RIGHT to create my cartoon and republish the other offensive ones? Should I have been MORE SENSITIVE to how the Muslims felt about it? Maybe. But I chose to express myself the way I wanted to because I cherish my First Amendment rights and will fight for them as I have in the past.
And in order to enjoy my own freedom, I am more than willing to allow others to enjoy their's too. It's really that simple. That's how it works. If New York zoning permits the building of a cultural center, then what possible reason do we have to deny it?