By: Harry Lewis

(Harry Lewis is a practicing attorney in New York City.)

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has doubled down on his “defense of religious liberty” rhetoric with respect to the proposed mosque near Ground Zero.  To listen to the mayor, you’d think that the religious liberty of American Muslims was in jeopardy.  That’s nonsense, of course.

Religious liberty is the right to worship free of government-imposed obstacles.  Rather than imposing obstacles, the Bloomberg Administration has bent over backwards to accommodate Muslim-Americans.  As I’ve noted elsewhere, there are at least one hundred mosques in New York City right now, and people worship there unmolested.  Years ago, Mayor Bloomberg appointed the General Counsel of CAIR, a Muslim activist front group, to the NYC Human Rights Commission, where he continues to sit.  Coddling Muslims is Mayor Bloomberg’s stock in trade.

So no government obstacles have impeded the proposed mosque near Ground Zero.  To the contrary, all local government boards, including the Community Board, have voted in favor of the project.  So by definition, the “religious liberty” of the Muslims proposing this project has not been impaired.  And Mayor Bloomberg knows it.

Bloomberg’s rhetoric is all a distraction from the real issues, which are Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s failure to move quickly after he was elected to either (1) rebuild Ground Zero as a commercial district; or (2) turn Ground Zero into a national monument, with changes to zoning and land use consistent with such a use.

On both counts, the Mayor (and other N.Y. politicians) has failed miserably. Hence, the current mayoral screaming and yelling about “religious liberty”, which isn’t even the issue. The issues are New York’s failure to redevelop Ground Zero, or to protect sacred ground, in a timely way (not the fault of Muslims), and national opinion about a mosque at that location (overwhelmingly opposed).

In the court of public opinion, Mayor Bloomberg and his Muslim allies already have lost decisively.  The American people already have decided that they dislike this mosque in this location.  Muslim-Americans have hurt their own cause by mass murdering U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood, and planting a bomb in Times Square.  I’m aware of the dangers of generalization, but the American people have cause to be wary of the motives of a religious group some of whose members seem disposed to religiously-motivated mass murder and violence.  Its worse that recent religiously-motivated attacks involve Muslim-Americans, not foreign-born Muslims.  And some Muslim-Americans say publicly that they’re afraid to speak out against such violence, because they might be next.  Afraid or not, eventually they will have to choose between America and the extremists within their own ranks.  Be assured, America will protect her own.

As reported in a long article in the August 26, 2010 edition of the New York Times, the Muslim world itself is divided about the proposed mosque near Ground Zero.  Some senior Muslim clerics think it foolish for American Muslims to push forward with this project.  This proves that there are wise leaders within Islam.

“Dalil Boubakeur, head of the Grande Mosquée of Paris and one of the most senior Islamic clerics in France, told France-Soir: “There are symbolic places that awaken memories whether you mean to or not. And it isn’t good to awaken memories.”

A senior cleric at Egypt’s Al Azhar, the closest equivalent in the Sunni Islamic world to the Vatican, said that building at the proposed location sounded like bad judgment on the part of American Muslims.

“It will create a permanent link between Islam and 9/11,” said Abdel Moety Bayoumi, a member of the Islamic Research Institute at Al Azhar. “Why should we put ourselves and Islam in a position of blame?”

They’re correct, of course.  American Muslims are building a monument that will remind Americans permanently of the link between the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and the Pentagon and Islam.  In my opinion, that’s foolish if what they seek is reconciliation and healing, as opposed to conflict and contention.