Ground Zero and the Sacred: A response to Charles Krauthammer

As a Catholic and as an American, I firmly believe that the Cordoba House Islamic Center should be built at the site that the Islamic community has chosen—two blocks from Ground Zero. Many people have opposed the building of this house of prayer and culture on the grounds that it is sacrilegious to build an Islamic Center near the site of the 9/11 attacks. To understand their argument we must examine their definition of the word sacred. According to Charles Krauthammer, “a place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).”

Clearly, he is making the case that Ground Zero is sacred for the last two reasons—the nobility of the rescuers, the blood of the martyrs and the suffering of the innocent. I grant him his definition and will demonstrate that such an understanding of sacred should not exclude Muslims but should include Muslims.

It is common place for cultures to remember places of suffering and death as holy ground. In the case of Auschwitz, it has been remembered for the horrific, inhuman torture and murder that took place there as well as for the basic history lesson that such crimes did indeed take place and need to be remembered because anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism are disordered habits that world cultures continue to feed. We remember Auschwitz so we do not forget it. The activities of Holocaust deniers, including the President of Iran, remind us that we need to remember. The Imam who hopes to build Cordoba House is not a 9/11 denier. A vocal critic of the attacks, he hopes that the activities of Cordoba House will undo the logic of 9/11.

If liberals were as eloquent as Charles Krauthammer, there would be far more of them to support causes like Cordoba House. Nevertheless, eloquent language cannot mask flaws in analysis. An argument by means of analogy has its limitations. In his argument Krauthammer cites the actions of Pope John Paul II in closing a Carmelite convent next to Auschwitz and then argues that the Islamic community should follow suit with regard to Cordoba House. As a liberal Catholic, I grant the moral authority of John Paul II (and will note that I have a few questions about some of his theological writings—as a Catholic, I still am allowed that). I will then state what I consider to be obvious: that John Paul II, knowing Muslims well, would encourage New Yorkers to embrace the building of Cordoba House near Ground Zero as a transcendent action for peace. John Paul wrote eloquently about how religious freedom was a foundational right and about how reconciliation requires us to transcend our comfort zone to embrace those we consider to be enemies. If Americans cannot do this, who can?

Once again, it is helpful to read Rene Girard (another man who respected John Paul II). We need to understand that using the suffering of the innocent to justify the exclusion of a marginal group perpetuates religious violence and undermines peace and justice. It is also helpful to more closely examine the Auschwitz analogy. In the case of Auschwitz, a tiny Jewish community which had for 1700 or more years been murdered by a gigantic Catholic community (who’s very religious texts had fed pogroms and the Holocaust) politely asked the head of the Catholic community to allow them a little room to grieve. This is not the case with Cordoba House. Muslim Americans are a tiny minority and America is the world’s superpower. Finally, even if there are some parallels between Auschwitz and 9/11, I will understand them in relation to my earlier essay: if we live from a wound, we do not transcend and enter into the real sacred--God’s reality of justice and peace.

Now let us return to our wider definition of the word sacred: a place is considered sacred if it is visited by the miraculous or transcendent or by the presence of nobility. After all of the horrible suffering connected to 9/11, it would truly be miraculous and noble for Americans to embrace this Muslim house of prayer. We would then transcend the primitive sacred which has held us in its grasp. We would reach out and be grasped by God in our efforts to labor for peace and reconciliation. In short, Ground Zero is not sacred in the sense that we need to keep a group of infidels away from it. Ground Zero is being made more sacred because a group of God’s children want to pray near it.