Ground Zero Sacred? Really?

I did not catch the name of the person being interviewed on the radio today, but what he said intrigued me. In reference to the Park51 center in lower Manhattan, he said, “Why can’t they [presumably Muslims] build it somewhere else? Why does it have to be built in a place that is sacred to the rest of us?” Leaving aside the problem of lumping all of the world’s Muslim population into a one size fits all category of “they” (or the rest of us into “we”); I wonder what we do with the last five words of that question? He called the parcel of land called Ground Zero “sacred.”

Is it? Is it really sacred?

Oxford defines sacred as “concerned with religion or religious purpose; made or declared or believed to be holy.” I am not certain that Ground Zero can be called sacred, at least not in the way the word is being bandied about in the argument over Park51.

The logic behind the argument as presented is that this ground is a place where thousands of people died at the hands of madmen. Their lives were taken in an act of gross terror. Because of the massive scale of destruction the physical remains of some victims were never recovered. It is, in essence, a burial ground and the memories of the dead deserve to be respected. I agree. I am not sure that makes the site sacred. (It is interesting that there is no outcry about a new multi building complex devoted to commerce being built on the site. Would these opponents of Park51 allow a bank branch to be built on a cemetery?)

The sacred points us toward God. Sacred things and places point beyond themselves to the truth of God. Is that what Ground Zero does? Does it point beyond itself to God; to the holy?

The argument against building the Park51 center two blocks from this “sacred” ground is that the center is built by and for the Muslim community and it was Muslims who led the attacks on 9/11. Therefore, the center should not be built. By that logic, the reality the ground at Ground Zero points to is one of exclusion, unwillingness to forgive, prejudice and division. In what way is that sacred?

To point to Ground Zero and say this is the holy place is to point to the cross and say this is the end. As Christians we point to the cross not because it was a symbol of death but because it is a symbol of death defeated. The cross stands empty because the tomb stands empty. Ground Zero is not a sacred place if it points only to death and encourages a sense of revenge and animosity. If that is all the ground is good for, cover it up and let it be forgotten.

The terrorists who attacked that day did so because in their small minded way they thought our society was too small to include Islam and our ethic as a people to narrow to embrace difference. If Ground Zero affirms those ideas, it is not sacred it is sad. If it points to a reality that defies those ideas and gives the world reason to see a generosity of spirit rather than a spirit of exclusion, maybe it is a little bit sacred.

Time and our actions will tell.