LET US PRAY ...FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

NEW YORK MAYOR Michael Bloomberg calls the manufactured controversy over the so-called Ground Zero mosque as "important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes."

The fact that principles of religious freedom and tolerance have become controversial suggests a serious weakness in the American foundation.

First, some facts: The "Ground Zero Mosque" is not a mosque and it isn't at Ground Zero. Plans call for an Islamic center to be built on a site that once housed a Burlington Coat Factory (and which was damaged on 9/11). The center would include a theater, a spa, an athletic center, a culinary school, and, yes, a place for Muslims to pray. The location is two Manhattan blocks from "Ground Zero," meaning neither would be visible to the other. Not only is there already a mosque in the area, but hundreds of Muslims have been praying in the building for months.

But an astonishing parade of alleged public servants has come out in opposition to the mosque, claiming that building it would be a "victory" for terrorism or that it would "defile sacred ground."Onetime House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken a clear lead in the ugly fearmongering with this gem: "[It] would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust museum." Other, more polite, opposition focuses on the alleged pain that a nearby mosque allegedly would cause for the families of 9/11 victims.

The debate had grown so intense that President Obama apparently felt the need to affirm the Constitution he had sworn to protect and defend: "As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," he said. "And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property . . . ."

This wasn't particularly "courageous," as some would have it - Obama could not very easily have ducked the issue at a White House celebration of Ramadan (and, in front of a different audience the next day, Obama seemed to take one step back from actual support of the mosque.)

Besides, even if the president did oppose the project, there is no constitutional way that he or anyone else in government could stop it.

But this really isn't about the mosque; it's about using notions of collective guilt for political advantage. It holds all Muslims responsible for terrorist acts committed by extemists who claim the same religion. Clearly, there is nothing Muslim-Americans could do to prove their loyalty.

Republicans have not felt the need to conceal their relish of a new wedge issue to add to their collection. Their fanning of religious hatred is so obvious that several prominent Republicans who are Muslim have called them out on it. They wrote in a letter that they "cannot support victory at the expense of the U.S. Constitution or the Arab and Muslim community in America."

Nearly seven in 10 Americans now oppose the mosque, says a recent Marist poll - and no doubt, many more "moderate" candidates will follow Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and say the mosque should be built somewhere else. What a dangerous precedent.

In a feature story in the New York Times in December, two imams explained why they wanted to build the Islamic center close to Ground Zero. "[It] sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11," said one. "We want to push back against the extremists," said another.

This sad episode sends a statement, all right. Far from "pushing back" against the extremists, imposing collective guilt on 1.5 billion Muslims gives the extremists a big boost.