I grew up in a family and in a part of the country where I heard the familiar refrain, ”I’m not prejudicedbut negroes need to stay in their place.” That was the polite way of making the statement. In reality, the word “negro” was usually mispronounced, or intentionally twisted into a well-known epithet. 

In recent weeks, I’ve heard echoes of the old Dixie mantra in the ongoing debate over the location of the Cordoba cultural center and mosque in lower Manhattan near the site of the Twin Towers. I don’t mean to belabor First Amendment points I made yesterday about freedom of religion, but Harry Reid’s miniscule balls prompts me to add a couple of observations. The Senate Majority leader declared yesterday that the center should be built in a another location. In other words, Muslims “should stay in their place.” And that place ain’t in lower Manhattan.

Earlier, President Obama crawfished on the location of the mosque. A day after courageously defending religious freedom of Muslims, he said his statement was not an endorsement of the proposed site. Is the President now saying it’s better for Muslim worshipers to “stay in their place?” 

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court kept African Americans “in their place. Ferguson v Plessy—the “separate but equal” decision involving accomodations on passenger trains—upheld segregation in states, most of which were in the south. The laws remained in effect until the 1954 Brown decision leading to the desegregation of schools, and setting off another wave of claims, “I’m not prejudiced, but negroes need to stay in their place.” 

Indeed, moving the proposed mosque would probably end the controversy and “keep Muslims in their.” As I noted yesterday, I can understand why families and friends of WTC victims are upset. Still, it seems to me that allowing the mosque to be constructed at the proposed site is an important statement of our American principles and values. Maybe my belief is influenced by the fact that as a journalist I share the same First Amendment privileges as the promoters of the Cordoba center.   

From all I’ve read and heard, the selection of the location is not an act of defiance. Just the opposite. According to the cleric leading the drive to build on “hallowed ground,” the overriding purpose of the center is to push back at terrorism. Iman Fesal Abdul Rauf foresees the project as a showplace of modern Islam.

A moderate Surfi imman, Abdul-Rauf has been criticized from the right as a man of two faces. However, William Dalrymple—an award-winning historian, author and expert on the Islamic religion—disputes the characterization in a New York Times Op-Ed column published today.

Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative is one of America’s leading thinkers of Sufism, the mystical form of Islam, which in terms of goals and outlook couldn’t be farther from the violent Wahhabism of the jihadists. His videos and sermons preach love, the remembrance of God (or “zikr”) and reconciliation. His slightly New Agey rhetoric makes him sound, for better or worse, like a Muslim Deepak Chopra. But in the eyes of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, he is an infidel-loving, grave-worshiping apostate; they no doubt regard him as a legitimate target for assassination.

For such moderate, pluralistic Sufi imams are the front line against the most violent forms of Islam. In the most radical parts of the Muslim world, Sufi leaders risk their lives for their tolerant beliefs, every bit as bravely as American troops on the ground in Baghdad and Kabul do. Sufism is the most pluralistic incarnation of Islam — accessible to the learned and the ignorant, the faithful and nonbelievers — and is thus a uniquely valuable bridge between East and West.

Fesal Abdul Rauf has, no doubt, made statements and associated with notorious characters in the past that makes him vulnerable to criticism if taken out of context. But that can be said about nearly every prominent religious figure.  I venture to say that Abdul-Rauf pales in comparison with opportunistic Christian TV preachers like Pat Robertson. His diamond deals with African despots and outrageous attacks on politicians of a different stripes (mostly Democrats) raise questions about Robertson’s “Christian” conscience, as well as his sanity. 

I have the same questions about the character and sanity of “famed historian” and political hate-monger Newt Gingrich. He has uttered gutter criticisms of the Cardoba project, the Islamic religion and the President. It would be nice to say, “Who the hell cares what Gingrich says?” But Fox “News” is still alive and distorting. That’s okay, though. I have to remember of the First Amendment. It sure cramps my style sometimes.

Anyway, this is unrelated to the mosque, but a Gingrich profile in this month’s Esquire magazine provides a peek at the true character of a man who has probably done more damage to political civility in this country than any human alive. Don’t get me wrong. I will fight to the death to protect Gingrich’s First Amendment privilege of free speech. Uh, huh.

I’m not prejudiced, you understand, I just wish the son-of-a-bitch would “stay in his place.”

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. The book is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.