In our ever-shrinking world, the tentacles of religion touch everything from governmental policy to individual morality to our basic social constructs. It affects the lives of people of great faith  or no faith at all.  This series of weekly columns  launched in 2005  seeks to illuminate the national conversation.  The proposed Islamic cultural center in Lower  has passed formal legal skirmishes but has now become the focal point of an increasingly polarizing and ugly national debate on Islam. To win the larger battle for public opinion, the project's organizers and their defenders are going to have to do more than insist on First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. They will have to explain in detail the center's financing, organization and goals.  The project is supposed to cost $100 million, which would make it one of the most expensive Islamic centers in the western world — nearly 10 times the cost of the Islamic Center of Washington, allowing for inflation.  This has two implications that have not been explored. One is that although the project is being defended on freedom-of-religion grounds, the center will not be primarily a place of worship. Organizers have indicated that this is the case — saying it will be some sort of place of reconciliation — but as yet there is no sign of who will run it or which vision of Islam will be presented.  The other issue is that with such a huge amount of money at stake, it will be tough to avoid tainted donors. The history of other huge Islamic centers around the world suggests that at least a large portion (if not most) of the money will flow from abroad. That almost certainly means money from the only two parts of the Muslim world with the means to pay for such a project: Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states.  Both are highly problematic sources, having exported through mosque construction the fundamentalist vision of Wahhabism and the politicized religion of the ur-Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood.  This has been the case throughout Europe, where both groups have paid for huge mosque projects, as well as imam schools, magazines, books and youth groups, through which they have pushed their narrow, fundamentalist vision of Islam.  Organizers say this won't happen because the money will be raised domestically. This is doubtful because no fundraising campaign has been launched in this country. If one is, it wouldn't be unfair to ask which American Muslim groups will help raise the money. Several key Islamic organizations in the United States — including the North American Islamic Trust, which holds the leases to most mosques in this country — are ideologically close to the Muslim Brotherhood. Having such groups involved in the project would be inappropriate given its proximity to Ground Zero, where political Islam scored one of its grisliest victories.  So far, the Islamic center's backers have dodged the money question.  This was tactically clever because it has allowed this nettlesome issue to be pushed off until after the permits were secured. But longer term the effect has been poisonous, reinforcing suspicions that  the organizers have something to hide.  Simply put, we have no idea who will pay for the project or who will run it — the fact that the current spokesman, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate does answer any of these questions.  Some defenders, such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have flippantly suggested that the funding does not matter — that no one knows the origin of money tossed onto church collection plates.  Such classic libertarian arguments are attractive but ignore events of the past decade or two. Unfortunately, communities around the world have a duty to examine Islamic centers in a way that might not always be necessary with other places of worship. This is because of the agony that Islam is going through right now, with a significant minority of its believers hijacked by a warped ideology. Mosques are unfortunately very often transmission points for these violent views.  Ignoring this and repeating the First Amendment mantra might make us feel good, but is irresponsible.  Such scrutiny might not always be legally required, but Muslim groups that truly are interested in integration — and there are many of them — understand the current situation and have been willing to build bridges by being open and candid. This doesn't just mean having tea with the local rabbi or pastor or mayor, but creating a truly open plan that is presented at town hall meetings with local residents.  So far, nothing like this has happened in New York. Instead, the mosque's organizers have conducted a savvy political campaign based on almost no information, except for vague promises. Until this is remedied, opponents will have some grounds for feeling queasy.  Most tragically, the way the project has been organized robs America of what could have been a unique chance. Instead of a top-down project created by a few, it could have been a truly grassroots effort at reconciliation — a chance for U.S. Muslims to show their patriotism and faith by building a place of worship near the tragic site.  Ian Johnson is a former Wall Street Journal correspondent who won the Pulitzer Prize for covering religion/civil society in China. He is author of A Mosque in Munich, about the rise of radical Islam in the West.  You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference.
Islamic center organizers owe America a crystal clear picture of their funding and intentions. Anything less invites skepticism.