The controversy over the proposed construction of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York puts in conflict two powerful forces in a free society — what is legally permissible, and what is culturally tolerated.

It's a classic case of the head telling you one thing, and the heart saying another.

The legal case for the Cordoba House Islamic center in lower Manhattan is unassailable: Private property rights and the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion proscribe government action to stop the mosque. If the property is zoned to accommodate a religious facility, government cannot discriminate against the project because of its denomination.

The case against Cordoba House is therefore an aesthetic, emotional one: It is being built by Muslims two blocks from a site in which Islamic terrorists flew hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center, causing its two towers to collapse and killing more than 2,600 people.

The mosque's proponents argue that it will promote peace and tolerance and will build bridges to other faiths. Indeed, it is unfair to equate all worshipful Muslims with the radical jihadists who orchestrated 9/11.

Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of a mosque near the footprint of the Twin Towers is inescapable, the symbolism too powerful to ignore. Adding to the unease are statements made by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mosque's point man, shortly after 9/11 in which he said that U.S. foreign policy in Muslim countries was "an accessory to the crime." He also has refused to disclose Cordoba House's financial backers. All that raises suspicions about his motives.

For many Americans, Cordoba House is, at minimum, insensitive — and at worst, an "in your face" provocation.

Perhaps Cordoba House could best achieve its stated goals without stirring up 9/11 passions if it were an interfaith center, playing host to a chapel and a synagogue as well as a mosque.

Still, hurt feelings are not to be lightly dismissed (nor attributed mostly to religious bigotry, as some critics of the critics have charged). But neither are they grounds for invoking government intervention. Government exists to secure rights, not soothe psyches.

Addressing the latter could involve curtailing the former, which would violate the constitutional principles that so many of the mosque's opponents say they hold dear.

Free and open societies remain that way by tolerating the ugly and offensive. There is no right not to be offended. That which offends can itself be countered with free expression designed to bring about society's shame and disapproval.

One of the classic examples of "hold your nose" liberty involves the Supreme Court's decision in 1977 to allow neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, Ill., a Chicago suburb with a large Jewish population, many of whom were Holocaust survivors. Unlike the Cordoba House supporters, who publicly preach tolerance, the neo-Nazis clearly wanted to provoke a hostile reaction. Yet, the court upheld their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

If the nation can tolerate neo-Nazi marches, it can — and must — allow a mosque to be built near Ground Zero.

Evidence suggests a majority of Americans can make the distinction: A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that although 64 percent of Americans think a mosque near Ground Zero is "inappropriate," 60 percent of all respondents in the same survey believe that the organizers have a right to build in that location.

The best response to Cordoba House? Finally build the replacement for the Trade Center.

REPRINTED FROM THE PANAMA CITY NEWS HERALD.