Suppose the Catholic Church proposed to build a 13-story, 50,000 square-foot showpiece at Ground Zero? Or the 92nd St. Young Men’s Hebrew Association proposed to relocate its facility to the site of the attack on the Twin Towers? Or the Billy Graham Evangelical Association offered to construct a megachurch on the property? They wouldn’t, of course, because it is entirely inappropriate to assign a disproportionately prominent role for any religious denomination at the location of the most heinous foreign attack on American soil. The issue with the planned Muslim center at Ground Zero is not religious freedom, but favoritism towards Islam.
Liberals believe that if the West bends over backwards to be respectful towards Muslims, Muslims will cease to hate the West and stop killing Westerners. That is why New York’s Mayor Bloomberg and liberals everywhere support this grotesque accommodation to Muslim triumphalism.
The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has ignited a firestorm of attacks for its refusal to play along with this charade. Peter Beinart, the critic-du-jour of the Jewish establishment, complains that what the ADL really has demonstrated is indifference to the plight of Palestinians! Beinart complains today in the Daily Beast:
What if white victims of African-American crime protested the building of a black church in their neighborhood? Or gentile victims of Bernie Madoff protested the building of a synagogue? Would the ADL for one second suggest that sensitivity toward people victimized by members of a certain religion or race justifies discriminating against other, completely innocent, members of that religion or race? Of course not. But when it comes to Muslims, the standards are different. They are different in Israel, and now, it is clear, they are different in the United States, too.
Indifference to the rights and dignity of Palestinians is a cancer eating away at the moral pretensions of the American Jewish establishment. Last Friday, in the case of the ADL, we learned just how far that cancer has spread.
Beinart’s argument is revealing: because Muslims (he claims) are mistreated elsewhere in the world, New York must make special accommodation to Muslim sensibilities in the form of an elephantine structure on New York’s holiest civic site. The freedom-of-religion issue is spurious on the face of it: if Muslims wanted to build a mosque of reasonable size at Ground Zero, next to churches and a synagogue of reasonable size, no-one would object to including Islam. Muslims face no obstacles to building mosques in New York. An enormous Islamic center stands at 96th Street and Third Avenue, whose construction and operation provoked not a whisper of complaint from Christians or Jews. To use Ground Zero to make a dubious diplomatic gesture to Muslim sensibilities is a massive overreach. It should not be built. If built, a sensible future city administration should demolish it.
August 2nd, 2010 | 3:31 pm
Interesting that the building is to be named “Cordoba House,” a reference to Córdoba, Spain, the capital of Caliphate of Córdoba during the period of Muslim rule in Spain.
August 2nd, 2010 | 3:37 pm
I think the premise of this article is fundamentally mistaken. The mosque and community center are not not located anywhere in the footprint of the Twin Towers or any of the other fallen buildings. Nate Silver from 538.com had a helpful post (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/street-level-view-of-ground-zero-mosque.html) showing the proposed location of Cordoba House. It is two blocks from Ground Zero and cannot be seen from Ground Zero.
This isn’t a question of placating Muslims; it’s a matter of respecting property rights. And especially after the fights over Columbia’s use of eminent domain, I’m inclined to err on the side of respecting property.
–Leah @ Unequally Yoked
(born and bred New Yorker)
August 2nd, 2010 | 5:49 pm
Leah – Regarding the proximity of the site to the former WTC, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the primary organizers of this mosque project may disagree with you. He is reported to be the author of a 2004 book intended for Muslims in Malaysia with the title, “A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post 9/11″ (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18478.xml ).
Would you care to speculate as to how the good Imam will spin the construction of this mosque to Muslims around the world?
August 2nd, 2010 | 8:14 pm
@MarcH.
I’m really not interested in curtailing the freedoms of American citizens in an attempt to keep Islamists from scoring PR points.
Additionally, I went to the site you linked, and, apparently the original title for “A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post 9/11″ was “What’s Right About Islam is What’s Right about America.” According to the Amazon page (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Right-Islam-Vision-Muslims/dp/0060750626), the book is meant to promote Western values and curtail militant Islam.
So, I guess I’m entirely in favor of how the good Imam is spinning this!
August 2nd, 2010 | 9:51 pm
David, I have not read enough about the particular building project to comment on your comparison of it to the hypothetical construction of large houses of worship of other faiths. But, I rather doubt that you would have used the words “grotesque”, “accommodation” or “triumphalism” in regards to any of those you list. I imagine you might say “inappropriate” at most if we were talking about a Billy Graham center.
I do give you credit for saying that a mosque of “reasonable size” would be alright in that location.
As an outsider to this controversy, it seems to me that the political candidates who have been playing this up are deliberately cultivating the notion that it was “Islam” that attacked us. Rather than just bashing Bloomberg, would you be willing to call upon those candidates to say that they would find a more modest sized structure to be acceptable?
Marc, before you pose the rhetorical question with the dire implications you imply, you should at the very least provide your definition of “Dawa”. Did you not do so because you want those of us who don’t know what it means to assume the worst?
Since you did not provide any definition, I found this thesis about the different meanings of “Dawa” on a Wikipedia link. I can’t vouch for it, but it seems to be both scholarly and balanced:
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/aasia/vk/racius/themulti.pdf
Based on my brief scanning of the paper, the meaning of “Dawa” can overlap with the English word “proselytize”, both of non-believers and believers, but it does not have a single uniform meaning within the Muslim world.
August 2nd, 2010 | 11:54 pm
Old Russian generals protested the armed Allied troops marching in The May Victory Day Parade in Moscow. To them the symbolism represented defeat. But the joining of those military forces in imminent so it’s only a matter of a generation until the symbolism is palatable for the old generals.
With Islam the rapprochement is centuries away. Don’t accept defeat. Mr. Goldman is correct to oppose the building of such a mosque.
August 3rd, 2010 | 12:38 am
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been the Imam of the Masjid [Mosque] al-Farah located 12 blocks from Ground Zero since 1983. In other words he is part of the neighborhood and community and has been for well over 20 years.
So he wants to build a larger mosque 10 blocks closer to Ground Zero — not “at” Ground Zero. It’s America — he can do whatever he wants with his property including turning it into a large house of worship subject to zoning laws.
I’m tired of hearing about this issue. No one would ever say that Catholics should not build a church near Regent’s Park or Harrod’s in London, despite the fact that these were two sites of horrific bombing attacks by the Provisional IRA years ago.
Just as it is absurd and even bigoted to tie the entire Catholic faith to IRA violence, it is equally absurd and bigoted to tie every Muslim and mosque to 9/11.
August 3rd, 2010 | 1:09 am
Leah is correct. This article is built on a completely false premise — that the community center will be literally built on Ground Zero — on property that (formerly?) belonged to the Port Authority at the site of the Twin Towers. The actual site is two blocks away.
As Mr. Goldman himself says, “Muslims face no obstacles to building mosques in New York.” Indeed. The land for the site has already been purchased by the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative (presumably from some previous private owner) and the plans have already been drawn up. So move on to another issue already if you want freedom of religion for yourself.
August 3rd, 2010 | 5:52 am
I continue to be amazed at how much hot air conservatives generate on this–like it’s a real issue. Mark’s “Move on already” is the perfect sentiment. I’d add to stop watching tv and your fave Right wing internet sites and go out and play in the sun.
August 3rd, 2010 | 6:46 am
We can only hope that the indignant commentors are correct – that this building has an innocent purpose, that of worship and “good will toward men”. Much evidence exists that “good will” teaching within Islam requires that all must convert voluntarily or involuntarily. Conversion includes submission to a system of laws that must give most readers of this site pause. Are we right to believe that peace and respect for others is the aim of “moderate” Islamic teaching – or not? I suspect that there is no one outside of Islam who truly knows. But we will come to know.
August 3rd, 2010 | 9:14 am
It’s cool. The sunnis blew up the shi’ite Golden Dome mosque a few years back and it led to all sorts of retribution and pain. In the interest of helping ease the pain and bringing about peace, what say we build a church, a place for reconciliation and outreach, right on the mosque’s site?
Anyone who supports the Ground Zero Mosque have a problem with that?
August 3rd, 2010 | 9:25 am
Violet expressions of freedom of religion on a society fearful to speak freely. With time we will be called upon to fix this, again. Then the creators of South Park will be able to speak freely, again. In the meantime, we have no choice but to allow intellectuals to believe that they are advancing rapprochement. They are so smart.
Oppose the building of that mosque because that will buy us more time to fix this, again. We aren’t ready yet.
August 3rd, 2010 | 9:29 am
Much of this arguing seems to be about if a mosque CAN be built at or near Ground Zero, but what about if it even SHOULD?
The power of the illustration at the beginning of this article is that none of those groups ever would suggest those buildings–we all understand that such proposals would be silly. Monopolizing public space, imposing one group’s will on the majority, self promotion at the expense of deep public sentiment–such attitudes are anathema to Western values.
But the fact that some Muslims want to steamroll their way into having a mosque against massive public outcry goes against the values the rest of us have internalized–Rauf should say, “We’re sorry for having offended so many of our friends, so we’ll stop pressing the point until you feel we’ve earned the right to ask to do this again.” In a community of respectful equals, that’s how you do outreach.
The expansion of Islam in other countries shows patterns of aggression like this that absolutely do lead to slippery slopes of eroding the civic freedoms of others. New Yorkers definitely have a right to draw a line and protest the PC bullying that’s that’s being used to make unwanted, obnoxious inroads into their community.
August 3rd, 2010 | 10:32 am
Sean: what say we build a church, a place for reconciliation and outreach, right on the mosque’s site?
If someone wants to build a church two blocks away from the site — the same distance the mosque under discussion is from the WTC site — why not? To build literally on the site raises questions of property rights: who owns the land and who gets to decide what is built there.
Huston: “We’re sorry for having offended so many of our friends, so we’ll stop pressing the point until you feel we’ve earned the right to ask to do this again.” In a community of respectful equals, that’s how you do outreach.
Did you say the same thing when the Muhammed Cartoons controversy arose? If not, why not? You decry “PC bullying” in your last paragraph but don’t seem to be aware of the irony. Perhaps in your “community of respectful equals,” some are a tad more equal than others.
Look, Muslims have no right to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot say about their religion. I believe very strongly in that even if I think some anti-Muslim sentiments lapse into crude bigotry the same way anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic sentiments do. But we non-Muslims have no right to tell a private Muslim foundation that has purchased private land whether they can build a mosque there or not. Criticize that particular private decision if you want, but don’t go dragging Mike Bloomberg or other public officials into the matter as they have a sworn duty to uphold the First Amendment regardless of what the public thinks.
Moreover, realize that your own First Amendment rights are no longer secure once you start pushing for their selective abrogation when it comes to other groups. What leg will you have to stand on when a pro-gay group doesn’t want your denomination to build a church near where its members live?
August 3rd, 2010 | 12:00 pm
Questions regarding free speech and freedom of religion are central to this discussion. If the Catholic Church, to take one example, were to claim a “religious” belief that citizens who support abortion can rightly be killed, would that teaching come under the heading of religious freedom? If Protestant Christians were to advocate, say, destruction of property and buildings belonging to Catholics (as was in fact done in England) because of faith differences, would that be considered a matter of religious freedom? Or not? In “The Regensburg Lecture” Fr. James Schall explains the position of Pope Benedict XVI on the subject of reasonable faith, faith and reason. We will not be able to avoid this question. Opposition to certain beliefs of others, opposition to certain practices of others, is not the same thing as advocacy of physical violence including killing because of “religious” differences. Religious practice can reasonably be required not to support such things.
August 3rd, 2010 | 2:27 pm
Mark,
“If someone wants to build a church two blocks away from the site — the same distance the mosque under discussion is from the WTC site — why not? To build literally on the site raises questions of property rights: who owns the land and who gets to decide what is built there.”
Seriously? It’s only a matter of property rights? Do you even understand the context of the question I was asking, or how these projects (the one I propose and the one imam Faisal is working on) appear to the muslim world? Or how self-hatingly stupid this makes liberals look?
August 3rd, 2010 | 4:06 pm
For those New Yorkers who either Muslim apologists or who wonder what’s the big deal, imagine the following:
A very wealthy Boston Red Sox fan wishes to erect a huge billboard that will overlook The House that Ruth Built. It is so large and tall that it overshadows the entire outfield of Yankee Stadium. Now imagine if said billionaire wished to put a photo of a smiling Red Sox fan giving the world the “bird”. Think about it; everytime someone’s gaze turned to the outfied, or evertime a Yankee stepped up to the plate he would see this smiling Red Sox fan flipping him off. What would Yankee fans say if both the Mayor of New York and the City Council approved it?
Methinks everyone is missing the big picture. This Mosque is going up a few blocks where Americans were incinerated and crushed. The name of the Mosque is taken from a Islamic regime that dominated Christians in the Iberian Peninsula (Caliph of Cordoba), and whose regime was within one battlefield victory of dominating all of Western Europe. If our enlightened, high educated, sensitive elites cannot seen the significance, Muslims the world over can. This is Islam’s way of giving the finger to the West.
And for New Yorkers in Lower Manhatten, this is only the beginning.
August 3rd, 2010 | 9:30 pm
This is America. In the America I was raised to respect, defend and love, the erection of this mosque would not be an issue in the way it has been made an issue. I don’t recognize the ersatz Amerika where it has made such an issue, but it sure is luring suckers.
August 3rd, 2010 | 9:51 pm
This Mosque controversy appears to be an almost perfect litmus test for bigotry. Goldman failed.
And he couldn’t even get past his first sentence without misrepresenting the situation. Pathetic.
August 3rd, 2010 | 10:36 pm
Sean: “Seriously? It’s only a matter of property rights?”
As far as the government is concerned, it is only a matter of property rights and freedom of religion. For the rest of us, there is the added question of the wisdom or civility of such a move. But in this case, the Imam responsible for the mosque/community center has been a fixture in the community dating back to 1983. He has run his mosque twelve blocks from the Twin Towers long before anyone had heard of either Ramzi Ahmed Yousef or Mohammed Atta. So I don’t see any case against him at all.
JP: “This Mosque is going up a few blocks where Americans were incinerated and crushed.”
American Muslims were incinerated and crushed on September 11, 2001 as well. Or are Muslims not real Americans to you?
August 3rd, 2010 | 11:20 pm
Mark, I think it’s extraordinary of you to go along with the erection of a triumphal arch right next to the scene of the crime. Bravo.
August 4th, 2010 | 12:12 am
Sean, then don’t complain when someone tries to trample on your right to practice your own religion as they almost surely well.
August 4th, 2010 | 10:57 am
It is of critical importance that we understand the as a bad law is no law and must be resisted, so bad teaching offered under the heading of “religious” must be subjected to the scrutiny of right reason. Anything at all can be (and much has been) taught as “religion”. We must distinguish between faith that is fideism and faith that is in accordance with right reason. If ever, now. No person of true faith should fear complete and total disclosure of the tenets of the faith. No church, mosque, or synagogue should fear opening its doors and classrooms to respectful inspection by other citizens or those designated to represent them. We are still ostensibly a free country. Moral distinctions are still allowed to be made. What is not allowed is violent imposition of those beliefs. Catholic teaching about, for instance, abortion can still be taught; it cannot be imposed by fiat. A free people must be persuaded not dominated. Can Muslims honestly accept that kind of tolerance?
August 4th, 2010 | 10:46 pm
Freedom of religion…freedom from the government interfering in where and what private enterprises and be built. Sounds exactly like what those on 9/11 died for. What do you say to a country where a mosque can be built near the World Trade Center sight? One thing…God Bless America
August 5th, 2010 | 11:37 am
A very UN-necessary part of the controversy is that there is no defined plan for Park 51/ Cordoba House, so a lot of reaction to date was based on the ABSENCE of a defined plan.
On 9/11/2001, “…a plane’s landing-gear assembly the size of a World War II torpedo crashed through the roof and down through two empty selling floors of the Burlington Coat Factory….[reported December, 2009] …The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
On Monday, after an interview with Daisy Khan, the WSJ reported “Park51 will include a prayer space designed for about 2,000 worshipers.” Khan said “We want to repair the breach and be at the front and center to start the healing.”
[one can argue that objective has already failed]
On Tuesday, “El-Gamal told The Jerusalem Post that with the decision not to designate the existing building a landmark, he was beginning to prepare a fund-raising strategy and considering the future look and organization of the facility.
“While we plan to include a mosque, this will only be small component of the larger facility and it will be run as a separate not-forprofit,” El-Gamal said….”
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=183463
Between Friday and Monday, Malaysia’s Dr. Mahathir Mohamed Gaza-obsessed Perdana For Peace Initiative redesigned their hompage to delete the direct link to Imam Rauf’s page at http://www.perdana4peace.org/agenda.aspx?x=3
Park51 has a website. http://www.park51.org
You can follow the development of a final plan and design there.
A prayer space for 2,000 on such a small footprint is a big challenge in meeting NYC Fire Code, and New York City Fire Department has veto power to insure compliance.
August 5th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
MUCH of this controversy might have been mitigated if only this July 24, 2010 interview had been more accessible. (It sounds like Imam Rauf is being “thrown under the bus”)
It may be that the very diverse American-Muslim community may actually shape the final plan for Park51 since they seem to be asking the truly hard questions:
http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/n/3866
“In the wake of growing public debate, we ask Sharif El-Gamal, the CEO of Soho Properties and the developer of Park51, some hard questions about the plans to develop a Muslim-run community center in lower Manhattan.”
By Aziz Poonawalla & Shahed Amanullah, July 24, 2010
QUESTION: “What are Imam Feisal’s specific roles and responsibilities in the project? If he is not in a leadership/executive position, then who is really “in charge” and making the decisions?”
ANSWER: “Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf is as an interfaith leader and a visionary in this project. He has served the lower Manhattan community faithfully for over 27 years. He is supported by political and religious leaders across New York City for his commitment to moderation and tolerance and his years of work in bringing people together.
Park51 is an independent project led by Muslim Americans. This project will be separate from The Cordoba Initiative and ASMA. The next step is forming a non-profit and applying for tax-exempt status. Imam Feisal and I are serving as the project managers until then. This non-profit will be run by an Executive Director, yet to be selected, support staff, and a 23-member Board of Directors.
Imam Feisal will be one of the Directors, and will oversee the Cordoba House, which will direct the interfaith programming within Park51. We have not yet selected the other members of the Board of Directors, but we will be picking people very carefully, based on their record of leadership, relevant experience and positive contribution to New York City and the country. The board will not be limited by religion.
The mosque will be run by a separate non-profit whose Board of Directors will reflect a broad range of experience. While the mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn’t been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity and rhetoric.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact