Rhetorical Axes and Park51
Aug 24, 2010
Elizabeth Scalia
Assigned the task of silencing debate on the Park51 project, the press and the center-left punditry have decided to haul out the overused tar-brush of racism, by which they mean to depict 65 percent of all Americans—Americans who’ve lived quite peaceably with our Muslim population, with no mass lashing-out against women of cover, no desecration of mosques, no random acts of violence in the years following the attacks of 9/11—as “bigots,” “xenophobes,” and “Islamophobes.”
This resorting to a knee-jerk superiority of sensibilities is itself a display of neurotic insecurity, but more importantly, it is the destructive and reckless swinging of an axe into the psyche of a fevered nation which desperately needs the attendance of a delicate physician, and a bit of rest, or her breakdown will become unsurvivable.
Resistance to a proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is not about bigotry or xenophobia; the demonstrated tolerance of Americans during the last nine years belies those unhelpful charges. Rather, the rancor is an amalgam; it is constructed of built-up feelings of anger, powerlessness, indignation and—most potently—disillusioned self-awareness and resentment against ham-handed, disdainful leadership.
Anger alone would be manageable. In our therapeutic culture we know that before a psych patient can get well, he needs to touch a needle to the crux of what is eating at him, like an interior boil-lancing, and sometimes it takes a lot of roundabout discourse and venting to locate it. Until the thing is touched upon, though, there is no chance of healing, just a general sense of disease, failure, and hurt.
We could find it, lance it, and start healing. But America is being told—by the very people who have spent decades promoting the primacy of “feelings,” over thought, and who have declared that “a feeling is neither right or wrong”—to shut up, to not express its feelings, to not even have feelings, because those feelings are bad, stupid ones that are very, very wrong.
No wonder Americans are frustrated. They’re being eaten alive by “feelings” they don’t completely understand, yet they may not explore them. They know that the Cordoba Group has a right to put their mosque where they like—they don’t dispute it—but they are afraid.
They are not afraid of the mosque or its members; they’re afraid of what the mosque will communicate—to the world and to themselves—as it rises so near the sterile ground where once stood two towers. They intuit that such a structure will signal a defeat more thorough than any found on a battlefield because it will suggest a defeat of the will, of priorities, ingenuity, of energy, and most importantly of identity.
Americans, divided, devolved, and distanced from their formerly unifying ideals, no longer know who they are. They want to believe they are still the can-do nation, but that hole suggests they can-not; it suggests that stultifying bureaucratic process has overtaken progress, that complacency has supplanted creativity. And those suggestions are shaking Americans to their core; they wonder who they have become, yet dread the answer.
Two weeks ago in this space I wrote about love, loss and the way mental illness challenges a marriage. A reader asked me if my description of heroic forbearance for the sake of a marriage vow could not also be applied to this controversy, i.e, shouldn’t a people so dedicated to religious freedom be capable of enduring a symbolic notion of defeat, for the sake of their commitment to liberty?
The difference in the two equations is trust. Surrendering ones circumstance to a loving, trust-worthy God in challenging times is quite different from being nagged into acquiescence by people who you no longer believe even like you, or have your best interests at heart. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the press are no longer credible enough to convince the angry 65 percent of the country that Park51 could ultimately mean something good for America.
It didn’t have to be this way. Mature leadership, like good parenting, could have assuaged the trembling national doubt that has overtaken us. And mature leadership is what we lack.
Mature leadership on this issue would have said, “I hear you; I am one of you, and your feelings are not stupid, or bigoted or without merit; they are human and understandable and we are not wrong to feel confused or hurt over this; we are not wrong to feel defeated when we look at that empty hole, in whose sadness we all have a share, and worry that it may be forever an aching void we cannot fill.”
Mature leadership would have continued: “But we cannot allow those feelings to lead us into forgetting who we are: the nation so exceptionally tolerant that every religion, every belief system seeks to build here, to worship in the freedom that is so singularly American; the nation that is still indispensable to the cause of liberty. We love liberty; we live in liberty; we die for liberty, and even when we are suffering and hurt, we promote liberty, outside our borders, and within.
“Americans may be reeling over many things, but we know that nothing can better demonstrate a victory over tyranny as a liberty that does not bend to feelings and sentiment; nothing can so eloquently celebrate that liberty as our consent to build a church, or a synagogue, or a mosque, where we’d rather not. Doing so says something great about America; it says, ‘we may quibble about many things, but we do not quibble about liberty.’”
That sort of speech would have not only challenged America to rise toward her better angels, it would have the added benefit of being right—and victorious—in the paradoxical way of the truly transcendent.
Sadly, no one made such a speech. The president offered a robotic, “yes, it’s hallowed ground but” and then lectured us about rights. The Speaker of the House squawked that opposition to Park51 should be investigated. The Mayor of New York tried use shame as argument.
Various mediafolk fell into predictable parrot-mode, decrying the “intolerance” and “stupidity” of the “ineducable” non-elite yahoos who make up too much of the country for their liking. When the yahoos balked, the press—realizing that the people no longer trust the messengers—cried out for former President Bush to weigh in, hoping he would voice the empathetic words Obama could not.
But Bush won’t opine; he has stated many times that it’s the job of a past-president to shut up and stay out of the way. And frankly, if at this moment Bush did speak up, he would only make things worse, because people have become too angry to hear anything conciliatory. The far-right, sensing America’s diminishment, has become like a pilot light in search of a flame, and the far-left, anxious for a post-American reality, aches to strike the match.
If we have not yet passed the moment in which a delicate physician can successfully treat America’s virulent madness, and bring her some rest, it is a very near thing.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer for First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress.
Comments:
8.24.2010 | 6:13am
Terrence Kenny says:
The various issues and agendas that have arisen out of, or have been grafted onto, the plans to erect the mosque and cultural center near "Ground Zero" are, quite simply, a tangle. Ostensible libertarians (some of them, anyway) find themselves a tad queezy in the face of such a dramatic and inflammatory exercise of property rights. Many a supposed liberal statesman surreptitiuosly looks both ways before putting his finger in the air to test the winds of public opinion on this one. Cultural conservatives experience a synaptic short-circuiting as they fulminate, forgetting, for the moment at least, when and how and why various groups or traditions were demonized in the course of our history. Yet I think it perhaps willful ignorance simply to assume benign intent on the part of those who saw fit to plan the Cordoba Center. The timing, the thrust, the title, all of it, strikes me as a little off-kilter if the discussion is about how anyone could oppose such a wonderful project. But that isn't what the discussion should be about. For our own good, our own sanity, our own, dare I say it, salvation and connectedness to anything good WE ever were and hope to remain, the discussion needs to connect to the question of how we, heirs to a tradition that faltered at times but flowered over time, how we encounter and engage the Other about whom we entertain doubts. When I was in college and studied classical theories of terrorism (admittedly this was long, long ago) the prevailing view among specialists, gleaned directly from the works of those who specialized in terror, was that the goal of terrorism was not so much eliciting fear among a populace as it was creating the conditions wherein the State would reveal itself to be the monster that had hid behind the mask. It was to provoke the State to remove the glove hiding the talons. It was to turn the State into that which the people truly feared.
8.24.2010 | 7:13am
Ars Artium says:
"... but we cannot allow these feelings to lead us into forgetting who we are: the nation so exceptionally tolerant that every religion, every belief system seeks to build here ...". Every belief system may indeed seek to build here, but "tolerance with principle" distinguishes between systems built according to right reason and fundamental standards of civil behavior and those that do not. Systems seeking to impose rather than propose beliefs are not treated with respect nor are they encouraged to establish themselves here. Remember that because of its history in Europe, Roman Catholicism was required to demonstrate its bona fides before it was given standing as one good thing among others. It is not wrong to ask those who seek to reform violent tendencies in Islam to do the same. As Fr. Schall has written, we need "to understand why Mohammed or at least some of his followers may have thought violence proper in pursuit of their world-encompassing mission. ... it is asserted that Mohammed did not advocate this violent approach - "There is no compulsion in religion" (#ll). In this case, the problem is not with Mohammed but with other historical Muslims who claim that he did so change his view to enable him to expand their religion with force. This leaves the internal problem in the hands of those Muslims who claim that there is no relation between Islam and violence and those Muslims who say that this is what Mohammed did teach. Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims cannot be blamed for wondering which position, for the Muslims themselves, is the correct one and who is qualified to decide. It is obviously an honest inquiry to know the truth of the matter. ... That is, the question that must be asked and answered is this: "is it or is it not true that Mohammed or the Koran permits violence in the name of religion?" To make it an insult, blasphemy, or crime even to ask the question is itself a problem with the most serious consequences. Logically, it means the quesion can never be objectively answered on the basis of reason. One cannot imagine that Mohammed himself would have been insulted by someone wanting to know the foundations and implications of his own teachings." ... I know of no one who would not be delighted with a firm adherence to the strict application, legal and moral, of the Koranic principle that "There is no compulsion in religion" (#11). The longer the question is not honestly and officially answered, and the politics based on it still continue, the more the suspicion will grow that in fact violence is justified. It is neither unfriendly nor prejudiced to point out this logic. ... Sometimes not to speak the truth [in this case to ask a question] is itself an act of cowardice, not of prudence." "If the mere statement of a problem is conceived to be blasphemy, is the solution to the problem simply to urge everyone to 'respect religion' and thus not talk about the problem" in a respectful manner? Are we truly so unfree? American citizens of good will understand that we are not yet this unfree. We are not in need of government officials to teach us how to think properly.
8.24.2010 | 9:15am
Maureen Mullarkey says:
This otherwise fine column closes on just the therapeutic note that has brought us to this pass in relation to the GZ mosque. We do not need what pop sentimentality likes to think of as healing. We need more robust confidence in our own country and culture so that we can defend ourselves robustly and without cringing. There is something unwholesome in that call for "a delicate physician." We need more militant vigilance in our own defense and less hang-wringing over imaginary madness.
America's only lunacy was in falling for a slick con artist out of the Chicago sewer. It will take more than delicate physicianship to cure us of the consequences---of which this mosque is a fitting symbol.
America's only lunacy was in falling for a slick con artist out of the Chicago sewer. It will take more than delicate physicianship to cure us of the consequences---of which this mosque is a fitting symbol.
8.24.2010 | 9:45am
Aristotelian says:
To portray the mosque controversy as an exchange between a feverish patient and an insufficiently delicate doctor, and to suggest that the ailment of the former stands to be remedied by the wise ministrations of the latter is to miss what is at stake.
Persons of quite stable temperament are aware that Islam builds mosques on the sites of its conquests in jihad. This is not a feverish superstition; it is a fact. Such persons are also aware of the historical context in which "Cordoba" acquired meaning. Research into the statements of the Imam heading the mosque project concerning his views of American responsibility for 9-11, his refusal to disavow known terrorists (Hamas), and his personal belief that Israel should cease to exist as a Jewish state should properly yield a refusal to tolerate his blather about interfaith friendship, and a protest against the abomination of a victory mosque. Such a protest is the product of considered judgment, not of an elevated temperature.
Persons of quite stable temperament are aware that Islam builds mosques on the sites of its conquests in jihad. This is not a feverish superstition; it is a fact. Such persons are also aware of the historical context in which "Cordoba" acquired meaning. Research into the statements of the Imam heading the mosque project concerning his views of American responsibility for 9-11, his refusal to disavow known terrorists (Hamas), and his personal belief that Israel should cease to exist as a Jewish state should properly yield a refusal to tolerate his blather about interfaith friendship, and a protest against the abomination of a victory mosque. Such a protest is the product of considered judgment, not of an elevated temperature.
8.24.2010 | 10:10am
Joe says:
While we have the constitutional and moral responsibility to protect the freedom of religion and should never view the carrying out of this reponsibility as a defeat; we must also lend though to our responsibility to protect religion from those that would use this right to deal harm to all religions. Yes, the organization should have a default right to build on the site. However, considering the circumstances and significance of the site that was selected a long hard look should be taken at the funding and intent of this construction. We cannot allow our freedom of religion to be perverted by those who pervert the Muslim faith. We have the moral responsibility to respect the Muslim religion enough to prevent actions driven and supported by terrorist organizations and states that purport defense of their religion while all of their actions work towards the creation of animosity and misunderstanding toward it.
8.24.2010 | 10:21am
Spencer says:
What I think is most galling to everyday Americans is that the intellectual left, most intolerant over the years toward everything Christian, while, of course, preaching tolerance, is now fiercely defending religious freedom in the case of the GZ mosque. Their condescending lecturing to the American people is the latest manifestation of ideological hypocrisy, and the American people have finally had enough.
Ms. Scalia rightly points to the lack of true political leadership at all levels. Our nation is going through a period of uncertainty and economic trouble. People feel they don’t have control over their lives. They are being told on one hand that the government can help with anything, but then they see that the help doesn’t really work or has unintended consequences. Congress is ignoring the will of the people, and courts are overturning duly passed laws and constitutional amendments because certain victim groups cry out for “justice”.
This makes it possible for controversies like the GZ project to become a national argument. It starts with folks showing genuine concern, and then it expands to a full-blown conflict when more radicalized factions get involved. Add the lecturing intellectual media elites, and you have quite a mess.
It doesn’t help that our nation has been unable to accomplish anything at Ground Zero is almost nine years. The mosque could be completed before any memorials can be built on the 9/11 site itself.
Ms. Scalia rightly points to the lack of true political leadership at all levels. Our nation is going through a period of uncertainty and economic trouble. People feel they don’t have control over their lives. They are being told on one hand that the government can help with anything, but then they see that the help doesn’t really work or has unintended consequences. Congress is ignoring the will of the people, and courts are overturning duly passed laws and constitutional amendments because certain victim groups cry out for “justice”.
This makes it possible for controversies like the GZ project to become a national argument. It starts with folks showing genuine concern, and then it expands to a full-blown conflict when more radicalized factions get involved. Add the lecturing intellectual media elites, and you have quite a mess.
It doesn’t help that our nation has been unable to accomplish anything at Ground Zero is almost nine years. The mosque could be completed before any memorials can be built on the 9/11 site itself.
8.24.2010 | 10:28am
publius says:
"America's only lunacy was in falling for a slick con artist out of the Chicago sewer." Stay classy Maureen....
8.24.2010 | 11:10am
Ars Artium says:
This is a repeat of the passage from Fr. Schall's "The Regensburg Lecture":
"... the question that must be asked and answered is this: 'Is it or is it not true that Mohammed or the Koran permits violence in the name of religion?'
To make it an insult, blasphemy, or crime even to ask the question is itself a problem with the most serious consequences. Logically, it means the question can never be objectively answered on the basis of reason. One cannot imagine that Mohammed himself would have been insulted by someone wanting know the foundations and implications of his teaching. ... The longer the question if not honestly and officially answered, and the politics based on it still continue, the more the suspicion will grow that in fact violence is justified. It is neither unfriendly nor prejudiced to point out this logic ... ."
"... the question that must be asked and answered is this: 'Is it or is it not true that Mohammed or the Koran permits violence in the name of religion?'
To make it an insult, blasphemy, or crime even to ask the question is itself a problem with the most serious consequences. Logically, it means the question can never be objectively answered on the basis of reason. One cannot imagine that Mohammed himself would have been insulted by someone wanting know the foundations and implications of his teaching. ... The longer the question if not honestly and officially answered, and the politics based on it still continue, the more the suspicion will grow that in fact violence is justified. It is neither unfriendly nor prejudiced to point out this logic ... ."
8.24.2010 | 12:27pm
Dave says:
Ever since 09/11/01, and in spite of enduring additional attacks and attempted attacks (the shoe-bomber, the Christmas underwear bomber, the Fort Hood massacre), we as a nation were warned against an expected backlash against the Muslim community, which never came. If there were retaliations, I could see where we could be labeled Islamaphobic. But simply opposing a Mosque-but-not-really that is purporting to foster healing, but in reality is re-opening old wounds, doesn't seem to qualify. Not all Muslims are militant, but until the funding for this center has been disclosed, we can't be sure that its backers are not.
8.24.2010 | 12:43pm
Brian English says:
"We have the moral responsibility to respect the Muslim religion enough to prevent actions driven and supported by terrorist organizations and states that purport defense of their religion while all of their actions work towards the creation of animosity and misunderstanding toward it."
But I think there is a problem that goes beyond terrorism and violence. There is a real issue regarding Islam's tolerance of other religions.
For instance, how many allegedly moderate Muslims would disagree with the following statements:
(1) Muslims should be prohibited, by law, from converting to other religions;
(2) Non-Muslims should be prohibited, by law, from attempting to convert Muslims;
(3) Non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to bring crosses or bibles into the country;
(4) Non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to build churches or other places of worship; and
(5) Non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to enter Mecca or Medina.
But I think there is a problem that goes beyond terrorism and violence. There is a real issue regarding Islam's tolerance of other religions.
For instance, how many allegedly moderate Muslims would disagree with the following statements:
(1) Muslims should be prohibited, by law, from converting to other religions;
(2) Non-Muslims should be prohibited, by law, from attempting to convert Muslims;
(3) Non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to bring crosses or bibles into the country;
(4) Non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to build churches or other places of worship; and
(5) Non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to enter Mecca or Medina.
8.24.2010 | 12:47pm
Fred says:
I am quite frankly amazed at the willful naivete of the mosque proponents. The very fact that the mosque builders are proceeding with the project despite the pain and rage it causes belies the claim that it has anything to do with healing and reconciliation. Add to that the statements Imam Rauf has made (blaming the US for 9/11, supporting Hamas, and from what I've read saying worse things in Arabic), the name of the mosque, and teh historical use of mosques to memorialize Moslem victories, and it becomes painfully obvious that this is a victory mosque. It will serve as a monument, not to our tolerance, but to the jihadists "victory." It will become a rallying point to jihadists the world over. The constitution, as a great jurist once said, is not a suicide pact. There are all kinds of legal ways to delay the building of that mosque indefinitely. That we lack the cultural and political will to do so is yet another testament to our precipitous decline.
8.24.2010 | 1:33pm
Nora says:
You know, these guys have a right -- a legal right, a constitutional right -- to build this mosque/cultural center/whatever at that site.
Yes, it's appalling that they would do so.
Thing is, if everyone said, fine, build it, you suck, we don't care and then went on their way instead of whipping up this 24/7 media circus, the project might have just died a natural death. But they got what they REALLY wanted, which was discord, frenzy, chaos, etc., and they can now send those images around the world, spin them as they will, and we look like ejits and they look triumphant.
At worst, had we shrugged it off, saying yeah, you have a right, but you still suck and we don't believe a word you say, and then moved on, they'd have a very expensive monument to their general d-baggery. And NYers living and working in that area would have a place to flick their ciggy butts and spit out their chewing gum and throw their fast food trash wrappers.
Instead we played right into their hands and they "win" no matter what happens going forward.
Yes, it's appalling that they would do so.
Thing is, if everyone said, fine, build it, you suck, we don't care and then went on their way instead of whipping up this 24/7 media circus, the project might have just died a natural death. But they got what they REALLY wanted, which was discord, frenzy, chaos, etc., and they can now send those images around the world, spin them as they will, and we look like ejits and they look triumphant.
At worst, had we shrugged it off, saying yeah, you have a right, but you still suck and we don't believe a word you say, and then moved on, they'd have a very expensive monument to their general d-baggery. And NYers living and working in that area would have a place to flick their ciggy butts and spit out their chewing gum and throw their fast food trash wrappers.
Instead we played right into their hands and they "win" no matter what happens going forward.
8.24.2010 | 1:45pm
Moz says:
If this were a church, the people in charge would hold a conference where they would acknowledge the feelings of those opposed and commit to working toward a respectul solution. Remember what happened in Europe with the Mohammed cartoons? Then, the Left said, oh we understand you have the right to draw anything you like but, please, in the name of diversity and tolerance, don't. Now, with the Mosque, it seems to have switched sides for no apparent reason other than that the people now being offended are, for the most partwhite Americans and Christians . What a bunch of balony!
8.24.2010 | 1:46pm
Audrey says:
Americans are sick - sick of watching our cherished Western ideals and freedoms being abused by those who don't share them to accomplish goals that will eventually end those freedoms. Our respect for religious freedom makes us uneasy and reluctant to investigate mosques that harbor radical Islamists. Our abhorrence of racism silences us when Farrakhan and his fellow black Muslims are involved in the death of a white cop or black Muslim snipers terrorize our cities. Our respect for property rights makes us reluctant to expect common decency from prospective neighbors at Ground Zero who seem to revealing themselves as Muslim radicals. We are on a speeding train with the conductor telling us to just sit down and stop worrying while we can see past him that we are headed straight for a cliff.
8.24.2010 | 1:58pm
KarenT says:
There's another speech the President could have made: at his Ramadan dinner, he could have affirmed that the Cordoba Initiative group had the right to build on the site in question because this is America. But then he could have asked them to consider moving it, out of consideration for the sensitive feelings of those who had lost loved ones on 9/11. This would have given a group of Muslims proclaiming their moderate nature a chance to demonstrate that Muslims could be considerate and accommodating, too. How would that have been bad?
Victor Davis Hanson has some thoughts on the potential conflicts inherent in the choice of the site and the original choice of the name "Cordoba House" to go with it. Because "Cordoba" means different things to different people.
Imam Rauf has a demonstrated capacity to charm an elite Western audience. Cheerleading for the Imam by prominent Americans helped set the stage for conflict with less "enlightened" Americans. As VDH notes, this issue has diverted attention from other serious matters involving Muslims and the rest of the civilized world. And the Imam gets to watch Americans fight each other from abroad.
Victor Davis Hanson has some thoughts on the potential conflicts inherent in the choice of the site and the original choice of the name "Cordoba House" to go with it. Because "Cordoba" means different things to different people.
Imam Rauf has a demonstrated capacity to charm an elite Western audience. Cheerleading for the Imam by prominent Americans helped set the stage for conflict with less "enlightened" Americans. As VDH notes, this issue has diverted attention from other serious matters involving Muslims and the rest of the civilized world. And the Imam gets to watch Americans fight each other from abroad.
8.24.2010 | 2:14pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Yes, Fred, you're right. This mosque is going to be a symbol of Islamic imperialism---and one more monument to its triumphalism, just like the mosque built over what used to be the Hagia Sophia, and the mosques built over countless Hindu temples.
For God's sake, we don't need to be healed! (Healed of what? The knowledge that our country was attacked?) We don't need sweet speeches, assuring us that politicians feel our pain, and we don't need to give in to Islamic triumphalism, yet again, on the grounds that by doing so we're somehow showing how noble we are, by capitulating! The Constitution, as you say, was never intended to be suicide pact!
For God's sake, we don't need to be healed! (Healed of what? The knowledge that our country was attacked?) We don't need sweet speeches, assuring us that politicians feel our pain, and we don't need to give in to Islamic triumphalism, yet again, on the grounds that by doing so we're somehow showing how noble we are, by capitulating! The Constitution, as you say, was never intended to be suicide pact!
8.24.2010 | 2:24pm
John S says:
Resistance among most is, as you say, not about bigotry and hatred. But top-down opposition (Gingrich, Palin) is certainly about insinuation. And that insinuation is that Islam is collectively to blame for 9/11. It appeals more to "Stop Islamization of America" than it does to the 9/11 families who simply don't want the mosque to be that close to the site of the World Trade Center.
No, Americans are not bigoted, and the wide tolerance of Islam since 9/11 demonstrates that. But, if it wasn't about blaming Islam collectively at the onset, as electoral politics it is certainly skewing that way.
No, Americans are not bigoted, and the wide tolerance of Islam since 9/11 demonstrates that. But, if it wasn't about blaming Islam collectively at the onset, as electoral politics it is certainly skewing that way.
8.24.2010 | 2:38pm
Mike Toreno says:
I agree with this post. The fact that Muslims living and working downtown need a prayer space has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that they are just pushing in where they aren't wanted. Building Park51 would be as insensitive as putting a Catholic seminary next to a boys' primary school.
8.24.2010 | 2:47pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Ah, but Nora, you wouldn't be allowed to shrug it off. Nor would New Yorkers have been allowed to toss ciggie-butts, gum wrappers, trash at it; that would be Islamophobic, donchaknow! After all, as a politician with true leadership would CERTAINLY explain to us poor souls, in need of healing, and having our feelings assuaged, this mosque represents a victory over tyranny! It shows, by heckalorum, that we Americans do not quibble about liberty, no sireee! It shows we're trusting our better angels, doing what's truly right! And no asking questions about who'se funding it, for what reasons, Imam Rauf's attachment to implementing shari'a law, Islamic imperialism or any of those things! Because (as a true, caring leader would say), we must support religious freedom! Even if it kills us!
(Which it very well might.)
I do not think the backers of the Ground Zero Mosque will allow New Yorkers to ignore them. They're not building this mosque to be ignored, or to be one among many faiths. Even now, before it's built, look at how fierce its supporters are in defending it. Think what it will be like when it's actually built? You will not be allowed to ignore it. If you disagree with anything it says or does---Well, it's all for religious freedom, at least for some religions.
Meanwhile, St. Nicholas Church is not to be rebuilt. . .
(Which it very well might.)
I do not think the backers of the Ground Zero Mosque will allow New Yorkers to ignore them. They're not building this mosque to be ignored, or to be one among many faiths. Even now, before it's built, look at how fierce its supporters are in defending it. Think what it will be like when it's actually built? You will not be allowed to ignore it. If you disagree with anything it says or does---Well, it's all for religious freedom, at least for some religions.
Meanwhile, St. Nicholas Church is not to be rebuilt. . .
8.24.2010 | 2:59pm
Adam Shields says:
I think you are wrong on this.
First I want to stipulate that not all opponents are racist. However, I cannot in my wildest imagination think that an adult speech by Obama would have made any difference. On the one side you have wildly inflammatory speakers that are outright insisting that this is a terrorist training center. Those are not responsible speakers. What is going to tone them down. They have not toned down. I am seeing emails and message board posts asserting that Obama threated Franklin Graham with assassination if Graham did not say Obama was a Christian. There are wild mis-truths being passed around.
One the other side is a smaller group of people that really believes this is one more step to the loss of freedom. If the US cannot hold on to the First Amendment then maybe the maybe the terrorists really have won. But many of these simple will not acknowledge, or think it is important, that many people still live in fear. That fear may be misguided; and is being used on both the right and the left for inappropriate political gains. But that does not mean it is any less real.
If you are going to be therapeutic in your perspective, then think a bit deeper alone your line of thinking. This is not a simple speech, this is long term counseling. The two sides aren't even speaking to one another, let alone interested in reconciliation.
First I want to stipulate that not all opponents are racist. However, I cannot in my wildest imagination think that an adult speech by Obama would have made any difference. On the one side you have wildly inflammatory speakers that are outright insisting that this is a terrorist training center. Those are not responsible speakers. What is going to tone them down. They have not toned down. I am seeing emails and message board posts asserting that Obama threated Franklin Graham with assassination if Graham did not say Obama was a Christian. There are wild mis-truths being passed around.
One the other side is a smaller group of people that really believes this is one more step to the loss of freedom. If the US cannot hold on to the First Amendment then maybe the maybe the terrorists really have won. But many of these simple will not acknowledge, or think it is important, that many people still live in fear. That fear may be misguided; and is being used on both the right and the left for inappropriate political gains. But that does not mean it is any less real.
If you are going to be therapeutic in your perspective, then think a bit deeper alone your line of thinking. This is not a simple speech, this is long term counseling. The two sides aren't even speaking to one another, let alone interested in reconciliation.
8.24.2010 | 3:17pm
Brian English says:
"The fact that Muslims living and working downtown need a prayer space has nothing to do with anything. "
There are already two mosques nearby. This isn't about the needs of the local Muslim community.
"Building Park51 would be as insensitive as putting a Catholic seminary next to a boys' primary school."
You should refrain from stealing jokes that identify you as a bigot when you are accusing other people of being bigots.
There are already two mosques nearby. This isn't about the needs of the local Muslim community.
"Building Park51 would be as insensitive as putting a Catholic seminary next to a boys' primary school."
You should refrain from stealing jokes that identify you as a bigot when you are accusing other people of being bigots.
8.24.2010 | 3:30pm
R Hampton says:
The Westboro Baptist Church demonstrates at the funerals of soldiers who died fighting the War on Terror. They are obnoxious and inconsiderate, but well within their rights to do so. To what does our tolerance speak of, in this instance; a weakness to fight terrorism or a capitulation to self-hatred. I suppose in the eyes of some it does, but it doesn't matter.
But we cannot allow those feelings to lead us into forgetting who we are: the nation so exceptionally tolerant that every religion, every belief system seeks to build here, to worship in the freedom that is so singularly American; the nation that is still indispensable to the cause of liberty. We love liberty; we live in liberty; we die for liberty, and even when we are suffering and hurt, we promote liberty, outside our borders, and within.
Exactly. So what I find so sad is that such an obvious statement of fact of Constitutional law is either unknown to the public, or unimportant.
But we cannot allow those feelings to lead us into forgetting who we are: the nation so exceptionally tolerant that every religion, every belief system seeks to build here, to worship in the freedom that is so singularly American; the nation that is still indispensable to the cause of liberty. We love liberty; we live in liberty; we die for liberty, and even when we are suffering and hurt, we promote liberty, outside our borders, and within.
Exactly. So what I find so sad is that such an obvious statement of fact of Constitutional law is either unknown to the public, or unimportant.
8.24.2010 | 3:45pm
Fred says:
Nora, You raise a good point, but aside from Rhinstone Suderman's objection (which I think is valid) there's another consideration. The good Imam has put us in a damned-if-we-do/damned-if-we-don't situation. To react the way 65% or so of us do may be used a propaganda tool to enrage potential jihadis (SEE! The Americans want to destroy Islam!). On the other hand, to do nothing and call all opponents of the mosque bigots etc. may be used as a propaganda tool as well (SEE! The Americans are weak and foolish! They can't or won't stop us from building a monument to our great victory!). It does seem to me though that when you're dealing with the Middle Eastern mindset, particularly its jihadist manifestation, it's always better to err on the side of strength (remember OBL's comments about the "strong horse.")
8.24.2010 | 3:46pm
Robert Moody says:
That's right Mike, Muslims just need a $100 million place to pray because there aren't any other mosques in downtown New York. Thanks also for demonstrating where the real bottom-feeding religious bigots are located in this controversy.
8.24.2010 | 3:56pm
napier says:
Nora,
Perhaps you're the only person left who buys what the mainstream media is selling. 70% of Americans, give or take, acknowledge that the property owners can build a mosque there but think they shouldn't.
Show me something that Americans are less discordant about.
Perhaps you're the only person left who buys what the mainstream media is selling. 70% of Americans, give or take, acknowledge that the property owners can build a mosque there but think they shouldn't.
Show me something that Americans are less discordant about.
8.24.2010 | 4:00pm
Brian English says:
"Exactly. So what I find so sad is that such an obvious statement of fact of Constitutional law is either unknown to the public, or unimportant."
The First Amendment protects us from government action. Private citizens expressing their displeasure do not implicate the First Amendment.
The First Amendment protects us from government action. Private citizens expressing their displeasure do not implicate the First Amendment.
8.24.2010 | 4:07pm
Daniel Z says:
"But we cannot allow those feelings to lead us into forgetting who we are: the nation so exceptionally tolerant that every religion, every belief system seeks to build here, to worship in the freedom that is so singularly American; the nation that is still indispensable to the cause of liberty. We love liberty; we live in liberty; we die for liberty, and even when we are suffering and hurt, we promote liberty, outside our borders, and within."
Unfortunately, I believe that for those who oppose the building of the cultural center in lower manhattan, that these words would fall on deaf ears.
Unfortunately, I believe that for those who oppose the building of the cultural center in lower manhattan, that these words would fall on deaf ears.
8.24.2010 | 4:50pm
Spencer says:
Our commitment to freedom was on display this last weekend when both sides protested at the site and no one got hurt (except for feelings, probably). What would happen to Christian or Jewish protesters publicly demanding a place of worship be built in Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran, to name a few?
8.24.2010 | 4:52pm
mar says:
It is indeed very much telling that the project is named "Cordoba".
After all the Umayyads built the Cordoban Great Mosque on the site of Visigothic church of St. Vincent, whose remnants are still there, as a sign of victory.
After all the Umayyads built the Cordoban Great Mosque on the site of Visigothic church of St. Vincent, whose remnants are still there, as a sign of victory.
8.24.2010 | 5:10pm
Ars Artium says:
"... We love liberty; we live in liberty; we die for liberty ...". It is not true that these words fall on the "deaf ears" of those who oppose the "cultural center in lower manhatten". In fact and to the contrary, we are listening very carefully. What we have not been given is assurance, undergirded by direct statements from the highest authorities and by the actions of those authorities, that Islam does not in principle approve of violence in the name of religion. This question is not "something arbitrarily dreamed up" by stupid or bigoted people. "Many [Muslims] "do frankly claim that violence is to be used in fostering their cause." Another problem is the fact that many of the principles of sharia law are illegal in the United States. How is this issue to be dealt with particularly as it affects citizens of the United States who are Muslims? As the building of mosques and Muslim centers increases in this country and as the number of those who adhere to this religion grows, it is not unreasonable to want to know the facts of the matter. Insults have no place in this discussion.
8.24.2010 | 5:17pm
dancingcrane says:
Muslims do build mosques and monuments at the destroyed sites of defeated peoples. It's odd that we've heard so little about the construction at the crash site of flight 93, which, when completed, will have an alarming resemblance to a gigantic red Islamic crescent.
Are we as a country, defeated? We are far from what we used to be. We run after amusements, and wait for our government to take care of us. There's an old proverb: "Fall down seven times, get up eight." Only if we have the nerve to get up, only if enough of us even remember how, will we remain America.
Are we as a country, defeated? We are far from what we used to be. We run after amusements, and wait for our government to take care of us. There's an old proverb: "Fall down seven times, get up eight." Only if we have the nerve to get up, only if enough of us even remember how, will we remain America.
8.24.2010 | 6:31pm
Nora says:
See, this is why these guys "win" every time -- so WHAT what they think!! Who cares? Let them think what they want. It's a good thing when they think we're weak and they get cocky and complacent.
Let 'em think we're weak and foolish, and then, in the meantime, we can tap and bug that building up, down and under, photograph everyone going in and out, and then start tapping _their_ calls. Which, actually, I'm sure they're gonna do anyway -- at least I hope so!
When did Americans turn into such a bunch of tender little flowers, all slaves to the good opinions of others? Isnt' it kind of an insult if the Islamic world thinks highly of us, and a compliment if they hate us?
Let 'em think we're weak and foolish, and then, in the meantime, we can tap and bug that building up, down and under, photograph everyone going in and out, and then start tapping _their_ calls. Which, actually, I'm sure they're gonna do anyway -- at least I hope so!
When did Americans turn into such a bunch of tender little flowers, all slaves to the good opinions of others? Isnt' it kind of an insult if the Islamic world thinks highly of us, and a compliment if they hate us?
8.24.2010 | 7:01pm
Vick says:
Great post, I agree wholeheartedly.
I have a question that is somewhat related.
In the debates I've been in over the Ground Zero Mosque issue, most people seem to get it, or at least start to get it, once they understand that this mosque is as offensive to people as, say, using the N-word is to black people. In other words, people get it that this is not about legality, or constitutionality - it's about taking people's feelings into account in the same way that we take people's feelings into account all the time in this society, in both private and public spheres.
Recently, I ran into this objection that I'd like to get other people's opinions on. When I posed the "people find this mosque offensive" argument, the response was "people find having their mosque and their religion conflated with terrorism offensive."
Honestly, the best response I could come up with was, "well, perhaps these Muslims in NYC are offended by having their sect lumped in with the sect that Al Qaeda follows, but the people offended by the location of the mosque are far more hurt if the mosque is built than those who are hurt by having to move it." This was the best I could do.
Does anyone else have a better response? What do you say to someone who responds to the "feelings" of one group by saying that another group's "feelings" will be hurt as well?
I have a question that is somewhat related.
In the debates I've been in over the Ground Zero Mosque issue, most people seem to get it, or at least start to get it, once they understand that this mosque is as offensive to people as, say, using the N-word is to black people. In other words, people get it that this is not about legality, or constitutionality - it's about taking people's feelings into account in the same way that we take people's feelings into account all the time in this society, in both private and public spheres.
Recently, I ran into this objection that I'd like to get other people's opinions on. When I posed the "people find this mosque offensive" argument, the response was "people find having their mosque and their religion conflated with terrorism offensive."
Honestly, the best response I could come up with was, "well, perhaps these Muslims in NYC are offended by having their sect lumped in with the sect that Al Qaeda follows, but the people offended by the location of the mosque are far more hurt if the mosque is built than those who are hurt by having to move it." This was the best I could do.
Does anyone else have a better response? What do you say to someone who responds to the "feelings" of one group by saying that another group's "feelings" will be hurt as well?
8.24.2010 | 7:48pm
Fred says:
Nora, I think you rather badly misunderstood me. As a personal matter, I don't much care what a bunch of jihadist scum thinks of Americans. The problem is that like any lower animals, they attack when they sense weakness. I'm not upset that they are saying "Americans are weak and foolish! Nyah! Nyah!" but because they are saying "Americans are weak and foolish! Join us! Attack! We can win!" That's the real danger here. That's why I say the mosque proponents are naive and/or ideologically blind.
8.24.2010 | 8:00pm
Fu says:
A rare "miss" by The Anchoress.
America isn't sick. She's just had enough and can read the writing on the walls in France, UK, Canada. It's called Sharia.
These fork-tongued creeps have the nerve to try and palm off this "center" as some kind of outreach? Now, with the revelations of various vile statements made by this so-called Iman, America's gut instincts have been vindicated.
Remember those people you saw dancing and laughing and celebrating and jumping up and down with joy on TV on September 11., 2001?
They're the same people who are trying to build this Islamic Center for outreach and understanding on the rim of the crater they so adore.
Tolerate Islam? Not a problem. Just don't let them exceed two percent of the population and everything should be OK. You'll still have the odd honor killing of a teenage girl or a housewife, but America will be just fine.
Sound bigoted? Good. Fine. Tell it to the Swiss.
I had it with these creeps and most of all with the Commander-in-Creep.
America isn't sick. She's just had enough and can read the writing on the walls in France, UK, Canada. It's called Sharia.
These fork-tongued creeps have the nerve to try and palm off this "center" as some kind of outreach? Now, with the revelations of various vile statements made by this so-called Iman, America's gut instincts have been vindicated.
Remember those people you saw dancing and laughing and celebrating and jumping up and down with joy on TV on September 11., 2001?
They're the same people who are trying to build this Islamic Center for outreach and understanding on the rim of the crater they so adore.
Tolerate Islam? Not a problem. Just don't let them exceed two percent of the population and everything should be OK. You'll still have the odd honor killing of a teenage girl or a housewife, but America will be just fine.
Sound bigoted? Good. Fine. Tell it to the Swiss.
I had it with these creeps and most of all with the Commander-in-Creep.
8.24.2010 | 8:11pm
Ars Artium says:
Regarding the question of "feelings" on both sides of this controversy: People lost fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and other close relatives in an attack perpetrated by radical Muslims. Their opposition to a mosque so close to this site does not have to be justified.
As far as the rest of us are concerned, the matter is more complicated. The implications of the "acts of contemporary suicide bombers" (including those who piloted the planes of 9/11 into the World Trade Center) must be taken seriously. Their intentions could not have been more clear. By "following a certain line of theology, [the attackers] saw themselves as performing redemptive acts. These acts, in causing the violent deaths of oneself and others, enable their perpetrators to reach Paradise because of them. Simultaneously they are designed to further the cause of Islam in the world. ... This reasoning is what we want to understand. Can such a view be 'reasonable?' To think about this issue as presented is not an insult to religion or to anyone who might hold such a view."
The above lines are from Fr. James Schall's "The Regensburg Lecture", a short volume in which he explores questions relating to religion and violence. He proposes a straightforward question: "Is it or is it not true that Mohammed or the Koran permits violence in the name of religion?" He states that, "The longer the question is not honestly and officially answered ... the more suspicion will grow that in fact violence is justified." This lack of a authoritative answer is the basis, I believe, of the uneasiness and even outright fear that many citizens of the United States are experiencing about the Ground Zero mosque, Sharia law, and many other questions relating to Islam and the goals of its adherents in general.
As far as the rest of us are concerned, the matter is more complicated. The implications of the "acts of contemporary suicide bombers" (including those who piloted the planes of 9/11 into the World Trade Center) must be taken seriously. Their intentions could not have been more clear. By "following a certain line of theology, [the attackers] saw themselves as performing redemptive acts. These acts, in causing the violent deaths of oneself and others, enable their perpetrators to reach Paradise because of them. Simultaneously they are designed to further the cause of Islam in the world. ... This reasoning is what we want to understand. Can such a view be 'reasonable?' To think about this issue as presented is not an insult to religion or to anyone who might hold such a view."
The above lines are from Fr. James Schall's "The Regensburg Lecture", a short volume in which he explores questions relating to religion and violence. He proposes a straightforward question: "Is it or is it not true that Mohammed or the Koran permits violence in the name of religion?" He states that, "The longer the question is not honestly and officially answered ... the more suspicion will grow that in fact violence is justified." This lack of a authoritative answer is the basis, I believe, of the uneasiness and even outright fear that many citizens of the United States are experiencing about the Ground Zero mosque, Sharia law, and many other questions relating to Islam and the goals of its adherents in general.
8.24.2010 | 8:21pm
Terrence Kennny says:
Vick, while, if push comes to shove I will find myself, reluctantly, on the side upholding the rights of the mosque planners to follow through on their plans, for the reasons alluded to in my initial repsonse at the outset of this series, I i agree with your point about emotions (no, you said feelings, and that is a deeper thing alltogether, so you are right). And I join with you in your perplexity over how to respond to the strategically offended (and I think that this is, often enough, exactly what the umbrage amounts to when proponents of the mosque or other, analogous projects, cry "foul" when folks express misgivings. St. Paul had some pertinent thoughts regarding how "liberty" is to be handled, but I doubt these would be appreciated by the proponents of the Ground Zero project. My mother expressed something similar to St. Paul's sentiments, though she was more succinct and dispensed with the theologicall trappings. "Some things", she would say, "just aren't done".
8.24.2010 | 8:26pm
BIAM says:
No-ones trying to silence discussion of this. What are you talking about? It has to do with sensitivity vs the higher ideals of religious freedom and the Constitution. Why do you always need to play the victim?
8.24.2010 | 8:37pm
Steve D says:
"And mature leadership is what we lack."
On both sides of the political spectrum. The real problem is that neither side is leading just political posturing.
On both sides of the political spectrum. The real problem is that neither side is leading just political posturing.
8.24.2010 | 9:19pm
Fred says:
Since my last comment didn't get posted for some reason, Nora, I'll respond to you again. The long and short of it is, on a personal level, I don't care at all what jihadis think about America or Americans. The point is not that they will say "Americans are weak and foolish! Nyah Nyah!" The point is that they will say, "Americans are weak and foolish! Join us! Attack! We can win!" In other words, perceived weakness will be an invitation to attack us and our interests. That is why I believe proponents of the mosque are naive, ideologically blind, and treating the constitution as a suicide pact. That I believe, Vick, is a better response than "It'll huwt our wittle feewings."
8.24.2010 | 9:21pm
Richard says:
"If we have not yet passed the moment in which a delicate physician can successfully treat America’s virulent madness, and bring her some rest, it is a very near thing." I heartily agree with Ms. Scalia that it is wrong and contributes nothing to the debate to accuse those who object to the placement of Cordoba House of racism, but the 'the destructive and reckless swinging of an axe into the psyche of a fevered nation' is largely an act from the fever swamps of the right wing hive. They have made this summer doldrums page 6 story into a national cultural test - an echo, if you will, of the old labor anthem 'Which side are you on?' Well, I would like to be on the side of a 'delicate physician', if such could be found amid the braying of the blogosphere and talk radio, and the demands of loyalty oaths from Left and (especially) Right. But then I would be Diogenes,with a lamp perilously low on fuel.
8.24.2010 | 9:32pm
JB in CA says:
I still don't buy the claim that they have a Constitutional right to build a place of worship at that specific site, just because they happen to own the property. They certainly couldn't buy Mount Vernon (which is privately owned) and build a mosque there. Nor could they buy my neighbor's house and build one there. In each case, the courts would find compelling state interests against such plans. Indeed, one of the most difficult tasks the courts face is the task of balancing the (sometimes) competing interests of church (mosque) and state. The question here isn't whether they are free to worship (they can worship at other nearby locations), but whether their interest in worshiping at that specific site outweighs the state's interest in preserving the "sanctity" of ground zero.
8.24.2010 | 11:01pm
Josh says:
It's one thing to have feelings it's another thing to express those feelings or even act upon them. Animals have no impulse control, people do. I assert that every time that someone acts on a feeling without first checking whether doing the action fits within their system of (political/religious/philosophical) ethics that the person is acting as a beast and not a person.
Religious liberty and freedom of speech are the foundation of our society.
So what if as Christians we feel our freedoms are being squeezed? Does that mean an eye for an eye?
So what if "the liberals" have been promoting feelings over thought. Pointing out their hypocrisy doesn't make the reaction of 65% of the country right.
Religious liberty and freedom of speech are the foundation of our society.
So what if as Christians we feel our freedoms are being squeezed? Does that mean an eye for an eye?
So what if "the liberals" have been promoting feelings over thought. Pointing out their hypocrisy doesn't make the reaction of 65% of the country right.
8.24.2010 | 11:28pm
Avdotya says:
Seriously, the fact that everyone (including liberal media) still want to call it the Ground-Zero Mosque is perplexing. You all appear to be preaching to the choir here. But think about it. Religion itself is under attack. Whether it be Islam or Christianity, secularism is slowly weeding traditional religious discourse and values out of the public arena. We are, as believers, becoming irrelevant. I find it astounding that Christians (and if there are Catholics here even more so) choose to target another religion rather than the secularists. Indeed, you are ripe for the taking, but not by Islam. You are being trapped in what will eventually be your own demise.
Another thing, even if I could agree that there is legitimacy to the feelings of the families immediately affected by 9/11 (but for the fact it is not on Ground Zero and it is not a mosque, which is irrelevant at any rate), the fear-mongering that is going on here is pretty disgusting. It is built upon premises that rely on conjecture at best, and pretty uninformed at that. If you believe in the rights of all human beings, then you had better make it part of how you think and how you act. If you only believe in human rights 'as long as they are Christians' or what it appears to be here 'at least not of the Islamic variety' well then you don't actually believe in them, you just believe in Christian rights. And if you are a Christian, you should know that judgment will come upon those after our worldly and temporal existence. Following Jesus, if you have read the bible (which I am starting to believe that many of you don't, or haven't), means the opposite of what you are doing here with all of your rhetoric and hatred.
If a group of dedicated atheists decided to buy the building and make it the center for atheist propaganda no one would have blinked. It wouldn't have even made the news. This is pure and simple bigotry that has nothing to do with protecting our culture since our culture is built on the Christian values of acceptance, tolerance, forgiveness and charity. It seems to me that most of you have forgotten your roots and have abdicated your soul to the propagators of hate.
Another thing, even if I could agree that there is legitimacy to the feelings of the families immediately affected by 9/11 (but for the fact it is not on Ground Zero and it is not a mosque, which is irrelevant at any rate), the fear-mongering that is going on here is pretty disgusting. It is built upon premises that rely on conjecture at best, and pretty uninformed at that. If you believe in the rights of all human beings, then you had better make it part of how you think and how you act. If you only believe in human rights 'as long as they are Christians' or what it appears to be here 'at least not of the Islamic variety' well then you don't actually believe in them, you just believe in Christian rights. And if you are a Christian, you should know that judgment will come upon those after our worldly and temporal existence. Following Jesus, if you have read the bible (which I am starting to believe that many of you don't, or haven't), means the opposite of what you are doing here with all of your rhetoric and hatred.
If a group of dedicated atheists decided to buy the building and make it the center for atheist propaganda no one would have blinked. It wouldn't have even made the news. This is pure and simple bigotry that has nothing to do with protecting our culture since our culture is built on the Christian values of acceptance, tolerance, forgiveness and charity. It seems to me that most of you have forgotten your roots and have abdicated your soul to the propagators of hate.
8.25.2010 | 3:03am
Jayh says:
Avdotya,
Spare us all the lecture on what you suppose are Christian values. Christian acceptance and tolerance do not extend to accepting and tolerating a murderous ideology that would see us all dead, converted, or diminished. What right do you suppose you have to surrender on my behalf? None whatsoever. Christian forgiveness mirrors God's forgiveness, does it not? Well, then, perhaps we should not be granting absolution to those who haven't sought it out, i.e. "repented," another Christian value. Christian charity is the preference of others' needs over the desires of the self. Christian charity compels us as Christians to refuse to stand down in the face of subversives who wish to put their laws above our own, their beliefs above our beliefs, and their tyranny over and against our freedom. Why? Because we love our fellow man too much to repress his God-given need for freedom, just to satisfy our desire for the approval of (liberal, multicultural) man.
Avdotya, you claim to understand Christianity, and you claim to have an understanding of this situation far superior to that of 65% of this country's citizens. I doubt both of these things. You dismiss reasoned objections as hatred and bigotry. You are not qualified to make that assessment, due to your hypocrisy. And even if you weren't such a hypocrite, you would still be wrong about us. We are not blinded by hatred. We are clear-eyed in our assessment of Islam. In this country, we do not want to see religiously-motivated violence in our streets. We do not want to see parallel court systems set up to protect Muslim perpetrators of domestic violence. We do not want to see the minds of fellow-citizens warped by an ideology that cannot accept a difference of religious opinion as a tolerable state of affairs. I challenge you, Avdotya, to take the time to look into the affairs of countries with rising Muslim minorities, where Muslims have the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to peacefully co-exist with practitioners of other religions. Honest inquiry will heal your bigotry and spare the rest of us your sanctimony.
Spare us all the lecture on what you suppose are Christian values. Christian acceptance and tolerance do not extend to accepting and tolerating a murderous ideology that would see us all dead, converted, or diminished. What right do you suppose you have to surrender on my behalf? None whatsoever. Christian forgiveness mirrors God's forgiveness, does it not? Well, then, perhaps we should not be granting absolution to those who haven't sought it out, i.e. "repented," another Christian value. Christian charity is the preference of others' needs over the desires of the self. Christian charity compels us as Christians to refuse to stand down in the face of subversives who wish to put their laws above our own, their beliefs above our beliefs, and their tyranny over and against our freedom. Why? Because we love our fellow man too much to repress his God-given need for freedom, just to satisfy our desire for the approval of (liberal, multicultural) man.
Avdotya, you claim to understand Christianity, and you claim to have an understanding of this situation far superior to that of 65% of this country's citizens. I doubt both of these things. You dismiss reasoned objections as hatred and bigotry. You are not qualified to make that assessment, due to your hypocrisy. And even if you weren't such a hypocrite, you would still be wrong about us. We are not blinded by hatred. We are clear-eyed in our assessment of Islam. In this country, we do not want to see religiously-motivated violence in our streets. We do not want to see parallel court systems set up to protect Muslim perpetrators of domestic violence. We do not want to see the minds of fellow-citizens warped by an ideology that cannot accept a difference of religious opinion as a tolerable state of affairs. I challenge you, Avdotya, to take the time to look into the affairs of countries with rising Muslim minorities, where Muslims have the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to peacefully co-exist with practitioners of other religions. Honest inquiry will heal your bigotry and spare the rest of us your sanctimony.
8.25.2010 | 4:24am
R says:
Some words of wisdom from Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim scholar much admired by Feisal Rauf, the imam of the proposed Ground Zero mosque:
"As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. THE ACCEPTANCE OF A LEGISLATION FORMULATED BY HUMANS MEANS A PREFERENCE OF THE HUMANS' LIMITED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCES TO THE DIVINE GUIDANCE: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (Qur’an, 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. ITS ACCEPTANCE AS A BASIS FOR RULE IN PLACE OF SHARI'AH IS DOWNRIGHT APOSTASY."
We must understand what we are up against. Al-Qaradawi is upheld as a moderate Muslim. He teaches at Georgetown University. But he does not believe it is proper for Muslims to submit to ANY law other than Shari'ah. This is treason, and it cannot be excused as the exercise of freedom of religion.
"As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. THE ACCEPTANCE OF A LEGISLATION FORMULATED BY HUMANS MEANS A PREFERENCE OF THE HUMANS' LIMITED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCES TO THE DIVINE GUIDANCE: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (Qur’an, 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. ITS ACCEPTANCE AS A BASIS FOR RULE IN PLACE OF SHARI'AH IS DOWNRIGHT APOSTASY."
We must understand what we are up against. Al-Qaradawi is upheld as a moderate Muslim. He teaches at Georgetown University. But he does not believe it is proper for Muslims to submit to ANY law other than Shari'ah. This is treason, and it cannot be excused as the exercise of freedom of religion.
8.25.2010 | 5:54am
Maria says:
Good to see the clarifications in couple of posts about what the real issues are - how it could be used as a propaganda to bolster fiercer attitudes against 'west' but actually more against Christianity and thus may be even a real terror threat !
May be in this whole land consecrated to our Lord , trough His Mother, let us hope that this whole issue would serve as a 'Cord of Abba' - to bring to focus the deeper issues , that the freedom enjoyed by the 'west' is from The Cross ...that even if the mosque does get built , for the Christains, it would not be a sign of defeat but the marching of His mysterious plans, to bring all into His mercy , into the shadow of the cross that will at the 'hole' !
May be in this whole land consecrated to our Lord , trough His Mother, let us hope that this whole issue would serve as a 'Cord of Abba' - to bring to focus the deeper issues , that the freedom enjoyed by the 'west' is from The Cross ...that even if the mosque does get built , for the Christains, it would not be a sign of defeat but the marching of His mysterious plans, to bring all into His mercy , into the shadow of the cross that will at the 'hole' !
8.25.2010 | 9:01am
Brian English says:
"(but for the fact it is not on Ground Zero and it is not a mosque, which is irrelevant at any rate), "
Not this nonsense again. The building that stands on the site now was hit by the landing gear from one of the planes, which crashed through the roof and the top two floors.
And the "prayer space" on the top floors of the proposed building is a mosque. If this project gets built, go to the building and ask to use the "prayer space" for some Bible study. See how far you get with that.
"If a group of dedicated atheists decided to buy the building and make it the center for atheist propaganda no one would have blinked. It wouldn't have even made the news."
Are you kidding?
"This is pure and simple bigotry that has nothing to do with protecting our culture since our culture is built on the Christian values of acceptance, tolerance, forgiveness and charity."
This has everything to do with protecting our culture, and our Christian values do not require us to be doormats.
Not this nonsense again. The building that stands on the site now was hit by the landing gear from one of the planes, which crashed through the roof and the top two floors.
And the "prayer space" on the top floors of the proposed building is a mosque. If this project gets built, go to the building and ask to use the "prayer space" for some Bible study. See how far you get with that.
"If a group of dedicated atheists decided to buy the building and make it the center for atheist propaganda no one would have blinked. It wouldn't have even made the news."
Are you kidding?
"This is pure and simple bigotry that has nothing to do with protecting our culture since our culture is built on the Christian values of acceptance, tolerance, forgiveness and charity."
This has everything to do with protecting our culture, and our Christian values do not require us to be doormats.
8.25.2010 | 9:32am
Kathy from Kansas says:
Sorry, Elizabeth, but all the lofty, conciliatory talk only works, as you said, when there is basic decency and trust on both sides. Islam's own "holy book" commands its believers to kill the infidel and to "make him feel subdued." There is a basic asymmetry here. Gandhi's nonviolence worked against the British, but does anyone seriously think those tactics would have dissuaded Hitler, or Stalin?
I wonder if you have really studied Islam adequately. Muslims are instructed to conquer us, not only by outright violence, but when/where that is not possible, by gradually taking over our culture and changing our laws. This is indeed happening. WE ARE AT WAR. Another asymmetry: Our enemy KNOWS we are at war, but WE DON'T!
Others commenters have already treated the way in which Islam most commonly marks its newly conquered territory: building a mosque on top of places where they have spilled the blood of the infidels. The Burlington Coat Factory was destroyed by part of one of the suicide/murder airplanes that fell on it. To add insult to injury, the destruction inflicted on the building is why Rauf's backers were able to acquire it at a bargain price. It also must be noted that human body parts were splattered on the outside face of the building. The Burlington Coat Factory IS part of Ground Zero, and it IS burial ground that needs to be treated as such.
What all of this adds up to is: This is not a matter of religious freedom or tolerance. What's going on is simply that the mosque backers want to send a triumphal message to the Islamic world. Just because Americans have gotten so irreligious as to not recognize the power of symbols, doesn't mean everybody else has. The message of this mosque is intended to embolden the people who are commanded by their "religion" to annihilate us.
I am not "fevered" or ill or in need of therapy of any sort simply because I quite rationally want to protect my children against the unspeakably horrid fate of living as dhimmis under Muslim rule.
I wonder if you have really studied Islam adequately. Muslims are instructed to conquer us, not only by outright violence, but when/where that is not possible, by gradually taking over our culture and changing our laws. This is indeed happening. WE ARE AT WAR. Another asymmetry: Our enemy KNOWS we are at war, but WE DON'T!
Others commenters have already treated the way in which Islam most commonly marks its newly conquered territory: building a mosque on top of places where they have spilled the blood of the infidels. The Burlington Coat Factory was destroyed by part of one of the suicide/murder airplanes that fell on it. To add insult to injury, the destruction inflicted on the building is why Rauf's backers were able to acquire it at a bargain price. It also must be noted that human body parts were splattered on the outside face of the building. The Burlington Coat Factory IS part of Ground Zero, and it IS burial ground that needs to be treated as such.
What all of this adds up to is: This is not a matter of religious freedom or tolerance. What's going on is simply that the mosque backers want to send a triumphal message to the Islamic world. Just because Americans have gotten so irreligious as to not recognize the power of symbols, doesn't mean everybody else has. The message of this mosque is intended to embolden the people who are commanded by their "religion" to annihilate us.
I am not "fevered" or ill or in need of therapy of any sort simply because I quite rationally want to protect my children against the unspeakably horrid fate of living as dhimmis under Muslim rule.
8.25.2010 | 10:14am
Avdotya says:
Jayh,
So I would be wrong to say that you are out (at minimum) to convert or diminish Muslims in this country?
Do you see any irony at all in your own words: "We do not want to see the minds of fellow-citizens warped by an ideology that cannot accept a difference of religious opinion as a tolerable state of affairs."
And you want to use the limitations on freedoms that can be seen in some Muslim countries as a blueprint for exclusion in our own?
And you call me the hypocrite?
And R:
You disparage the remarks: "THE ACCEPTANCE OF A LEGISLATION FORMULATED BY HUMANS MEANS A PREFERENCE OF THE HUMANS' LIMITED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCES TO THE DIVINE GUIDANCE"
So should we acquiesce blindly to things like legislation on abortion and stem cell research? If the majority accepts them should we too simply accept them and go about our day? Am I also treasonous because I see how these laws are based on humans' limited knowledge and experience as opposed to divine guidance?
And finally, Brian English:
Dedicated atheists are everywhere slowly but surely encouraging others to reject God, and so far they have been very successful (i.e. Richard Dawkins). So no, I am not kidding.
So I would be wrong to say that you are out (at minimum) to convert or diminish Muslims in this country?
Do you see any irony at all in your own words: "We do not want to see the minds of fellow-citizens warped by an ideology that cannot accept a difference of religious opinion as a tolerable state of affairs."
And you want to use the limitations on freedoms that can be seen in some Muslim countries as a blueprint for exclusion in our own?
And you call me the hypocrite?
And R:
You disparage the remarks: "THE ACCEPTANCE OF A LEGISLATION FORMULATED BY HUMANS MEANS A PREFERENCE OF THE HUMANS' LIMITED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCES TO THE DIVINE GUIDANCE"
So should we acquiesce blindly to things like legislation on abortion and stem cell research? If the majority accepts them should we too simply accept them and go about our day? Am I also treasonous because I see how these laws are based on humans' limited knowledge and experience as opposed to divine guidance?
And finally, Brian English:
Dedicated atheists are everywhere slowly but surely encouraging others to reject God, and so far they have been very successful (i.e. Richard Dawkins). So no, I am not kidding.
8.25.2010 | 10:40am
Nora says:
@Fred
They're going to attack again. That's a given. The point is to let them think what they want -- and thinking we're weak when we're not is actually in our favor -- and be uber prepared for the inevitable.
It's not allowing the stupid mosquey-thingy that makes us look weak. It's the nutjobs who are so easily whipped up into an emotional frenzy who make us look like a bunch of goobers. It's the bloggers who are just so desperate for anything to "report" they conjure up "stories" out of nothing. It's the 24/7 news cycle that has to have something to air, so everything gets blown out of proportion and looped over and over again. That's what makes us look weak.
What would have made us look strong is not blinking. Well, we blinked. And shrieked, railed, whined and cried like babies. THAT makes us look weak.
Let's just hope that somewhere behind the scenes there are real men who don't make a lot of noise but who are willing to do what it takes to keep these animals under control, and if they can't, to obliterate them without ringing their hands over whose feelings will get hurt.
They're going to attack again. That's a given. The point is to let them think what they want -- and thinking we're weak when we're not is actually in our favor -- and be uber prepared for the inevitable.
It's not allowing the stupid mosquey-thingy that makes us look weak. It's the nutjobs who are so easily whipped up into an emotional frenzy who make us look like a bunch of goobers. It's the bloggers who are just so desperate for anything to "report" they conjure up "stories" out of nothing. It's the 24/7 news cycle that has to have something to air, so everything gets blown out of proportion and looped over and over again. That's what makes us look weak.
What would have made us look strong is not blinking. Well, we blinked. And shrieked, railed, whined and cried like babies. THAT makes us look weak.
Let's just hope that somewhere behind the scenes there are real men who don't make a lot of noise but who are willing to do what it takes to keep these animals under control, and if they can't, to obliterate them without ringing their hands over whose feelings will get hurt.
8.25.2010 | 10:53am
Nora says:
BTW --I'm not a "proponent" of the Mosque -- I think we absolutely should have argued any legal points possible against it, and should there be, say, all kinds of unexpected delays regarding permits, or, perhaps, some unfortunate accident at the construction site, or some really messed up wiring that ends up burning the thing down later on, you know, these things happen...whatever.
8.25.2010 | 11:47am
Fred says:
Nora, I'm with you on the permit delays thing, but not the construction accidents and faulty wiriing things. I don't think potential murder is a terribly good idea nor is it necessary. I disagree completely, though, about what makes us look weak. Allowing a monument to jihad that will become a rallying point for jihadists everywhere seems much weaker to me than stopping it. And I have a feeling the jihadis will see it the same way. As to your point that they will attack us anyway, that's certainly true of the fanatical hard core. However, it is much easier to recruit people to give their lives for a cause that they think can win (again, remember OBL's "strong horse") than for one that seems certain to lose. Their perception of our weakness (and by the way, I think we are weak, certainly in political will) is a much more effective recruiting tool than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Avdotya, the abortion and stem cell analogy is faulty to the point of fallacious. There is not and has not been any serious attempt at least since the 17th century to impose a Christian theocracy in America. Most atheists would oppose the murder of innocent human beings. An argument can be and has been made that humans are humans from conception that does not depend on any religion. So the disagreement is over what constitutes human life, not over religious views.
As for the "fear-mongering" charge, while I think fears of imminent dhimmitude are exaggerated to say the least, I do believe a concern that this mosque will become a rallying point and recruitment tool and thereby potentially result in unnecessary American or allied deaths is not only realistic but reflects a probability.
And Avdotya, the abortion and stem cell analogy is faulty to the point of fallacious. There is not and has not been any serious attempt at least since the 17th century to impose a Christian theocracy in America. Most atheists would oppose the murder of innocent human beings. An argument can be and has been made that humans are humans from conception that does not depend on any religion. So the disagreement is over what constitutes human life, not over religious views.
As for the "fear-mongering" charge, while I think fears of imminent dhimmitude are exaggerated to say the least, I do believe a concern that this mosque will become a rallying point and recruitment tool and thereby potentially result in unnecessary American or allied deaths is not only realistic but reflects a probability.
8.25.2010 | 12:16pm
Brian English says:
"Dedicated atheists are everywhere slowly but surely encouraging others to reject God, and so far they have been very successful (i.e. Richard Dawkins). So no, I am not kidding."
You actually think that if, instead of Imam Rauf, Richard Dawkins had bought the property in 2009 and announced he was going to build a museum to chronicle the evils of all religion, that there would not have been a firestorm of protest?
You actually think that if, instead of Imam Rauf, Richard Dawkins had bought the property in 2009 and announced he was going to build a museum to chronicle the evils of all religion, that there would not have been a firestorm of protest?
8.25.2010 | 12:30pm
Kathy from Kansas says:
Fred,
You are correct about what Muslims perceive as weak.
Wafa Sultan is a former Syrian doctor, raised as a Muslim, now a non-Muslim and a U.S. citizen. She's written a book called "A God Who Hates," and every American should read it, for insight into how awful it is to grow up in a Muslim culture, even one that is NOT Wahhabi. Syria is very moderate compared to Saudi Arabia or Iran!
According to Wafa Sultan, Muslim culture is entirely based on shame and honor. The ONLY thing that gets any respect is winning. Judging from Sultan's book, as well as other first-hand accounts that I've read by people who have grown up in Muslim cultures, I am quite sure that what will make us look weak in the eyes of Muslims around the world is ALLOWING the mosque to be built. If we STOP that mosque, they will have MORE respect for us.
Osama bin Laden has said many times that it was the way American troops were chased out of Lebanon in 1983 and out of Somalia several years later that convinced him that America was weak, rotting at the core, and unwilling to defend itself, and therefore ripe for attack. Like sharks or lions or hyenas, these predators attack when they smell weakness.
Ask Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Ibn Warraq, or any of the other scores of ex-Muslims who have had the bravery to go public in their apostasy from Islam what THEY think will happen if we allow this mosque to be built.
And Fred, fears of imminent dhimmitude are not exaggerated at all. Just ask any of the thousands of non-Muslim women in France who have been raped by Muslim gangs in the last few years as "punishment" for not being shrouded like Muslim women. Just ask the Christians in Michigan who have to listen to the muezzein blaring out across their neighborhoods five times a day. Just ask the blind people landing at the Minneapolis airport who can't find a cab because the Muslim cab drivers believe guide dogs are evil. Just ask the schoolchildren in California who have to get down on their knees and pray five times a day and adopt Muslim names and eat halal food for weeks at a time as part of a learning unit on Islam--but are not allowed to sing Christmas carols or Hanukkah songs in school, let alone be found with a crucifix around their neck or a Bible in their bookbag!
You are correct about what Muslims perceive as weak.
Wafa Sultan is a former Syrian doctor, raised as a Muslim, now a non-Muslim and a U.S. citizen. She's written a book called "A God Who Hates," and every American should read it, for insight into how awful it is to grow up in a Muslim culture, even one that is NOT Wahhabi. Syria is very moderate compared to Saudi Arabia or Iran!
According to Wafa Sultan, Muslim culture is entirely based on shame and honor. The ONLY thing that gets any respect is winning. Judging from Sultan's book, as well as other first-hand accounts that I've read by people who have grown up in Muslim cultures, I am quite sure that what will make us look weak in the eyes of Muslims around the world is ALLOWING the mosque to be built. If we STOP that mosque, they will have MORE respect for us.
Osama bin Laden has said many times that it was the way American troops were chased out of Lebanon in 1983 and out of Somalia several years later that convinced him that America was weak, rotting at the core, and unwilling to defend itself, and therefore ripe for attack. Like sharks or lions or hyenas, these predators attack when they smell weakness.
Ask Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Ibn Warraq, or any of the other scores of ex-Muslims who have had the bravery to go public in their apostasy from Islam what THEY think will happen if we allow this mosque to be built.
And Fred, fears of imminent dhimmitude are not exaggerated at all. Just ask any of the thousands of non-Muslim women in France who have been raped by Muslim gangs in the last few years as "punishment" for not being shrouded like Muslim women. Just ask the Christians in Michigan who have to listen to the muezzein blaring out across their neighborhoods five times a day. Just ask the blind people landing at the Minneapolis airport who can't find a cab because the Muslim cab drivers believe guide dogs are evil. Just ask the schoolchildren in California who have to get down on their knees and pray five times a day and adopt Muslim names and eat halal food for weeks at a time as part of a learning unit on Islam--but are not allowed to sing Christmas carols or Hanukkah songs in school, let alone be found with a crucifix around their neck or a Bible in their bookbag!
8.25.2010 | 12:49pm
Nora says:
Well, okay, no one wants to see a bunch of local union guys go down, but if these people insist on hiring their own construction crews, and if the rest of the world boycotts that mosque, then the only people whose lives are at stake are those guys and their followers and cohorts. Big freakin' loss.
Anyway, you're still missing the point -- sure, this is probably an attempt to build a big triumphalist monument on a site as close as they can get to the fallen towers, but we are the ones who are solidifying that in the minds of the jihadists by publicly protesting it as such. It's our hysteria that makes them look good, that makes us look weak. It's our engaging in all this intellectual masturbation over it that makes us look weak, and makes them look triumphant.
The only way to have beat this thing on a psychological level would have been not to blink. Like I said, we did. No matter how this plays out going forward, they already won the psychological war and solidified in the minds of their potential recruits that they are a force to be reckoned with.
But I'm of a different generation, and I am the offspring of several generations of NYers who built the city, built it's Churches, bridges, institutions. We were tougher than all this, and we knew how to deal with this sort of threat, but there are fewer of us now, and the self important self promoters are all too busy shouting each other down and being right and garnering praise to see past their own noses.
Anyway, you're still missing the point -- sure, this is probably an attempt to build a big triumphalist monument on a site as close as they can get to the fallen towers, but we are the ones who are solidifying that in the minds of the jihadists by publicly protesting it as such. It's our hysteria that makes them look good, that makes us look weak. It's our engaging in all this intellectual masturbation over it that makes us look weak, and makes them look triumphant.
The only way to have beat this thing on a psychological level would have been not to blink. Like I said, we did. No matter how this plays out going forward, they already won the psychological war and solidified in the minds of their potential recruits that they are a force to be reckoned with.
But I'm of a different generation, and I am the offspring of several generations of NYers who built the city, built it's Churches, bridges, institutions. We were tougher than all this, and we knew how to deal with this sort of threat, but there are fewer of us now, and the self important self promoters are all too busy shouting each other down and being right and garnering praise to see past their own noses.
8.25.2010 | 2:15pm
Avdotya says:
"Most atheists would oppose the murder of innocent human beings. An argument can be and has been made that humans are humans from conception that does not depend on any religion. So the disagreement is over what constitutes human life, not over religious views."
I actually agree with this. It still remains true that the push to question stems from religious traditions regarding the sanctity of human life, which helps to keep the issue from disappearing altogether.
I guess my point is that the arguments here against the proposed project have less to do with the project itself, than with the Islamic faith in general. Thus, and unfortunately, it lends itself to question the principles upon which this country is built, a country you yourselves seem to want to defend. It is providing a stepping stone for opportunists to reject freedom of religion altogether. To call an entire segment of the world's population purveyors of evil because of their religion seems a bit over-zealous. I am not sure you realize how many Muslims there are in the world, but there are enough of them that if they were out to destroy us, we would already be gone. Not all terrorists are Muslim, and not all Muslims are 'jihadist' - in fact, very few.
Friends of mine, who happen to be Muslim, are not out to destroy me, convert me, or demonize me - or anyone for that matter. In fact, they respect me for who I am and what I believe! Now either you want to build a wall and purify us all to your particular notion of what our world ought to look like causing division and animosity; or we need to learn to work together, live together, and promote understanding, building upon principles that are common to all religions, and all human beings.
I actually agree with this. It still remains true that the push to question stems from religious traditions regarding the sanctity of human life, which helps to keep the issue from disappearing altogether.
I guess my point is that the arguments here against the proposed project have less to do with the project itself, than with the Islamic faith in general. Thus, and unfortunately, it lends itself to question the principles upon which this country is built, a country you yourselves seem to want to defend. It is providing a stepping stone for opportunists to reject freedom of religion altogether. To call an entire segment of the world's population purveyors of evil because of their religion seems a bit over-zealous. I am not sure you realize how many Muslims there are in the world, but there are enough of them that if they were out to destroy us, we would already be gone. Not all terrorists are Muslim, and not all Muslims are 'jihadist' - in fact, very few.
Friends of mine, who happen to be Muslim, are not out to destroy me, convert me, or demonize me - or anyone for that matter. In fact, they respect me for who I am and what I believe! Now either you want to build a wall and purify us all to your particular notion of what our world ought to look like causing division and animosity; or we need to learn to work together, live together, and promote understanding, building upon principles that are common to all religions, and all human beings.
8.25.2010 | 2:53pm
Brian English says:
"I guess my point is that the arguments here against the proposed project have less to do with the project itself, than with the Islamic faith in general."
No, this is primarily about the project. The Islamic faith in general is only implicated because it is extremely hypocritical for Muslims to be screaming about freedom of religion when their religion does not recognize that concept.
"Friends of mine, who happen to be Muslim, are not out to destroy me, convert me, or demonize me - or anyone for that matter."
The problem would arise if you tried to convert them. Ask your friends if they think Muslims should be able to freely convert to other religions, whether non-Muslims should be permitted to try and convert Muslims, and whether non-Muslims should be allowed to build places of worship in Saudi Arabia.
No, this is primarily about the project. The Islamic faith in general is only implicated because it is extremely hypocritical for Muslims to be screaming about freedom of religion when their religion does not recognize that concept.
"Friends of mine, who happen to be Muslim, are not out to destroy me, convert me, or demonize me - or anyone for that matter."
The problem would arise if you tried to convert them. Ask your friends if they think Muslims should be able to freely convert to other religions, whether non-Muslims should be permitted to try and convert Muslims, and whether non-Muslims should be allowed to build places of worship in Saudi Arabia.
8.25.2010 | 3:23pm
Fred says:
I don't miss your point, Nora. I just disagree with it.
Avdotya, this is not about religious freedom or being anti-Muslim. If a mosque were being quietly built in another section of New York City, no one outside that neighborhood would have heard about it. Other than a few fringe lunatics, no one would have objected even if they had heard about it. If Imam Rauf had said, "Oh my. I didn't realize how this would affect so many people. I had really meant it to be a monument to healing, tolerance, and reconciliation. I see now that this is not what it will be. Sorry, I'll build my mosque someplace else" then, again, only a few fringe lunatics would have had a problem with it. But he didn't. He insisted on building it as close to Ground Zero as he could. He insisted on naming it after a victory mosque that sits atop the ruins of a Christian church destroyed by Muslims. He has also expressed opinions pretty militant for such a "moderate" Muslim. I have a very hard time believing that Rauf doesn't know that jihadis the world over will interpret this as a monument to their greatest victory over the infidel and will use it as a propaganda/recruitment tool. Taken together, all this is very solid evidence that this is not at all a monument to healing and reconciliation or a simple exercise of religious freedom and that at best Rauf is indifferent to its use as a propaganda/recruitment tool. At worst he intends it to be such. That being the case, stopping it being built would send a powerful message to the jihadis, to wit, "You scum will not use our openness and tolerance to help you destroy us."
Avdotya, this is not about religious freedom or being anti-Muslim. If a mosque were being quietly built in another section of New York City, no one outside that neighborhood would have heard about it. Other than a few fringe lunatics, no one would have objected even if they had heard about it. If Imam Rauf had said, "Oh my. I didn't realize how this would affect so many people. I had really meant it to be a monument to healing, tolerance, and reconciliation. I see now that this is not what it will be. Sorry, I'll build my mosque someplace else" then, again, only a few fringe lunatics would have had a problem with it. But he didn't. He insisted on building it as close to Ground Zero as he could. He insisted on naming it after a victory mosque that sits atop the ruins of a Christian church destroyed by Muslims. He has also expressed opinions pretty militant for such a "moderate" Muslim. I have a very hard time believing that Rauf doesn't know that jihadis the world over will interpret this as a monument to their greatest victory over the infidel and will use it as a propaganda/recruitment tool. Taken together, all this is very solid evidence that this is not at all a monument to healing and reconciliation or a simple exercise of religious freedom and that at best Rauf is indifferent to its use as a propaganda/recruitment tool. At worst he intends it to be such. That being the case, stopping it being built would send a powerful message to the jihadis, to wit, "You scum will not use our openness and tolerance to help you destroy us."
8.25.2010 | 4:07pm
Charlie Collier says:
Here's some sensible conservative reflection on the whole brouhaha:
"[W]hat I find remarkable about this mosque controversy is how blatantly, narrowly political the opposition to this particular construction project has been. It has been an exercise in manipulating public anger and using it for the purpose of waging an ostensibly anti-Islamist political campaign by organizing against harmless Muslims and their organizations. A distinctive American culture isn’t under threat from this mosque, the Cordoba Initiative or Imam Abdul Rauf. Rauf and those like him do represent a threat to lazy conservative anti-jihadism that treats every Muslim to 'the right' of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a potential fifth columnist and would-be enforcer of creeping shari’a.
. . . .
What we’re talking about here isn’t a question of assimilation to the norms of American culture or an accepance [sic] of the principles of constitutional government, but a question of conforming to the limits of approved political discourse. Of course, there is no way for Rauf to satisfy his critics in a way that will not destroy his credibility with most other Muslims, which I have to assume is the point. Anti-jihadists are always lamenting that moderate Muslims are too quiescent, passive and silent, but the moment that one of them says anything that they don’t like they dismiss him entirely. Little wonder that many Muslims here and around the world find anti-jihadists’ professions of common cause with them hard to take seriously."
From Daniel Larison: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/08/25/douthat-and-anti-jihadism-ii/
"[W]hat I find remarkable about this mosque controversy is how blatantly, narrowly political the opposition to this particular construction project has been. It has been an exercise in manipulating public anger and using it for the purpose of waging an ostensibly anti-Islamist political campaign by organizing against harmless Muslims and their organizations. A distinctive American culture isn’t under threat from this mosque, the Cordoba Initiative or Imam Abdul Rauf. Rauf and those like him do represent a threat to lazy conservative anti-jihadism that treats every Muslim to 'the right' of Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a potential fifth columnist and would-be enforcer of creeping shari’a.
. . . .
What we’re talking about here isn’t a question of assimilation to the norms of American culture or an accepance [sic] of the principles of constitutional government, but a question of conforming to the limits of approved political discourse. Of course, there is no way for Rauf to satisfy his critics in a way that will not destroy his credibility with most other Muslims, which I have to assume is the point. Anti-jihadists are always lamenting that moderate Muslims are too quiescent, passive and silent, but the moment that one of them says anything that they don’t like they dismiss him entirely. Little wonder that many Muslims here and around the world find anti-jihadists’ professions of common cause with them hard to take seriously."
From Daniel Larison: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/08/25/douthat-and-anti-jihadism-ii/
8.25.2010 | 6:19pm
Gemma says:
"If a group of dedicated atheists decided to buy the building and make it the center for atheist propaganda no one would have blinked."
If a group of dedicated atheists, or Christians, or Buddhists, or Taoists, or animists, or Druids, or whatever had decided to buy the building and make it a center for their religion, nobody would have worried because none of the adherents of those religions launched a devastating attack on the country that caused the deaths of thousands of people mere blocks from the building's location.
We have real reason to distrust. If Muslims wish us to believe they have peaceful intentions to live side by side with those of other faiths, they should come down hard on those among their numbers who perpetrate acts of violence and stop them from blowing things (and people) up. I cannot believe the extremists could long continue if the weight of all the millions of supposedly moderate and peaceful adherents of their faith was against them, instead of providing haven and verbal cover.
If a group of dedicated atheists, or Christians, or Buddhists, or Taoists, or animists, or Druids, or whatever had decided to buy the building and make it a center for their religion, nobody would have worried because none of the adherents of those religions launched a devastating attack on the country that caused the deaths of thousands of people mere blocks from the building's location.
We have real reason to distrust. If Muslims wish us to believe they have peaceful intentions to live side by side with those of other faiths, they should come down hard on those among their numbers who perpetrate acts of violence and stop them from blowing things (and people) up. I cannot believe the extremists could long continue if the weight of all the millions of supposedly moderate and peaceful adherents of their faith was against them, instead of providing haven and verbal cover.
8.25.2010 | 9:49pm
Kathy from Kansas says:
Imam Rauf's triumphalist intentions are abundantly clear from the title of the Arabic edition of his recently published book, which is: "A Call To Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa from the Heart of America After 9/11."
(Dawa is Islamic proselytization.)
That is FACT, folks. Oh, my, facts are such INCONVENIENT things, aren't they?
(Dawa is Islamic proselytization.)
That is FACT, folks. Oh, my, facts are such INCONVENIENT things, aren't they?
8.25.2010 | 10:17pm
Chuck80 says:
Meanwhile, extremists persevere. Two individuals were arrested this morning here in Ottawa (Canada) with connections to AQ, and were planning unspecified attacks against the capital. Stay tuned.....
8.26.2010 | 10:56am
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Indeed, they are, Kathy! Facts are just soooo inconvenient here!
What we really need is some is some wise, therapist-leader to give a speech thta will heal our wounds, lance our boils, explain away all our nasty feelings and convince us that this mosque is really a victory for freedom of religion, human rights and all sorts of good things!
/Okay, end of sarcasm!
Imam Rauf's less than moderate Islamic connections have been exposed in a number of places---not to mention that very book you talk about, as well as his refusal to condemn Hamas and his claiming he wrote Obama's speech to the Islamic world, and that he may be getting the funding from said mosque from some very suspicious sources, such as Saudi Arabia. . . but, come! Facts just get in the way of healing!
What we really need is some is some wise, therapist-leader to give a speech thta will heal our wounds, lance our boils, explain away all our nasty feelings and convince us that this mosque is really a victory for freedom of religion, human rights and all sorts of good things!
/Okay, end of sarcasm!
Imam Rauf's less than moderate Islamic connections have been exposed in a number of places---not to mention that very book you talk about, as well as his refusal to condemn Hamas and his claiming he wrote Obama's speech to the Islamic world, and that he may be getting the funding from said mosque from some very suspicious sources, such as Saudi Arabia. . . but, come! Facts just get in the way of healing!
8.28.2010 | 3:10pm
Rhinestone Suderman says:
We don't need a "delicate physician", or "healling" because we aren't sick; and we don't need anyone to tend to our "virulent madness" because we aren't the ones suffering from insanity.
We don't need therapy, here.
We don't need therapy, here.
