To Mosque or Not to Mosque
August 26, 2010
R.R. Reno
A friend asked. I was almost taken aback by my answer: “I don’t really care.”
I can’t muster a great deal of concern about the proposed Islamic center in New York near Ground Zero. Maybe I’m callous. Maybe I’m out of touch with the American people. But the more I think about it, the less I care.
Few dispute that Imam Abdul Rauf has a constitutional right to build an Islamic Center on Park Place, two blocks north of Ground Zero. Yet over the last couple of weeks a growing number have joined a chorus of critics who claim that the building the planned mosque would be “insensitive,” “disrespectful,” and “unwise.” Others have pointed out that the sources of funding for the proposed Islamic Center are unsavory, or that Adul Rauf isn’t the great moderate he pretends to be.
I suggest that we step back for a moment. Lots of “insensitive,” “disrespectful,” and “unwise” things happen in New York, and a great deal is done with true motives disguised. Why, then, the furor?
No one would deny that symbolism is at the root of this controversy. Many see the project as a deliberate act of aggression, a stick in the eye of America. It’s a gesture that can be read as saying, “We took down the buildings, and we’re going to celebrate our victory.”
Those who lost family members and friends feel like they are watching someone dance on their loved ones’ grave. Those anxious about the clash of civilizations feel the building escalates the conflict. Those who fear the America is becoming a spineless nation led by an elite committed to a strategy of appeasement feel that approval of the Islamic center is a capitulation to the beginnings of an Islamic invasion.
I’m not interested in denying the specific feelings, worries, or fears, but let’s look at the context. America is an extremely powerful nation with a very robust, vibrant, and remarkably successful culture. Therefore—and this goes to the root of my indifference to the issue—an Islamic Center in New York is irrelevant. Compared to the locomotive of American society, it’s like a penny on a railroad track.
Consider how we appear to others. English seems an unstoppable linguistic virus. For good or ill, the global economy revolves around us. Our society is unique in its ability to absorb and assimilate immigrants who become profoundly loyal citizens. Our military may not be able to perform nation-building miracles, but since 9/11 it has shown itself quite capable of quickly destroying our enemies.
And there’s more. Alone among Western nations, the United States has shown itself capable of joining Christian piety with economic prosperity, modern political freedoms, and a civic culture of tolerance (the limits rather than existence of which define our current political battles over social issues). By contrast, a great deal of the Muslim world is currently in a state of crisis, in large part because of the felt internal conflict between faith and modernity.
This crisis should be obvious to anyone who contemplates the real symbolic meaning of suicide bombers. A society that has reduced itself to strapping explosives on to young men (and women as well) is a desperate society.
The same holds for what many say will be the perception among Muslims in the Middle East, whom we are told will read the symbolism as a sign of their strength and our craven weakness and capitulation. Could there be a more absurd and deluded interpretation of the significance of a small building in New York? Or of our culture of tolerance? Or of our capacity for swift, vigorous, and united responses to real threats?
So let me put the matter as bluntly as possible. Whatever the perceived symbolism, whatever the intended symbolism, the real world suggests otherwise. Societies dominated by Islam are relatively troubled, whereas we are relatively healthy. Yes, the deranged and desperate can be dangerous. But irritating as it may be for small children to be waving a sharpened stick around our ankles (and requiring as it does firm discipline), the stick doesn’t threaten our eyes.
Last week I went down to Ground Zero, and the physical reality of the place reinforced my indifference. The planned Islamic Center will be a couple of blocks away, an invisible thirteen-story building in a sea of massive office buildings that cuts off all views. Unless a tourist seeks it out, it will not be noticed.
Instead, the presiding presence is and will remain St. Paul’s Chapel, a gracious, nearly 250-year-old Episcopal church that sits on a beautiful, tree-covered cemetery overlooking Ground Zero. And of course there will be the giant soaring skyscrapers planned for the rebuilt World Trade Center plaza, along with the requisite memorials.
The symbolism reflects the reality of New York, and of America. We’re a largely if often confusedly and half-heartedly Christian nation that builds temples to Mammon, and then liberally scatters memorial and monuments to satisfy our secular piety. America is a mixed-up national project, unlikely to satisfy the exacting ideals of a theologian, political philosopher, or cultural theorist, and yet preternaturally successful, perhaps because it is a nation and society largely in accord with basic human sensibilities that resist reduction to neat theories and pat principles.
Aristotle ranked magnanimity among the virtues that characterize a man who is at once powerful and noble. This virtue involves treating those who are weaker with a certain indulgence. When a servant breaks a vase, a magnanimous soul waves it off. If an underling owes a debt, it is forgiven as a gesture of indifference. “Don’t worry about it,” says the magnanimous person.
Although we often see its fierce side in the news, by and large Islam is weak. It’s not vying for political control or cultural dominance in America, where it’s largely irrelevant. Radical Islam is of course a global threat, but mostly as a power of disintegration rather than a force to be reckoned with. The country currently facing an existential threat from Islam is Pakistan, not America.
We should be magnanimous. Abdul Rauf’s Islamic Center on Park Place may be a good idea or a bad idea. I’m not sure myself. But this seems obvious: in comparison to the very big fact of America, it’s a small idea, and not worth worrying about.
R.R. Reno is a senior editor of First Things and Professor of Theology at Creighton University. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, to which he contributed the commentary on Genesis.
Comments:
8.26.2010 | 2:47am
Katie says:
Mr Reno, May I say as a pro-American non-American that what is missing in this whole ballyhoo is a discussion lof those fundamental things which hold Americans together. And I don't mean free exercise. I refer to the link between Christianity, Judaism and the constitutional polity. The same is true in Europe. We understand the question but we won't discuss. The old anything goes Western self indulgent liberalism cannot hold a constitutional republic together. The practice of Islam as a constitutional right is obvious. What is not so obvious is the baggage not of liberalism but of constitutional thought about the value of individual human life, the matters of law, learning, custom, covenant which have been worked through to shape the main institutions of Western societies (including marriage in its normative Christian and Jewish form). Yes, Christians and Jews have been able to survive in Islamic Kingdoms or Empires. But these proto states never developed a constitutional rule of law. This is the work ahead of us. To understand how Christianity and Judaism have formed and are still linked to a certain sort of polity WITHOUT constructing a theocracy or a political theology.
8.26.2010 | 3:13am
Katie says:
Sorry I left out why what I said relates to the mosque. It does so only indirectly. What is at stake IMO is a discussion about constitutional issues (how we live together and under what principles). Islam, like Christianity produced a polity of a certain sort. Both are not only religions (faiths in ther protestant sense) but cultures or if you like civilizations. Islamic polities are not just 'backward'. This is ther wrong word. They are fundamentally distinct from American and European polities. It will take many years to establish even the minimal rule of law in 'our' sense in Irag. If we wish to continue with our fragile constitutional democracies we will have to acknowledge that the traditions of islamic political thought are incompatible with constitutional democracy. My own view is that liberalism in the sense of utilitarianism and pragmatism is also not adequate to ground our Western polities. Buddhist or hindu political thought would also be incompatible. But these religions have no project akin to the modern version of Sharia. The question is how do we acknowledge this and work with it? I'm not sure. Buddhists and Hindus simply do not make the same demands about their traditional polities and legal institutions.
8.26.2010 | 5:39am
Peter Boston says:
Symbols are easy enough to dismiss, but the GZM is an act of submission - nothing less.
8.26.2010 | 6:14am
Max says:
This is simply a no-win situation. If the mosque is built the jihadists gloat. If it is stopped they get to exploit another claim that The Great Satan is an incorrigible enemy of Islam qua Islam (vice jihadism). If it is built, extreme reactionary elements in the US will go bonkers. If it is not built, the chattering "blame/hate America first" crowd will lament ad naseam on cable news for months about how Nazis have taken over US society. Personally, I am opposed to its being built, partly for visceral reasons, and as a point of decorum, but also because I think it will be a morale boost to our enemies, regardless of whether the intent of the mosque's sponsors are that it be so. Mr. Reno, makes some good points. Certainly, the mosque's building (assuming arguendo it goes forward) will not topple US society, nor immediately derail our material affluence or power. Maybe it never would. However... the Sphinx was not swallowed by the desert in a day. Nevertheless it was swallowed. Such things begin by persons choosing to ignore what intially seems a small thing. This is a issue of tremendously charged emotions on both sides. The fatal flaw, I think, in Mr. Reno's reasoning is his statement "A society that has reduced itself to strapping explosives on to young men (and women as well) is a desperate society." That is undoubtedly true by western (or I would argue objective) standards. Whether or not Islamic civilization sees it so, is a matter that remains to be judged by history. Even some members of the Arab media acknowledge that the propriety of building the mosque at that location is dubious at best. The Economist recently quoted Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed (a regular contributor to Saudi-owned London-based daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat and the managing editor of the Saudi pan-Arab news channel al-Arabiya) who noted, "What Americans don't understand is that the battle with the terrorists behind 9/11 is not their fight, but rather a battle for Muslims, as over twenty Islamic states struggle against terrorism. Some Muslims will consider the construction of a mosque there [by Ground Zero] as a commemoration and immortalization of what the terrorists, who committed their crime in the name of Islam, did. I don't think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a place of worship that could become a place for terrorists and their Muslim followers to take pride in. Or a building that could become a shrine of hatred against Islam that turns public opinion against it, as seems to be the case at the moment, with claims that a mosque is being built on the bodies of three thousand dead Americans, buried alive as some people shout 'Allahu Akbar', the same call which will be heard from the mosque. It is a false battle; [...] there are no devoted Muslims who want a place of worship there." It is at least refreshing to see diverstiy of opinion in the Muslim press. In any event, there will be long lasting second and third order political effects (both domestic and international) no matter which way it turns out. Samuel P. Huntington was a prophet. No doubt about it.
8.26.2010 | 8:08am
Ars Artium says:
This piece provides another perspective and, considering its source, is thought-provoking. It may be the correct stance. I hope that it is but fear it is not. R. R. Reno mentions the "unstoppable linguistic virus" of the English language. I also have been thinking in terms of viruses - in particular, the viral spread of ideas. Our nation is strong in many ways except, in my opinion, the one that matters most. We have lost our sense of solidarity, the "belongingness" that we shared as Americans, a people grounded in the basic moral concepts that, again in my opinion, form the behavior of all the earth's people of good will. This loss has created a void, one that leaves many people vulnerable to a strong system of thought that seems to provide security and moral grounding. Muslim people of good will, those who seek to live here in peace as American citizens and who will not create enclaves where the law of this land is not observed (as has already happened in Europe) should be and have been welcomed. It will not do, though, to refuse to acknowledge the difficulty of absorbing a religious system extending to the whole of life, an authoritarian system in a legal and political sense. Religous freedom in the United States cannot be used to justify sharia law practices. What do the Islamic leaders have in mind? It is not wrong to ask that question. The mosque in New York has simply brought these questions to a head. It may seem an insignificant thing. Perhaps it is part of our huge mosaic. Certainly there were violent and discriminatory elements in Christianity. The terrible struggle rquired to eliminate any tendency toward political domination is known to all. God forbid that we would re-enact that struggle again, here, in the United States of America.
8.26.2010 | 8:54am
patricksarsfield says:
R.R Reno shows a lack of understanding of America's place in the World today when he writes:
"I’m not interested in denying the specific feelings, worries, or fears, but let’s look at the context. America is an extremely powerful nation with a very robust, vibrant, and remarkably successful culture. Therefore—and this goes to the root of my indifference to the issue—an Islamic Center in New York is irrelevant. Compared to the locomotive of American society, it’s like a penny on a railroad track."
America still is the largest economy in the World today, but that won't last much longer if we continue to act like the proverbial grasshopper (that was as confident of his own competitive position versus the ant as Mr. Reno is). Moreover, our dominance as the World's ONLY Superpower is over. That unique status lasted for all of twenty years but the up and coming nations (the BRICs mainly) show less and less inclination to give us much heed .
As to our relations with the Muslim World: we will shortly leave Afghanistan as we are leaving Iraq--on a Westmoreland-like unilateral declaration of Victory that leaves most of the problems in the "conquered" nation unresolved--and the Muslims will view us as having left with our tails between our legs. And how will they greet sentiments like Reno's (that he doesn't really care about the extension of mosques throughout the non-Islamic World)? Will it be with genuine respect for the magnanimity of right-thinking Westerners, perhaps accompanied by reciprocal toleration of Christians in the World of Islam? Or, more likely, will theyjust view Western Tolerance as their right while continuing to wage War on Non-Muslims?
Katie's views on the likelihood of Islamic adioption of Western polities seems a lot more realistic than those of Mr. Reno: "If we wish to continue with our fragile constitutional democracies we will have to acknowledge that the traditions of islamic political thought are incompatible with constitutional democracy. "
As to power going forward: are our warfighting abilities so unchallengeable today when they are so dependent on computers that can be built anywhere and increasingly are being built and designed elsewhere? Forget about the threat posed by India and China. Let's consider Brazil. Brazil is a growing power in Latin America. It is two thirds the size of the US and growing quite faster than we are. It is sitting on green energy and oil riches that it is not refusing to develop as we in the US are refusing to develop our own oil shale and natural gas riches. Will Brazil stay in the US orbit for much longer or will it take off on its own?
These are the realities of today and Reno seems oblivious to what is really going on in the World.
"I’m not interested in denying the specific feelings, worries, or fears, but let’s look at the context. America is an extremely powerful nation with a very robust, vibrant, and remarkably successful culture. Therefore—and this goes to the root of my indifference to the issue—an Islamic Center in New York is irrelevant. Compared to the locomotive of American society, it’s like a penny on a railroad track."
America still is the largest economy in the World today, but that won't last much longer if we continue to act like the proverbial grasshopper (that was as confident of his own competitive position versus the ant as Mr. Reno is). Moreover, our dominance as the World's ONLY Superpower is over. That unique status lasted for all of twenty years but the up and coming nations (the BRICs mainly) show less and less inclination to give us much heed .
As to our relations with the Muslim World: we will shortly leave Afghanistan as we are leaving Iraq--on a Westmoreland-like unilateral declaration of Victory that leaves most of the problems in the "conquered" nation unresolved--and the Muslims will view us as having left with our tails between our legs. And how will they greet sentiments like Reno's (that he doesn't really care about the extension of mosques throughout the non-Islamic World)? Will it be with genuine respect for the magnanimity of right-thinking Westerners, perhaps accompanied by reciprocal toleration of Christians in the World of Islam? Or, more likely, will theyjust view Western Tolerance as their right while continuing to wage War on Non-Muslims?
Katie's views on the likelihood of Islamic adioption of Western polities seems a lot more realistic than those of Mr. Reno: "If we wish to continue with our fragile constitutional democracies we will have to acknowledge that the traditions of islamic political thought are incompatible with constitutional democracy. "
As to power going forward: are our warfighting abilities so unchallengeable today when they are so dependent on computers that can be built anywhere and increasingly are being built and designed elsewhere? Forget about the threat posed by India and China. Let's consider Brazil. Brazil is a growing power in Latin America. It is two thirds the size of the US and growing quite faster than we are. It is sitting on green energy and oil riches that it is not refusing to develop as we in the US are refusing to develop our own oil shale and natural gas riches. Will Brazil stay in the US orbit for much longer or will it take off on its own?
These are the realities of today and Reno seems oblivious to what is really going on in the World.
8.26.2010 | 8:56am
Sean says:
At least half the point of magnanimity is that it be recognized as such. Who is there spinning this as an example of our generosity to the weak? If anything, I'd expect the same people defending the mosque to be offended by such first world/imperial arrogance.
Besides, magnanimity may be an answer to those who claim the Islamic center is an insult, but it dissolves under the retort that this is a matter of property rights. Ain't no generosity where rights are concerned.
Besides, magnanimity may be an answer to those who claim the Islamic center is an insult, but it dissolves under the retort that this is a matter of property rights. Ain't no generosity where rights are concerned.
8.26.2010 | 9:26am
ahem says:
This mosque would be home--one of many, if, as Wlaid Shoebat claims, 80% of mosques are radical--to the Shariah Index Project, a project to monitor the progress of injecting Shariah law into our democracy in order to kill it. The mosque is a disease vector--nothing less. Americans have no obligation whatever to expose themselves to what is, philosophically, politically and religiously, the equivalent of an ebola virus.
You'll have to pry the Enlightenment out of my cold, dead hands.
You'll have to pry the Enlightenment out of my cold, dead hands.
8.26.2010 | 10:33am
Rob says:
Man Thursday- I quite like this piece. America is a very robust nation within an incredibly robust international civilisation. We sorta do have an obligation to let religiously and philosophically repugnant ideas be aired. We just have to respond.
Would those who oppose the Islamic center, also oppose renting office space in the new buildings to Muslim businesses and organisations? I guess so...
Would those who oppose the Islamic center, also oppose renting office space in the new buildings to Muslim businesses and organisations? I guess so...
8.26.2010 | 11:01am
kirk says:
I just got back from NYC where this topic is dominant. Two interesting comments I heard are: 1) Given that most places in the world do not discuss openly where to build religious buildings it's cool that America is having this debate at all and 2) One Muslim man wondered why Muslims should want to associate their mosque so closely with the events on 9/11/01
8.26.2010 | 11:13am
Ars Artium says:
Regarding our "obligation to let religiously and philosophically repugnant ideas be aired": If the ideas are truly to be "aired," brought out in the open and respectfully discussed, that would be a good thing. At the present time, probing questions about Muslim theology and political and legal philosophy are ruled "out of order." If we misunderstand the goals of Islam, if we stand in need of explanation and instruction, everyone of good will would be grateful to have the process begin. This process cannot, however, consist of assertions but must offer arguments and evidence. We cannot carve out a domain of secrecy out of respect for generic "religion". No less was required (and rightly so) of Roman Catholicism.
8.26.2010 | 11:20am
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
Ahem, The fact that Walid Shobat is an authority for you, shows that your intellect is defective and could be suffering from something like the ebola virus, perhaps you should go to a physician to get it checked out.
Rob, your ideas are also repugnant to me, and unfortunately I can't stop you from airing them. Should God bless the internet? I'm not sure.
Kirk, you think this debate is "cool?" It's sort of not a debate, but more like fear mongering, sensationalism and the worst sort of exaggeration. Are Muslims associating the mosque with 9/11, or is everyone else. There are other mosques nearby too.
It amazes how much hate this website can encourage. And Christianity is a religion of love?
Rob, your ideas are also repugnant to me, and unfortunately I can't stop you from airing them. Should God bless the internet? I'm not sure.
Kirk, you think this debate is "cool?" It's sort of not a debate, but more like fear mongering, sensationalism and the worst sort of exaggeration. Are Muslims associating the mosque with 9/11, or is everyone else. There are other mosques nearby too.
It amazes how much hate this website can encourage. And Christianity is a religion of love?
8.26.2010 | 11:31am
Howard Kainz says:
Sure, let the mosque be built, but on condition: that at least one Christian church be built in Saudi Arabia. A little reciprocity, please.
8.26.2010 | 11:50am
RayMidge says:
There is a real debate to be had about Islam's abilty and desire to assimilate into American society and culture. What the "debate" about the mosque seems to bring to the surface is that the part of this country that has swallowed multi-culturalism whole seems to think that to have any questions or reservations about what Islam really means and stands is *ipso facto* bigoted and/or racist. Many secularists in this country seem to think that all religion is bunk anyway and Muslim bunk is just the same as Chrsitian/Judeo/Pagan bunk. Christians/Jews/Pagans in America who have mostly found common ground enough to co-exist with some basic ground-rules and understandings (for the MOST part, we are far from seamslessly cooperative, of course), have legitimate questions about how Islam fits in. Secularists/multiculturalists seem to think we should just take Muslims at their word that they do fit in, 9/11 and the role of Islam throughout the Middle East notwithstanding. It is interesting that Christopher Hitchens as a secularist, but from what I can tell a non-multiculturalist, might make the most sense about this issue. http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/
What all this tells me (or confirms for me) is that the real danger, the underlying weakness in American public life, is this realtivism and devout non-judgmentalism that seems to follow multiculturalism. The underlying ethos from non-religious mosque supporters is that nothing can be questioned about this new, foreign influence. We musn't even suggest that it is new or foreign to America.
I also think that the non-judgmentalism is heavily influenced by the idea that we are not really free actors, we are all mere victims of circumstance and history. Personally, I know that if I do not discriminate and go through my life treating people with dignity and respect, I am neither a bigot nor a racist. Even if I think that there is some truth to generalizations and I exercise my best judgment about how to treat each different person I encounter, I know that I am not a bigot or racist. But there is a widespread idea that you are a bigot or a racist in all sorts of hidden, nuanced ways if you have a certain job, or wealth, or vote a certain way or hold a certain set of metaphysical beliefs about the nature of life and morality. People who believe this are tormented by all of the things they do and don't do, and they constantly see this hidden hand at work. It must be a miserable way to live, to feel so unable to control one's own actions or identity. This extreme multiculturalism strikes me as some vain attempt to avoid or atone for these hidden sins of having a house or a job or enough food to eat. Refusing to engage the actual ideas or practices of Islam under the guise of being "tolerant" is, frankly, a crazy way to live.
For all of that, however, I must grant the sincerity of the multiculturalist. That way of thinking is widespread and it is influential. The divide in this country is very real, I think that 70-30 is about right and I also think that, sadly, no amount of national "conversations" will help it. The world views informing each side are simply too divergent.
What all this tells me (or confirms for me) is that the real danger, the underlying weakness in American public life, is this realtivism and devout non-judgmentalism that seems to follow multiculturalism. The underlying ethos from non-religious mosque supporters is that nothing can be questioned about this new, foreign influence. We musn't even suggest that it is new or foreign to America.
I also think that the non-judgmentalism is heavily influenced by the idea that we are not really free actors, we are all mere victims of circumstance and history. Personally, I know that if I do not discriminate and go through my life treating people with dignity and respect, I am neither a bigot nor a racist. Even if I think that there is some truth to generalizations and I exercise my best judgment about how to treat each different person I encounter, I know that I am not a bigot or racist. But there is a widespread idea that you are a bigot or a racist in all sorts of hidden, nuanced ways if you have a certain job, or wealth, or vote a certain way or hold a certain set of metaphysical beliefs about the nature of life and morality. People who believe this are tormented by all of the things they do and don't do, and they constantly see this hidden hand at work. It must be a miserable way to live, to feel so unable to control one's own actions or identity. This extreme multiculturalism strikes me as some vain attempt to avoid or atone for these hidden sins of having a house or a job or enough food to eat. Refusing to engage the actual ideas or practices of Islam under the guise of being "tolerant" is, frankly, a crazy way to live.
For all of that, however, I must grant the sincerity of the multiculturalist. That way of thinking is widespread and it is influential. The divide in this country is very real, I think that 70-30 is about right and I also think that, sadly, no amount of national "conversations" will help it. The world views informing each side are simply too divergent.
8.26.2010 | 11:53am
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
Howard,
What difference does it make what saudi does? Do they claim to be a liberal democracy and a defender of human rights? And why Saudi Arabia? And do, Muslim Americans not enjoy the rights guaranteed by the constitution, or is the constitution for a select few?
As far as I know, saudi doesn't have a constitution guaranteeing religious freedom the way we do here in America. Thats why I'm here.
What difference does it make what saudi does? Do they claim to be a liberal democracy and a defender of human rights? And why Saudi Arabia? And do, Muslim Americans not enjoy the rights guaranteed by the constitution, or is the constitution for a select few?
As far as I know, saudi doesn't have a constitution guaranteeing religious freedom the way we do here in America. Thats why I'm here.
8.26.2010 | 12:06pm
Ann says:
Is it magnanimous when our Muslim brethren don't object to our building a Christian cathedral? I don't think so. Equally, there's nothing magnanimous about us "allowing" Muslims to build an Islamic Center on a piece of ground they have bought and paid for. Muslims are not all like the 19 crazies who attacked the US on 9/11. Muslims all over the world condemned the attack. We need to get past associating the good and gentle Muslims in our country that are the norm with the very small minority that are a problem.
8.26.2010 | 12:14pm
Brian English says:
"As far as I know, saudi doesn't have a constitution guaranteeing religious freedom the way we do here in America. Thats why I'm here. "
Okay, but what about your view of Islam and the idea of religious freedom? Do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
(1) Muslims should be freely allowed to convert to other religions;
(2) Non-Muslims should be able to proselytize in Muslim countries, seeking to convert Muslims;
(3) Non-Muslims should be able to build houses of worship in Muslim countries;
(4) Non-Muslims should be able to bring Bibles, crosses, etc., into Saudi Arabia;
(5) Non-Muslims should be allowed to enter Mecca and Medina, as long as they do so in a respectful manner.
Okay, but what about your view of Islam and the idea of religious freedom? Do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
(1) Muslims should be freely allowed to convert to other religions;
(2) Non-Muslims should be able to proselytize in Muslim countries, seeking to convert Muslims;
(3) Non-Muslims should be able to build houses of worship in Muslim countries;
(4) Non-Muslims should be able to bring Bibles, crosses, etc., into Saudi Arabia;
(5) Non-Muslims should be allowed to enter Mecca and Medina, as long as they do so in a respectful manner.
8.26.2010 | 12:35pm
Charles Martel says:
Okay, "Ed", let's get this out in the open: do you support Sharia?
8.26.2010 | 12:44pm
Fred says:
"Those anxious about the clash of civilizations feel the building escalates the conflict. Those who fear the America is becoming a spineless nation led by an elite committed to a strategy of appeasement feel that approval of the Islamic center is a capitulation to the beginnings of an Islamic invasion."
As one of each of "those" listed above (except I'm less worried about an Islamic invasion than about individual but nonetheless deadly acts of Islamist terrorism), it's hard for me NOT to care about the mosque. I also completely agree with patricksarfield's assessment of Reno's assessment of our power and where it's headed.
@Rob "Would those who oppose the Islamic center, also oppose renting office space in the new buildings to Muslim businesses and organisations? I guess so... "
You guess wrong. This has nothing to do with religious freedom or with anti-Islam sentiment. As I pointed out on the last mosque-related thread, if a mosque were being built with no fanfare in another part of the city, no one would know or care if they did know. Even if Rauf himself had been a sicere advocate of healing and interfaith cooperation and therefore apologized and built his mosque somewhere else, no one would object. It's not the building of a mosque people object to but to the symbolism Reno mentions in the quote I used above. And if you don't think symbolism has consequences, you haven't been paying attention.
As one of each of "those" listed above (except I'm less worried about an Islamic invasion than about individual but nonetheless deadly acts of Islamist terrorism), it's hard for me NOT to care about the mosque. I also completely agree with patricksarfield's assessment of Reno's assessment of our power and where it's headed.
@Rob "Would those who oppose the Islamic center, also oppose renting office space in the new buildings to Muslim businesses and organisations? I guess so... "
You guess wrong. This has nothing to do with religious freedom or with anti-Islam sentiment. As I pointed out on the last mosque-related thread, if a mosque were being built with no fanfare in another part of the city, no one would know or care if they did know. Even if Rauf himself had been a sicere advocate of healing and interfaith cooperation and therefore apologized and built his mosque somewhere else, no one would object. It's not the building of a mosque people object to but to the symbolism Reno mentions in the quote I used above. And if you don't think symbolism has consequences, you haven't been paying attention.
8.26.2010 | 12:45pm
grrr says:
Re: "A society that has reduced itself to strapping explosives on to young men (and women as well) is a desperate society."
It is not my prob. as long as they do it among themself. But more often than not they do it within my environment. And to allow them to build a place marker symbol in a business district will just encourage them to continue.
It is not my prob. as long as they do it among themself. But more often than not they do it within my environment. And to allow them to build a place marker symbol in a business district will just encourage them to continue.
8.26.2010 | 12:51pm
f says:
Oh, and one more thing:
"The same holds for what many say will be the perception among Muslims in the Middle East, whom we are told will read the symbolism as a sign of their strength and our craven weakness and capitulation. Could there be a more absurd and deluded interpretation of the significance of a small building in New York? Or of our culture of tolerance? Or of our capacity for swift, vigorous, and united responses to real threats?"
Perhaps not. But we are talking about the least rational members of the least rational cultures in the world. What matters is not whether their interpretation is accurate (and I believe it probably is more accurate than Reno would acknowledge) but how those people will act on that interpretation.
"The same holds for what many say will be the perception among Muslims in the Middle East, whom we are told will read the symbolism as a sign of their strength and our craven weakness and capitulation. Could there be a more absurd and deluded interpretation of the significance of a small building in New York? Or of our culture of tolerance? Or of our capacity for swift, vigorous, and united responses to real threats?"
Perhaps not. But we are talking about the least rational members of the least rational cultures in the world. What matters is not whether their interpretation is accurate (and I believe it probably is more accurate than Reno would acknowledge) but how those people will act on that interpretation.
8.26.2010 | 1:01pm
Rob says:
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur,
just to clarify, I am a supporter of the Islamic center. I don't think Islam is a repugnant religion or philosophy,(I tried to tip my hand with the penultimate sentence in my original post). I wanted to respond to ahem.
We the people are obliged to subject ourselves to all sorts of religion and philosophy as long as that philosophy doesn't involve violence.
Cheers mate.
just to clarify, I am a supporter of the Islamic center. I don't think Islam is a repugnant religion or philosophy,(I tried to tip my hand with the penultimate sentence in my original post). I wanted to respond to ahem.
We the people are obliged to subject ourselves to all sorts of religion and philosophy as long as that philosophy doesn't involve violence.
Cheers mate.
8.26.2010 | 1:05pm
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
Ann
thank you for seeing past the hysteria. These days its becoming increasingly rare. Muslims and Christians potentially have the ability to work together and build bridges if they see each other as who they really are, rather than the worst pigment of their imagination.
Brian,
Do you agree that the stabbing that happened yesterday against the bangladeshi american man, was an act of terrorism by a white american against a Muslim american? And do you condemn this in the strongest terms possible?
Charles,
Why dont you come out in the open? Are you an islamophobe?
thank you for seeing past the hysteria. These days its becoming increasingly rare. Muslims and Christians potentially have the ability to work together and build bridges if they see each other as who they really are, rather than the worst pigment of their imagination.
Brian,
Do you agree that the stabbing that happened yesterday against the bangladeshi american man, was an act of terrorism by a white american against a Muslim american? And do you condemn this in the strongest terms possible?
Charles,
Why dont you come out in the open? Are you an islamophobe?
8.26.2010 | 1:16pm
Stuart Koehl says:
How odd that a Catholic writer such as Mr. Reno could be so tone deaf or indifferent to the importance of symbols.
8.26.2010 | 1:18pm
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
Thanks for the clarification Rob,
And of course, I take back my jab at you. My apologies. I misunderstood you.
Cheers.
And of course, I take back my jab at you. My apologies. I misunderstood you.
Cheers.
8.26.2010 | 1:22pm
Rob says:
Fred
I was talking about the Freedom Tower. You wouldn't oppose a Muslim charity renting space in the Freedom Tower?
I was talking about the Freedom Tower. You wouldn't oppose a Muslim charity renting space in the Freedom Tower?
8.26.2010 | 2:18pm
Charles Martel says:
I ask again: do you support sharia? (I see 'Islamophobia' is the new 'racism'.) All I need is a simple yes or no. Otherwise, I'll assume you are a pro-Islamist astroturfer.
(Imam Rauf, is that you, babe?)
(Imam Rauf, is that you, babe?)
8.26.2010 | 3:01pm
Fred says:
"You wouldn't oppose a Muslim charity renting space in the Freedom Tower?"
Well, assuming that there was a Freedom Tower or will be, that would depend on the charity. If they were one of those fronts for financing terrorists, yes. If they were a genuine charity that gave money and time to help people regardless of faith (like Catholic Charities is), then no. But in either case, the symbolism of building a "victory mosque" is much more potent than a Muslim charity renting office space, so the question is a bit irrelevant.
Well, assuming that there was a Freedom Tower or will be, that would depend on the charity. If they were one of those fronts for financing terrorists, yes. If they were a genuine charity that gave money and time to help people regardless of faith (like Catholic Charities is), then no. But in either case, the symbolism of building a "victory mosque" is much more potent than a Muslim charity renting office space, so the question is a bit irrelevant.
8.26.2010 | 3:20pm
Umberto Sanchez says:
How interesting - I'm always fascinated with those who are bullish on American prospects. I tend towards pessimism, so I try my best to listen to optimists whenever possible.
A couple of thoughts:
1) I think the Anchoress had this nailed when she said that this is really about American frustration at our inability to stand for something ourselves, while bending over backwards to accomodate Islam (or something like that). I think the furor over this building is a sign of deep insecurity in America - and that's no dig. We are sincerely uncertain about our future; we're afraid. That's not a good foundation to build a future upon. Islam, however weak, is in it's own way hopeful.
2) I wonder if blog posts are good for First Things. Blogs are by nature brief, and sometimes I wonder if the content of the articles suffers for their brevity and for being so ephemeral (i.e. daily). This could be related to 1), in that a secure nation has time to consider things - they're not worried about the outcome, so there isn't a contstant, nail-biting urge to check to see what is on the news, or what so-and-so is saying.
Listen, I'm stockpiling food in my cellar. No joke. Stuff like this makes me think I have the right idea. It's hot, baby.
A couple of thoughts:
1) I think the Anchoress had this nailed when she said that this is really about American frustration at our inability to stand for something ourselves, while bending over backwards to accomodate Islam (or something like that). I think the furor over this building is a sign of deep insecurity in America - and that's no dig. We are sincerely uncertain about our future; we're afraid. That's not a good foundation to build a future upon. Islam, however weak, is in it's own way hopeful.
2) I wonder if blog posts are good for First Things. Blogs are by nature brief, and sometimes I wonder if the content of the articles suffers for their brevity and for being so ephemeral (i.e. daily). This could be related to 1), in that a secure nation has time to consider things - they're not worried about the outcome, so there isn't a contstant, nail-biting urge to check to see what is on the news, or what so-and-so is saying.
Listen, I'm stockpiling food in my cellar. No joke. Stuff like this makes me think I have the right idea. It's hot, baby.
8.26.2010 | 3:34pm
Brian English says:
"Brian,
Do you agree that the stabbing that happened yesterday against the bangladeshi american man, was an act of terrorism by a white american against a Muslim american? And do you condemn this in the strongest terms possible?"
Well, since it turns out the guy with the knife works for a left-wing group that supports the building of the Ground Zero Mosque, I will hold-off on reaching a conclusion about what exactly happened there.
However, I will condemn, in the strongest terms possible, the violence that took place, regardless of the motives of the attacker.
Now, can you answer my questions?
Do you agree that the stabbing that happened yesterday against the bangladeshi american man, was an act of terrorism by a white american against a Muslim american? And do you condemn this in the strongest terms possible?"
Well, since it turns out the guy with the knife works for a left-wing group that supports the building of the Ground Zero Mosque, I will hold-off on reaching a conclusion about what exactly happened there.
However, I will condemn, in the strongest terms possible, the violence that took place, regardless of the motives of the attacker.
Now, can you answer my questions?
8.26.2010 | 3:38pm
Porcell says:
Most folks in New York City and America who oppose the Cordoba Iniiative are far from hysterical. They are cooly determined to make sure that it won't be built. This fellow, Imam Rauf, is on record stating that 9/11 was partly caused by he Americans and that Hamas is not a terrorist group.
Knowledgeable reformist Muslims are aware that this building is partly intended as a monument of Islamic triumph and are opposed to it for that reason. The very name, Cordoba, signifies Islamic triumph. The 9/11 families view Ground Zero as hallowed ground and have no illusions about what Rauf is up to.
John Paul II was wise enough to remove the Carmelite nuns near Auschwitz. These Cordoba Initiative clowns should wake up.
Knowledgeable reformist Muslims are aware that this building is partly intended as a monument of Islamic triumph and are opposed to it for that reason. The very name, Cordoba, signifies Islamic triumph. The 9/11 families view Ground Zero as hallowed ground and have no illusions about what Rauf is up to.
John Paul II was wise enough to remove the Carmelite nuns near Auschwitz. These Cordoba Initiative clowns should wake up.
8.26.2010 | 4:12pm
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
Charles,
I ask again, are you an islamophobe? I also just need a simple yes or no answer. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are a racist, arrogant bigot.
Brian,
Since it turns out that many of those things you mentioned happen already in Muslim countries, I'll content myself by affirming religious freedom in the strongest possible terms. Now will you deny Muslims religious freedom by opposing the cordoba initiative?
I ask again, are you an islamophobe? I also just need a simple yes or no answer. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are a racist, arrogant bigot.
Brian,
Since it turns out that many of those things you mentioned happen already in Muslim countries, I'll content myself by affirming religious freedom in the strongest possible terms. Now will you deny Muslims religious freedom by opposing the cordoba initiative?
8.26.2010 | 4:15pm
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
Porcell,
If the community center is a monument of Islamic triumphalism, then can you share with me some statements by prominent American Muslims who have expressed this view? Or can you look into the inner recesses of their hearts?
Somewhat paradoxical, on the one hand Reno says Islam is weak, on the other, you speak of islamic triumphalism and Islam as being a threat. You guys need to make up your mind, or better yet, recognize that these fear and anxieties of yours are mostly your own projection.
If the community center is a monument of Islamic triumphalism, then can you share with me some statements by prominent American Muslims who have expressed this view? Or can you look into the inner recesses of their hearts?
Somewhat paradoxical, on the one hand Reno says Islam is weak, on the other, you speak of islamic triumphalism and Islam as being a threat. You guys need to make up your mind, or better yet, recognize that these fear and anxieties of yours are mostly your own projection.
8.26.2010 | 4:32pm
Fred says:
"Now will you deny Muslims religious freedom by opposing the cordoba initiative?"
I'll repeat it 'til my fingers fall off; it's got zero to do with religious freedom.
"Somewhat paradoxical, on the one hand Reno says Islam is weak, on the other, you speak of islamic triumphalism and Islam as being a threat. You guys need to make up your mind, or better yet, recognize that these fear and anxieties of yours are mostly your own projection."
Not paradoxical at all. Islamist terrorism is clearly a threat. Surely not even you would deny that? The terrorist threat arises from the very weakness of Islamic cultures. But those killed by the terrorism are just as dead as if it arose from strength. Therefore, it behooves us to do all we can to prevent it and to punish it when it happens. It's really perfectly logical. The most egregious formal logical fallacy here is your constant ad hominem refrain, "you're a bigot."
I'll repeat it 'til my fingers fall off; it's got zero to do with religious freedom.
"Somewhat paradoxical, on the one hand Reno says Islam is weak, on the other, you speak of islamic triumphalism and Islam as being a threat. You guys need to make up your mind, or better yet, recognize that these fear and anxieties of yours are mostly your own projection."
Not paradoxical at all. Islamist terrorism is clearly a threat. Surely not even you would deny that? The terrorist threat arises from the very weakness of Islamic cultures. But those killed by the terrorism are just as dead as if it arose from strength. Therefore, it behooves us to do all we can to prevent it and to punish it when it happens. It's really perfectly logical. The most egregious formal logical fallacy here is your constant ad hominem refrain, "you're a bigot."
8.26.2010 | 4:33pm
Brian English says:
"Since it turns out that many of those things you mentioned happen already in Muslim countries, I'll content myself by affirming religious freedom in the strongest possible terms. "
I'm not asking about what you claim goes on in some unnamed Muslim countries. I am asking YOU whether you agree or disagree with the five statements I listed.
"Now will you deny Muslims religious freedom by opposing the cordoba initiative?"
There are two mosques nearby, so the idea that Muslims are somehow being deprived of their religious freedom because people are upset about the building of a mosque on the location of a building that was hit by the landing gear from one of the hijacked planes is absurd.
I am not advocating the government take action to stop the mosque. I am saying that the Ground Zero Mosque is a bad idea, and you will be burning bridges, not building bridges, if it is built.
I'm not asking about what you claim goes on in some unnamed Muslim countries. I am asking YOU whether you agree or disagree with the five statements I listed.
"Now will you deny Muslims religious freedom by opposing the cordoba initiative?"
There are two mosques nearby, so the idea that Muslims are somehow being deprived of their religious freedom because people are upset about the building of a mosque on the location of a building that was hit by the landing gear from one of the hijacked planes is absurd.
I am not advocating the government take action to stop the mosque. I am saying that the Ground Zero Mosque is a bad idea, and you will be burning bridges, not building bridges, if it is built.
8.26.2010 | 4:34pm
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
Umberto Sanchez,,
"Bend over bakwards to accomodate Islam."
Wow. Muslims are just asking to be treated like everyone else and you think this is "bending over backwards?" If you're bending, most Muslims I know sure haven't noticed. They are too busy being the subject of unwarranted suspicion and scapegoating. Too often they are astonished by the sort of hatred that emerges from these quarters.
We once thought that Christians were humble, compassionate people, but thats a notion that becoming increasingly difficult to sustain and defend. From you perspective, what options are left, all out war? Concentration camps? Correction facilities? Many of you guys sure sound pretty fascist.
Maybe some of you should pick up a book by a well known and respected Christian theologian, his name is William Cavanaugh and his book is called "The myth of religious violence." He's not an idiot, nor is he evil, and neither can be said about his mentor Stanley Hauerwas, a contributor to this website once upon a time, before it got hijacked by militant, war loving fanatics.
"Bend over bakwards to accomodate Islam."
Wow. Muslims are just asking to be treated like everyone else and you think this is "bending over backwards?" If you're bending, most Muslims I know sure haven't noticed. They are too busy being the subject of unwarranted suspicion and scapegoating. Too often they are astonished by the sort of hatred that emerges from these quarters.
We once thought that Christians were humble, compassionate people, but thats a notion that becoming increasingly difficult to sustain and defend. From you perspective, what options are left, all out war? Concentration camps? Correction facilities? Many of you guys sure sound pretty fascist.
Maybe some of you should pick up a book by a well known and respected Christian theologian, his name is William Cavanaugh and his book is called "The myth of religious violence." He's not an idiot, nor is he evil, and neither can be said about his mentor Stanley Hauerwas, a contributor to this website once upon a time, before it got hijacked by militant, war loving fanatics.
8.26.2010 | 4:45pm
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
Fred,
The American War machine is also very clearly a threat, much more powerful and much larger. I stand with Stanley Hauerwas and Bill Cavanaugh on this, and several other points.
Bibles, Christians, churches etc, exist in many Muslim countries and they are able to practice their religion freely. The Eastern Orthodox Church wouldn't be strong today if it had not been for Ottoman patronage. So yes those are good things, for Christians to co-exist with Muslim and be able to freely adhere and practice their faith.
The American War machine is also very clearly a threat, much more powerful and much larger. I stand with Stanley Hauerwas and Bill Cavanaugh on this, and several other points.
Bibles, Christians, churches etc, exist in many Muslim countries and they are able to practice their religion freely. The Eastern Orthodox Church wouldn't be strong today if it had not been for Ottoman patronage. So yes those are good things, for Christians to co-exist with Muslim and be able to freely adhere and practice their faith.
8.26.2010 | 5:26pm
Louise Troughter says:
A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque By IRSHAD MANJI
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451433090488678.html
A Patriotic Muslim’s Warning on Ground Zero Mosque (Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D)
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-patriotic-muslims-warning-on-ground-zero-mosque/?print=1
Moderate Muslims oppose location of Cordoba Mosque — on religious grounds
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/moderate-muslims-oppose-location-of-cordoba-mosque-%e2%80%94-on-religious-grounds/print/
A mosque at Ground Zero? Moderate Muslims say no
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/06/a_mosque_at_ground_zero?mode=PF
A Muslim victim of 9/11: 'Build your mosque somewhere else'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006_pf.html
Mischief in Manhattan
We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=3370303&sponsor=
Why Muslims Like Me Agree With the Tea Party Activists
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-10/why-muslims-like-me-agree-with-the-tea-party-activists/p/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451433090488678.html
A Patriotic Muslim’s Warning on Ground Zero Mosque (Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D)
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-patriotic-muslims-warning-on-ground-zero-mosque/?print=1
Moderate Muslims oppose location of Cordoba Mosque — on religious grounds
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/moderate-muslims-oppose-location-of-cordoba-mosque-%e2%80%94-on-religious-grounds/print/
A mosque at Ground Zero? Moderate Muslims say no
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/06/a_mosque_at_ground_zero?mode=PF
A Muslim victim of 9/11: 'Build your mosque somewhere else'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006_pf.html
Mischief in Manhattan
We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=3370303&sponsor=
Why Muslims Like Me Agree With the Tea Party Activists
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-10/why-muslims-like-me-agree-with-the-tea-party-activists/p/
8.26.2010 | 5:34pm
Fred says:
"The American War machine is also very clearly a threat, much more powerful and much larger. I stand with Stanley Hauerwas and Bill Cavanaugh on this, and several other points."
Nice non-sequitor. Boy Ed, you're giving Brettongarcia a run for his money in the logical fallacy department. I assume you mean the "American war machine" is a threat to the terrorists? I certainly hope it is. However, that does not negate the terrorist threat as the families of 3000 people can tell you. If you mean the "American war machine" is a bigger threat to the world than, and is morally equivalent to, terrorism, that kind of loony left claptrap doesn't deserve a response. It never pays to argue with loonies.
Nice non-sequitor. Boy Ed, you're giving Brettongarcia a run for his money in the logical fallacy department. I assume you mean the "American war machine" is a threat to the terrorists? I certainly hope it is. However, that does not negate the terrorist threat as the families of 3000 people can tell you. If you mean the "American war machine" is a bigger threat to the world than, and is morally equivalent to, terrorism, that kind of loony left claptrap doesn't deserve a response. It never pays to argue with loonies.
8.26.2010 | 5:41pm
Ars Artium says:
Is submission of the world to Allah a Muslim belief and goal? Is or is not violence in the cause of religion considered acceptable by Muslims? To go on, "Living in peace" is not the same as living in a free society where all have equal status under the law. Are women considered equal to or subject to men in Islam? Is Islam a religion with a political component - or not? Answers to these questions from those in highest authority would be very helpful. Some aspects of Islam are beautiful and noble. I am thinking of the times of prayer which are similar to the Divine Liturgy of the Church. This constant "re-engagement" with God orients the believer and shapes his or her soul. The respect shown to sacred places is right and good. The teachings about modesty in all aspects of life is admirable. If the believers are acting out of "willed obedience" as I believe Mary did, this is inspirational. But, as we know, and as (if I remember correctly) was taught by Mohammed, there can be no coercion in faith. We have reports of coercion and of fierce, cruel punishments for sinners. We have reports and evidence of political dominance by religious authorities. We see that women seem to be unfree although this may be by free choice in many cases. But what are we to think of those that are not? Is Islam going through a purification in the matter of political involvement and dominance such as the Church did in Europe? If so that can only be good. In this country we live in peace and in freedom of religion, absolute freedom of religion, and equality under the law. Is it possible for faithful Muslims to accept this state of affairs?
8.26.2010 | 5:47pm
King says:
The essay misses the point, almost entirely. The mosque's meaning is not important because it is a symbol of capitulation to a loser-culture's deluded grandiosity. It is important because it is a commentary on our will to self-defense as a nation, religion, and culture in a world that cares not a whit for our irrelevant intellectual pretensions.
The proposed mosque would be the greatest defeat in thirty years of war. The war is real. Reno's airy dismissals are fantastical.
We are so clever in our justifications, so wealthy, so relaxed. And so blind to the honor imperative under which the nations operate. The Hobbesian state of nature beyond our borders has not been overturned, nor can it be by a mere magnanimous desire to make it so.
Hey: 3,000 people were reduced to dust in the name of the sacrilege proposed to stand in silent mockery to their memory two blocks away. Not far enough away. This is not children nipping at our ankles. This is children spitting on our face, only because they can't (yet) strike us in the heart. How much magnanimity will it require next time, after the nuclear detonation? How much does our supine posture in response to their explicit provocations encourage them in their mission to deliver the lethal blow when they can?
Americans understand this in their gut. Do not speak of fine distinctions when determining who you would permit to wade in the blood of our fallen. Intellectuals have denatured themselves to the point of being gut-less. This is not an artificial tempest of popular symbolism, like Tiger Woods or Lindsay Lohan, interesting only because of what it says about us. It's not all about us, lingua franca or no. The blood of the murdered still cries out from the ground, yes, even ten years on.
Overly refined thinkers are losing what little credibility they once had to advise this nation at war, which is an enormous loss: we will need a delicate understanding of those who are trying to kill us through unconventional means and on the orders of divine command. Now Reno! Et tu, Rusty?
"I was almost taken aback by my answer." Almost, you see. Revisit it.
The proposed mosque would be the greatest defeat in thirty years of war. The war is real. Reno's airy dismissals are fantastical.
We are so clever in our justifications, so wealthy, so relaxed. And so blind to the honor imperative under which the nations operate. The Hobbesian state of nature beyond our borders has not been overturned, nor can it be by a mere magnanimous desire to make it so.
Hey: 3,000 people were reduced to dust in the name of the sacrilege proposed to stand in silent mockery to their memory two blocks away. Not far enough away. This is not children nipping at our ankles. This is children spitting on our face, only because they can't (yet) strike us in the heart. How much magnanimity will it require next time, after the nuclear detonation? How much does our supine posture in response to their explicit provocations encourage them in their mission to deliver the lethal blow when they can?
Americans understand this in their gut. Do not speak of fine distinctions when determining who you would permit to wade in the blood of our fallen. Intellectuals have denatured themselves to the point of being gut-less. This is not an artificial tempest of popular symbolism, like Tiger Woods or Lindsay Lohan, interesting only because of what it says about us. It's not all about us, lingua franca or no. The blood of the murdered still cries out from the ground, yes, even ten years on.
Overly refined thinkers are losing what little credibility they once had to advise this nation at war, which is an enormous loss: we will need a delicate understanding of those who are trying to kill us through unconventional means and on the orders of divine command. Now Reno! Et tu, Rusty?
"I was almost taken aback by my answer." Almost, you see. Revisit it.
8.26.2010 | 6:35pm
Brian English says:
"If so that can only be good. In this country we live in peace and in freedom of religion, absolute freedom of religion, and equality under the law. Is it possible for faithful Muslims to accept this state of affairs?"
This is exactly what I was getting at with the statements I asked Ed to agree or disagree with. The fact that he refuses to respond probably tells us something.
This is exactly what I was getting at with the statements I asked Ed to agree or disagree with. The fact that he refuses to respond probably tells us something.
8.26.2010 | 6:40pm
Sean says:
You know, the more I think about it, the more I kinda like the idea of an Islamic Center near Ground Zero as a perpetual reminder of muslim bloodymindedness, even if most muslims aren't bloodyminded. Good move, muslims.
8.26.2010 | 7:08pm
KarenT says:
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur: You asked whether it was Muslims or others connecting this project to 9/11. The original proposal was clearly related, symbolically, to 9/11. The sales pitch was that this violence could be overcome through understanding. The construction of the building was tied to the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The name, "Cordoba Initiative" was chosen to resonate (in different ways) with liberal westerners and jihadists alike.
Question: Can you think of 10 ways to spend 100 million dollars which would be more effective than this project at "building bridges" or improving the image of Islam? Why do so many foreign Muslim scholars consider this project to be a Zionist plot to connect 9/11 with Islam?
Question: Can you think of 10 ways to spend 100 million dollars which would be more effective than this project at "building bridges" or improving the image of Islam? Why do so many foreign Muslim scholars consider this project to be a Zionist plot to connect 9/11 with Islam?
8.26.2010 | 7:32pm
greggo says:
I live in Indiana and I really don't care. We have a very nice Mosque in our county and a very nice Hindu temple. You have to go one county over for a Jewish synagogue..There are hundreds of Christian Churches of different denominations. We're pretty red neck. This used to be Klan country but times change and people change. But I guess were more cosmopolitan than New York
8.26.2010 | 7:46pm
R Hampton says:
The Constitution trumps symbolism, and the Capitalist answer, of course, is to buy the land by offering deal too good to refuse.
8.26.2010 | 7:47pm
Fred says:
King, You are, of course, perfectly right. But don't dismiss intellectual argument. The defeatists claim to have the intellectual and logical as well as moral high ground. They need to be refuted on all levels to clear the way for self-defense.
8.26.2010 | 8:28pm
Fred says:
Hey Greggo, Is your Indiana mosque being erected on a site where 3000 of you cosmopolitan hoosiers were murdered by an ideology that claims the mantle of Islam? Will it be used as a propaganda/recruitment tool by jihadis all over the world? I thought not.
8.26.2010 | 9:32pm
Joseph Swanson says:
Rusty has got this right. It is an unimportant matter, no matter how [sadly] it goes down in the troubled, and continually-uniformed, streets of the middle east. Ours is, thank God, and open country in which the government has not been positioned to interfere with physical constructions. Let it stay that way!
8.26.2010 | 9:49pm
Ed Abd Al-Ghafur says:
So Obama is Muslim too right? Undercover jihadi? You guys are waaaaay too paranoid.
8.26.2010 | 10:46pm
Dan Biles says:
Thank-you, Mr. Reno, for a thoughtful article. I have not cared much, either -- for many of the same reasons as yours. Mostly, because its the latest cause du jour for the talking heads in the media and politicians to play football with. Five years from now, will anyone really care about this?
8.27.2010 | 7:38am
Fred says:
Who are you responding to Ed, the voices in your head? Nobody on this thread has claimed Obama is a muslim.
8.27.2010 | 8:04am
Maria says:
Hoping that this debate would evolve more into the essences of our faith that are under attack from errors in those who disagree with us and also to show how what is good in the other faiths is common and even borrowed from the God revealed truths in our JudeoChristian traditions and how to recover them for those among us who might want to wander onto those ( one way ! ) paths !
God loving us enough, to become incarnate , knowing that our enemy has put human nature and its dignity under attack from The Garden on ...this esp. against and through women ...that our Lord came to undo thsi lie , that human nature itself is precious to Him , enough for hIm to take up for Himself and even the pain and suffering that comes at us in a fallen world in the strenght of love which is what He did on The Cross, to gain same strenght for us us too so that such do not leave us in hatreds and lust for vengeance and dominion .. but even as more occasions to witness His power and love , by interceding for those under enemy holds , to be set free too !
He has shown us how brining our own pains and even weaknesses to Him brings in the peace that He has promised , that our' works' are from gratitude ...that as a 'Body ' , we are made to function with a sort of unity and cohesiveness that He has provided for us through His Church .., with a head and Father figure and all ..and when we run from such , into false freedoms, we are left with dominions of the wrong types ..
Good to see how The Church is recognisisng the yearning in our hearts for the structure and guidances that we are made for - as does every molecule in our bodies ..the resurgence of the traditions ...so that the authoritariansim of the mullahs in mosques , the almost unreturnable path , reminiscent of we know what , would not be the fate of our young !
And that other house of worship , the Ortodox church named after st.Nicholas that may not get built ..well, hope it is prophetic of a great gift , of better unity and the peace that would result from same ...since we know from history that it is the agent of split and division that is supporting all that is set against
The Church , not any true love !
God loving us enough, to become incarnate , knowing that our enemy has put human nature and its dignity under attack from The Garden on ...this esp. against and through women ...that our Lord came to undo thsi lie , that human nature itself is precious to Him , enough for hIm to take up for Himself and even the pain and suffering that comes at us in a fallen world in the strenght of love which is what He did on The Cross, to gain same strenght for us us too so that such do not leave us in hatreds and lust for vengeance and dominion .. but even as more occasions to witness His power and love , by interceding for those under enemy holds , to be set free too !
He has shown us how brining our own pains and even weaknesses to Him brings in the peace that He has promised , that our' works' are from gratitude ...that as a 'Body ' , we are made to function with a sort of unity and cohesiveness that He has provided for us through His Church .., with a head and Father figure and all ..and when we run from such , into false freedoms, we are left with dominions of the wrong types ..
Good to see how The Church is recognisisng the yearning in our hearts for the structure and guidances that we are made for - as does every molecule in our bodies ..the resurgence of the traditions ...so that the authoritariansim of the mullahs in mosques , the almost unreturnable path , reminiscent of we know what , would not be the fate of our young !
And that other house of worship , the Ortodox church named after st.Nicholas that may not get built ..well, hope it is prophetic of a great gift , of better unity and the peace that would result from same ...since we know from history that it is the agent of split and division that is supporting all that is set against
The Church , not any true love !
8.27.2010 | 10:46am
Brian English says:
"So Obama is Muslim too right? Undercover jihadi? You guys are waaaaay too paranoid."
Obama is definitely not a Muslim. Now can you answer my questions?
Obama is definitely not a Muslim. Now can you answer my questions?
8.27.2010 | 11:16am
Brian English says:
Ed:
Is this an example of Christians being able to practice their faith freely in Muslim countries that you referred to above?
VATICAN CITY: Christians affected by the devastating floods in Pakistan face “systematic discrimination” in the distribution of aid, the news agency of a Vatican missionary body reported Thursday.
The Fides news agency, a branch of the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, said aid was handled either by Muslim relief organisations or by government officials close to fundamentalists.
Both discriminated against Christians and other minorities in distributing aid essential to survival, it said.
About 200,000 Christian refugees in the Punjab province and about 600,000 Christians and Hindus in the Sindh province are affected by the phenomenon, Fides said, citing NGO sources on the ground.
“The Christian refugees are often ignored. They are purposely not identified and registered. Thus, they are automatically excluded from any health care or food, as they supposedly do not exist,” said a local NGO worker cited by Fides.
Torrential monsoon rains triggered massive floods in a fifth of the volatile country, an area roughly the size of England.
The catastrophe has affected more than 17 million people and left eight million dependent on aid to survive.
Is this an example of Christians being able to practice their faith freely in Muslim countries that you referred to above?
VATICAN CITY: Christians affected by the devastating floods in Pakistan face “systematic discrimination” in the distribution of aid, the news agency of a Vatican missionary body reported Thursday.
The Fides news agency, a branch of the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, said aid was handled either by Muslim relief organisations or by government officials close to fundamentalists.
Both discriminated against Christians and other minorities in distributing aid essential to survival, it said.
About 200,000 Christian refugees in the Punjab province and about 600,000 Christians and Hindus in the Sindh province are affected by the phenomenon, Fides said, citing NGO sources on the ground.
“The Christian refugees are often ignored. They are purposely not identified and registered. Thus, they are automatically excluded from any health care or food, as they supposedly do not exist,” said a local NGO worker cited by Fides.
Torrential monsoon rains triggered massive floods in a fifth of the volatile country, an area roughly the size of England.
The catastrophe has affected more than 17 million people and left eight million dependent on aid to survive.
8.28.2010 | 10:25am
Lyle says:
For a different perspective, especially on the so-called incompatabillity of Islam with democracy, it seems that the first shots of violence have not come from the Islamic threat, but 'democratic' US-bred fear (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/27/headlines#8). For a differing perspective on what this "mosque" is really going to be Commondreams.org reports that rather than a "mosque" it's actually a multi-faith community center (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/27-9).
As for Huntington's Clash of Civilizations we should be wary. Are all Americans alike? Do all have the same political, religious and social views? Of course not. Rather than painting all Muslims one color it would be worth spending some time in dialogue to understand from a real person, rather than inflamatory media reports, on what an American Muslim point of view is.
Will "terrorists" claim victory by building a mosque several blocks from Ground Zero? Maybe. Who cares? Why not turn around and claim victory that the United States is such an amazing nation that it has conquered the deepest hostilities? If North American Muslims, Christians and other faiths can stand together there is hardly anything worth fighting for, nor will the US need to fear new attacks.
As for Huntington's Clash of Civilizations we should be wary. Are all Americans alike? Do all have the same political, religious and social views? Of course not. Rather than painting all Muslims one color it would be worth spending some time in dialogue to understand from a real person, rather than inflamatory media reports, on what an American Muslim point of view is.
Will "terrorists" claim victory by building a mosque several blocks from Ground Zero? Maybe. Who cares? Why not turn around and claim victory that the United States is such an amazing nation that it has conquered the deepest hostilities? If North American Muslims, Christians and other faiths can stand together there is hardly anything worth fighting for, nor will the US need to fear new attacks.
8.28.2010 | 11:28am
Will says:
Fred, do you have any evidence that Park51 will "be used as a propaganda/recruitment tool by jihadis all over the world" while the Indiana mosque will not? I thought not.
Would it be OK to build on Staten Island? Oops, a mosque project there was shot down on the ground that They Are All Terrorists. That being the case, try convincing me that ranting and raving about the location is anything but an excuse.
Would it be OK to build on Staten Island? Oops, a mosque project there was shot down on the ground that They Are All Terrorists. That being the case, try convincing me that ranting and raving about the location is anything but an excuse.
8.28.2010 | 10:48pm
KarenT says:
Will, I think that the evidence that the "ranting and raving" concerning the Cordoba Initiative is mostly about location is that most of the people protesting are asking for it to be moved - not cancelled. And foreign Muslim scholars in Egypt and France also disapprove of the location.
The disapproval of the Staten Island mosque I don't know much about. But I find it interesting that Mayor Bloomberg would be so forceful in insisting that the Cordoba Initiative project go ahead as planned (with recent news that it may qualify for public funding) while no one outside of New York seems to have heard much about the Staten Island deal. The one news report I saw claimed that part of the objection was that one of the leaders of the project had been filmed cheering for Hamas at a rally. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the emotion from the Cordoba Initiative controversy spilled over to Staten Island, too. There may be some emotional reasons for objecting to the conversion of a convent to a mosque, as well.
Fascinating how the Cordoba Initiative has dominated news concerning Muslims when so much else is going on in the world. I'm sure that a lot of people could think of better ways to "build bridges" - the stated goal of the Muslims, Christians and Jews backing the Cordoba Initiative.
The disapproval of the Staten Island mosque I don't know much about. But I find it interesting that Mayor Bloomberg would be so forceful in insisting that the Cordoba Initiative project go ahead as planned (with recent news that it may qualify for public funding) while no one outside of New York seems to have heard much about the Staten Island deal. The one news report I saw claimed that part of the objection was that one of the leaders of the project had been filmed cheering for Hamas at a rally. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the emotion from the Cordoba Initiative controversy spilled over to Staten Island, too. There may be some emotional reasons for objecting to the conversion of a convent to a mosque, as well.
Fascinating how the Cordoba Initiative has dominated news concerning Muslims when so much else is going on in the world. I'm sure that a lot of people could think of better ways to "build bridges" - the stated goal of the Muslims, Christians and Jews backing the Cordoba Initiative.
8.30.2010 | 5:22pm
SuzyQ says:
You don't care, eh? Well, how nice. What a brilliant premise for an argument. Why don't you refrain from weighing in on thole matter if it means nothing to you?
And by the way, there are plenty of "desperate societies" and desperate people the world over, but only one brand of them straps explosives on themselves all across the globe: radical Islamists. And many of those radical Islamists - who hail from well-to-do families and attend Western universities - are being radicalized in the West in mosques like the one proposed in NYC, far from the desperation of ravaged nations (whose desperation is of their own leaders' making).
I would have expected something a bit more intellectually sound than that from First Things.
And by the way, there are plenty of "desperate societies" and desperate people the world over, but only one brand of them straps explosives on themselves all across the globe: radical Islamists. And many of those radical Islamists - who hail from well-to-do families and attend Western universities - are being radicalized in the West in mosques like the one proposed in NYC, far from the desperation of ravaged nations (whose desperation is of their own leaders' making).
I would have expected something a bit more intellectually sound than that from First Things.
9.1.2010 | 3:20am
Vidyut says:
An absolutely devoutly Muslim friend of mine is a man I admire in every sense of the word. He is the poster child for everything the Muslims try to project when they say "Islam is a religion of peace". He sees this mosque being built as a very bad idea. He is aged, and internet unsavvy, but I think his words hold meaning.
According to him, Islam has been horribly misrepresented in this place (ground zero), and creating a monument is only going to keep that misrepresentation alive. Every time people go to the mosque, they will remember what was done by people calling themselves Muslims and keep alive shame and defensiveness for Muslims and mistrust about Muslims among non Muslims. In his eyes, a "true Muslim" (how I love the diversity of this term) will never support something that brings shame to Islam. He thinks that if something must be built by Muslims, it must be a work of art by Muslims, but not a mosque that remembers those innocents that died at the hands of evil. Something that is relevant to humanity regardless of religion and created by Muslims as a way of stating clearly that humanity prevails regardless of religion and its created by Muslims because many unheard Muslims care and to show that a mosque is not the sole possibility a Muslim can think of in order to relate with the world. It would be a way of reinforcing the thousands of truly secular Muslim voices that get drowned among the Mullahs sending out religious prescriptions to Muslims that are another divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. He thinks modern Muslims need to remember a time when they built all kinds of monuments and as magnificent and immortal expressions. Like they wouldn't like being asked to go to a church to mourn the innocents that died no matter how much it tore their heart, they need to see that if people are to come together and see Muslims as worthy of living with, Muslims need to create something that others wouldn't mind entering and joining them in. Otherwise, no one is going to use it as a community thing, and it will become another Muslim zone in a place where Muslims slaughtered people.
In a roundabout way, its pretty much what the American masses are objecting to. If Islam is peace, all Muslims haven't got the memo. If we must support the idea that Islam is peace (or if we don't believe it), we must not build a monument to when it wasn't.
That said, I'm not an American, or particularly pro-America (nor is the man whose word I shared), though I appreciate many things there.
According to him, Islam has been horribly misrepresented in this place (ground zero), and creating a monument is only going to keep that misrepresentation alive. Every time people go to the mosque, they will remember what was done by people calling themselves Muslims and keep alive shame and defensiveness for Muslims and mistrust about Muslims among non Muslims. In his eyes, a "true Muslim" (how I love the diversity of this term) will never support something that brings shame to Islam. He thinks that if something must be built by Muslims, it must be a work of art by Muslims, but not a mosque that remembers those innocents that died at the hands of evil. Something that is relevant to humanity regardless of religion and created by Muslims as a way of stating clearly that humanity prevails regardless of religion and its created by Muslims because many unheard Muslims care and to show that a mosque is not the sole possibility a Muslim can think of in order to relate with the world. It would be a way of reinforcing the thousands of truly secular Muslim voices that get drowned among the Mullahs sending out religious prescriptions to Muslims that are another divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. He thinks modern Muslims need to remember a time when they built all kinds of monuments and as magnificent and immortal expressions. Like they wouldn't like being asked to go to a church to mourn the innocents that died no matter how much it tore their heart, they need to see that if people are to come together and see Muslims as worthy of living with, Muslims need to create something that others wouldn't mind entering and joining them in. Otherwise, no one is going to use it as a community thing, and it will become another Muslim zone in a place where Muslims slaughtered people.
In a roundabout way, its pretty much what the American masses are objecting to. If Islam is peace, all Muslims haven't got the memo. If we must support the idea that Islam is peace (or if we don't believe it), we must not build a monument to when it wasn't.
That said, I'm not an American, or particularly pro-America (nor is the man whose word I shared), though I appreciate many things there.
10.6.2010 | 6:58am
Brigid Sabellico says:
Question: Can you think of 10 ways to spend 100 million dollars which would be more effective than this project at "building bridges" or improving the image of Islam? Why do so many foreign Muslim scholars consider this project to be a Zionist plot to connect 9/11 with Islam? I also think that the non-judgmentalism is heavily influenced by the idea that we are not really free actors, we are all mere victims of circumstance and history. Personally, I know that if I do not discriminate and go through my life treating people with dignity and respect, I am neither a bigot nor a racist. Even if I think that there is some truth to generalizations and I exercise my best judgment about how to treat each different person I encounter, I know that I am not a bigot or racist. But there is a widespread idea that you are a bigot or a racist in all sorts of hidden, nuanced ways if you have a certain job, or wealth, or vote a certain way or hold a certain set of metaphysical beliefs about the nature of life and morality. People who believe this are tormented by all of the things they do and don't do, and they constantly see this hidden hand at work. It must be a miserable way to live, to feel so unable to control one's own actions or identity. This extreme multiculturalism strikes me as some vain attempt to avoid or atone for these hidden sins of having a house or a job or enough food to eat. Refusing to engage the actual ideas or practices of Islam under the guise of being "tolerant" is, frankly, a crazy way to live.
8.7.2011 | 2:27am
jake says:
Though Imam Abdul Rauf has a constitutional right to build an Islamic Center near ground zero, it would be better not to as too many emotions are tied to ground zero. It wouldn't really term it as disrespectful, but I do feel that it is "insensitive".
For myself, when New York gives permission for the rebuilding of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was actually destroyed on 9/11, then I might be more inclined to think New York's eagerness to allow a mosque so close to Ground Zero is reasonable.