Fear Itself
So a number of Republicans, from Rick Lazio to Sarah Palin to Newt Gingrich, have gotten themselves into a lather about the Cordoba Initiative’s plan to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero (actually, I believe they’ve already got a mosque a few blocks away; they’d be moving to a bigger and somewhat closer site). If I’m to take them at their word, their argument is that freedom of religion should be suspended in a certain radius around Ground Zero out of respect for the dead. Or something like that.
There is a strain of thinking on the right that is absolutely terrified of giving Islam an inch lest it take the yard. Listen to Gingrich:
‘‘The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over,’‘ Gingrich wrote. ‘‘The proposed ‘Cordoba House’ overlooking the World Trade Center site — where a group of jihadists killed over 3,000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks — is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites.’‘
Muslims killed Americans here. So allowing Muslims to pray here is – submission? Is that what Mohammed Atta was killing for – the right to pray in New York? He already had that right. But we should take it away, or otherwise the terrorists will have won.
The fear, I guess, is that if we allow a mosque near Ground Zero, the next thing you know the imam will demand modest dress of women working in the Freedom Tower, pro-Israel demonstrations will be banned from the area, and all the frankfurter vendors will have to sell only halal dogs (word of warning: many of them already do!), all in order to cater to the sensibilities of those who pray there. So we must be illiberal – banning Islam from the vicinity – in order to preserve liberalism. Someone must submit to someone – either they must submit to us or we must submit to them, and better they submit than we do.
I suppose that’s an argument, though one that seems to credit Islam with a whole lot more persuasive power than American principles. But at least it is an argument. The other half of Gingrich’s point is just a non-sequitur: that we can’t have a mosque at Ground Zero so long as there are no churches in Saudi Arabia. I mean, if Gingrich wants to say that it’s appalling that Saudi Arabia doesn’t permit synagogues and churches on its territory – I agree! Does he want to sanction Saudi Arabia for that in some fashion – kick them out of the World Trade Organization? make their diplomats pay their parking tickets? refuse to send half a million troops to defend them the next time a local dictator looks interested in gobbling them up? – well, about that we might have an interesting argument, both about what our foreign policy principles should be and what is prudential behavior. Does he want to talk sternly to Muslims about religious oppression in the Muslim world? Sounds like a great topic to broach at the Cordoba Initiative! I’d love to hear their response! But punishing “them” by treating them the way they treat us, when we object to their treatment of us because it violates our principles, that just doesn’t make any sense.
But more to the point: some of “them” are “us.” There are American Muslims. There is an – there are various – American Islam(s). That’s just a fact. There are certainly Muslims (mostly non-American) who deny that fact – who want to argue that Muslims in America can have no true loyalty to America, but must be loyal to some imaginary global Islamic communal interest. And there are certainly non-Muslims who would deny that fact in similar terms. But a fact it is. The problem with this Republican line is not so much that it discourages moderate Islam – though obviously the message “no Muslims wanted” is a terrible one – but that it quite blatantly writes American Muslims out of the American people.
After Pearl Harbor, the United States massively violated the rights of whole communities of American citizens of Japanese descent, in the name of national security. We’ve done nothing comparable to infringe upon the rights of Muslim Americans. But back in the 1940s, we had the decency to say that what we were doing we did because we feared an invasion of the West Coast by a nation with a massive navy that had already conquered much of the western Pacific. Gingrich’s “rationale” for opposing the Cordoba Initiative’s mosque seems to be all about fear of ourselves – of our own weakness, our own inability to resist . . . something. Palin’s “rationale” is all about fear of ourselves as well – fear of painful memories and whether we can handle them in our fragile state.
Well, speaking as one New Yorker: we can handle them.
And as for the New York Republicans who oppose the mosque: the very idea of New York politicians, nine years later, with a gaping hole still scarring the heart of Manhattan, opposing any plausible construction plan at Ground Zero – well, I have no words. By now I’d be happy if they built a Wal-Mart right on the tower footprints and were done with it.
My wife and I, both Republicans, are split on this “issue.” She agrees with Gingrich and company. I agree with yourself, the First Amendment, property rights and our American liberal tradition. Nice post.
— Brian Denton · Jul 22, 07:09 PM · #
The Left (i.e., the people who wrote this post) see this as a rights issue, but I think there are legitimate questions the city may want to look into to see who is behind a $100M project. This, mind you, is much larger than the endowments of all but the most elite colleges and universities. Who is bankrolling this? The Saudi Wahabbis have bankrolled mosques throughout the Caucasus, Central Asia and Balkans, turning formerly moderate, peaceable Muslim populations there much more radical. Are they behind this? Clearly, there is some big money at play, and it’s worth asking (as the city does with any commercial or residential building) who is financing the mosque, and who will then be leading the congregation. After all, given all the scrutiny applied to EVERY ASPECT of the rebuilding of Ground Zero, both by private and public groups, why does this, potentially the most sensitive proposed project to date, not merit similar review?
I don’t think that being part of a presumably “repressed” group (and it’s hyperbole of the first order to compare this to the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII!) means you avoid the same review given to everything else. Rather than repression, the author here would have Muslims given special rights for the difficulties they have endured after other Muslims killed 3,000 people in New York City.
Moreover, the author’s lack of familiarity with the subject about which he writes is evident throughout but most glaringly so in the final paragraph:
“And as for the New York Republicans who oppose the mosque: the very idea of New York politicians, nine years later, with a gaping hole still scarring the heart of Manhattan, opposing any plausible construction plan at Ground Zero – well, I have no words. By now I’d be happy if they built a Wal-Mart right on the tower footprints and were done with it.”
Actually, the proposed site for Cordoba House is not a “gaping hole.” It is a block or two from Ground Zero, in an architecturally and historically significant Federalist structure. The structure has been considered for Landmark status by City Hall’s New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee (LPC) for nearly 25 years, and plans to tear it down are being reviewed by the LPC. The idea that there would be a “gaping hole” thanks to “Republicans” sounds like something pulled straight out of the JournoList: it is a lie, and shows that this author, rather than research his piece, propagandizes an issue that reasonable people can certainly disagree on, and in which questions of the sanctity of the memory of those killed on Sept. 11, national security, religious freedom, historic preservation and building codes clash in ways that prevent either you or I from coming to the correct conclusion in an immediate, knee-jerk way the way the JournoList-lite author would like to have it.
— NYer · Jul 22, 07:17 PM · #
While I agree it is entirely inappropriate for there to be any government action (or inaction) to prevent the building of the proposed mosque, I disagree with Mr. Millman’s characterization of the purpose of the mosque – merely a site to pray.
This is either a very ill-informed and calloused decision by the organization proposing the mosque be built so close to ground zero, or it is a deliberate attempt to inflame and/or celebrate the destruction done by a number of Islamic extremists.
— matt curtis · Jul 22, 07:17 PM · #
One web site claimed it’s a case of Islamic triumphitalism (sp?) — they are going to build a “towering 13 story high mosque” near ground zero.
Since when is 13 stories a “towering” building in lower Manhattan?!
— Skeptic · Jul 22, 07:22 PM · #
It seems that you are placing Islam on equal footing with Christianity and other religions which predominate in the west. Why would you do that? It is not a religion that places spirituality over the material world. Theirs is a religion which fuses militarism with belief in a way that makes it dangerous to western values (love of freedom, individuality, etc). If this “religion” is allowed to take root, it will subvert our nation. If you continue to treat Islam as you would a brand of protestant Christianity which you might not like but are willing to tolerate, then you invite danger.
— David Fortenbras · Jul 22, 07:28 PM · #
While I agree with you on the legal aspect, I have to say I think Palin and Gingrich have the superior moral argument. Sure a legal ban on mosque construction is a bad first step, but those who want to build the structure don’t seem to realize or care how profoundly insensitive it is to build a mosque right next to the place where three thousand people were murdered in the name of Islam.
If they don’t know, they need to open their eyes.
If they don’t care, they’re not the moderates you’re talking about in this article.
— Charles Lavergne · Jul 22, 07:42 PM · #
It’s interesting that you just found Gingrich’s comment about Saudi Arabia to be a non-sequitur. I guess it sort of is, but it also reminded me of something I saw recently in an article about a similar mosque controversy in France (article is linked to my name):
“Stephane Ravier, of the right wing Front National in Marseille, said it [the mosque] isn’t welcome, adding Muslims in France should respect the Christian heritage in France just as Christians should respect the Muslim heritage in a Muslim country.”
Of course, the way this is couched is quite different from the way a US rightist would put it. Ravier is drawing on a European far-right tradition that emphasizes the need for people of each culture to remain within their own homogeneous society, while Gingrich is using the American imperial rhetoric that implies we should impose our values on the world. But I found the resonance between the two interesting.
— chiasmus · Jul 22, 08:13 PM · #
“Is that what Mohammed Atta was killing for – the right to pray in New York? He already had that right. But we should take it away, or otherwise the terrorists will have won.”
Well, the terrorists do hate us for our freedom. So if we just take away freedom from Americans, then maybe they won’t hate us anymore!
Uh oh… but wouldn’t that make Newt Gingrich… AN APPEASER?!? Just like Neville Chamberlain and Ronald Reagan! Say it ain’t so, Newt!
Seriously, though, Mohammad Atta represents Islam the same way Dennis Rader or Ann Coulter represent Christianity. If you want to write off all one billion adherents of a religion with over a millennium of history as The Enemy, this speaks purely to your psychological problems. George W. Bush was right to separate the murderous fanatics of Islam from the other 99% of its adherents. It’s too bad that Gingrich, Palin, et al fail to grasp this commonsense distinction.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Jul 22, 08:23 PM · #
“…. The fear, I guess, is that if we allow a mosque near Ground Zero, the next thing you know the imam will demand modest dress of women working in the Freedom Tower, pro-Israel demonstrations will be banned from the area, and all the frankfurter vendors will have to sell only halal dogs….”
You mean…. kind of like the areas of Rotterdam and Brussels and London and Antwerp and Paris and the British Midlands that are fighting off sharia law zones as we speak?
Like the newly Jew free zones of Malmo, Sweden?
Kind of like the Amsterdam jews who are being attacked so often that the police are putting out “decoy Jews” the way they once were disguised as little old ladies to trap muggers? Like that?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/06/dutch-police-may-use-decoy-jews-to-stop-attacks/1
Can’t happen here? That’s what they thought in large portions of Europe.
— VRWC · Jul 22, 08:29 PM · #
Noah, what did you think about the “Crescent of Embrace” kerfuffle over the proposed Stonycreek Township, PA memorial?
— KVS · Jul 22, 08:35 PM · #
I think it a mosque two blocks (1/2 a mile?) would be at most evidence that we are not afraid of Islam.
— cw · Jul 22, 08:43 PM · #
This doesn’t seem too different from Jews complaining about churches and convents and crosses near Auschwitz. Maybe Mr. Millman should have spoken up then.
— y81 · Jul 22, 09:28 PM · #
No, there are no “American Muslims”. There are Muslims who live in America, certainly. There are even Muslims who are American citizens. But there are no American Muslims in the sense of Muslims who have internalized and committed to the core concepts of the American identity: Individual freedom and tolerance of others. Muslims are Muslims, first, last and always — inhabitants of the Umma, the Dar al-Islam; Americans do not belong to the Umma, therefore they live in the Dar al-Harb, and they will always and forever be enemies. If you don’t know that, you don’t know anything.
— Tim of Angle · Jul 22, 09:29 PM · #
There’s a lot of putting words into Newt Gingrich’s mouth here, none of which I’d gather is accurate.
A reasonable question is, of all places, why did those who want build a mosque decide they would build it as close as possible to ground zero? Coincidence? Did they have the plans drawn up, send out some dude to select a site, and then in the planning meeting someone first said “oh hey, look, right next to ground zero. Might be controversial…”
The site was selected precisely because it’s where Muslims took down the WTC in the name of Islam. I don’t think anyone could think up a location that would serve as a greater provocation, and it’s hardly a stretch to say that’s the whole point (similar to the flying Imams who merely wanted to pray before the USAirways flight).
So with that in mind what does that say about the folks trying to provoke?
— Doug · Jul 22, 09:44 PM · #
As for “Tim of Angle”‘s comment…
Wow. Just, wow…
— Scrooge McDuck · Jul 22, 10:01 PM · #
Chet,
So you believe that the location chosen for the mosque and its proximity to Ground Zero is just a coincidence and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11?
— Doug · Jul 23, 12:47 AM · #
The mosque at Ground Zero will be there for the same reason the al-Aqsa mosque is on the Temple Mount: Muslim triumphalism.
They built on the holiest site in Judaism in order to shit on Judaism.
They’ll build on a secular-holy site in the US, at Ground Zero, for the same reason.
If you don’t understand the symbolism of a mosque at Ground Zero, you don’t understand the Muslim mind.
— Patrick Carroll · Jul 23, 01:01 AM · #
If you don’t listen to am radio daily, you don’t understand the Muslim mind.
— Patrick Carroll · Jul 23, 01:22 AM · #
If you don’t have a prescription for Haldol, you don’t understand the Muslim mind.
— Scrooge McDuck · Jul 23, 01:52 AM · #
Building a new mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero is a deliberate provocative act that is meant to send a message. The message is being received loud and clear and the answer is we do not want a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Why there? Why not ten blocks east, or west. There are already mosque’s in the area what is the purpose of adding another one except to deliberately send an “in your face” message to the citizens of NYC. No one is disputing the right of the Imam to build a mosque, build one, or ten no one really cares. But not in the vicinity of Ground Zero.
— Kenny Komodo · Jul 23, 02:09 AM · #
Would they allow a Catholic cathedral, a Scientologist mothership, a synagogue or a mosque on the National Mall, or across from the White House?
The answer would be no, and that doesn’t mean there’s any violation of speech rights. It means that higher standards prevail here for zoning and land use. The question — other than, of course, asking any legitimate questions about the source of the staggering $100M involved — is whether the WTC is another site that merits particular zoning standards.
Certainly the immediate site — case in point: the heavy-handed micromanaging of the buildings, commercial, cultural and other, on the site by the authorities — has been treated as such. I think Mr. Millman, in his ideological zeal, overlooks the fact that it’s a fairly legitimate question as to whether that special zone extends a block or two to a building that had the landing gear fall on it.
— Maimonides · Jul 23, 03:47 AM · #
To be fair, much as I agree with Chet’s position on the matter, ten blocks east of Ground Zero is East River, not Hudson.
Also, the mosque would not be “a mile” (Chet) or “half a mile” (cw) away, but rather around 1/5 or 1/6th of a mile away from the Ground Zero site. (just google-map 45-47 Park Place, New York, NY)
However, it is hardly true that the mosque would be perched directly upon the Ground Zero site, whereas in fact it would be obscured from the view by virtue of being two blocks of buildings away and without a direct line of sight connecting it to the Ground Zero.
Furthermore, the Cordoba Initiative seems not only pretty legit, but also dedicated precisely to the task of improving the relations between Islam and the West.
— Marko · Jul 23, 04:16 AM · #
How about we let them build a mosque at Ground Zero 20 minutes after a church and temple have been allowed to be built in Mecca? After all, it is all about “cultural understanding” and reaching across the divide in friendship…my eye.
— XiaoXi · Jul 23, 06:48 AM · #
The problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam’s widely stated goal is to become a State Religion.
Furthermore Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect Freedom of Speech and the Press. Islam rejects both of these. Prime examples are the Mohammed cartoons. To protect Islamic rights therefore means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of their rights.
Islam is a cancer on democracy and, while individuals should be allowed to believe as they wish, the application of Sharia or the use of mosques to spread anti-democratic political messages should be curtailed.
How to ban Islam
— Mark · Jul 23, 07:38 AM · #
I hate to look like I am reading too much into things but Cordoba..
Wasn’t that city one of the Spanish cities occupied by Muslim expansion into Spain? Having a Cordoba Institute dedicated to fostering Islam-West relations is like having an Alamo Institute dedicated to fostering US-Mexican relations. Its odd.
Anyways, any Middle East funded non-profit with this level of money always has links to suspicious sources of funding with off motives. The moderates have no money. So I am inclined to be suspicious.
— Non-Muslim Immigrant From Muslim Majority Country · Jul 23, 12:51 PM · #
Chet,
You wrote:
“I certainly don’t think it’s ‘Muslim triumphalism’, but then I’m not a disgusting reactionary bigot. If anything what is says is “we’re not all like those guys. Here, take a look.”
I think ground zero needs a mosque, personally,…”
I had written a reply to all this that I believed would leave you embarrassed and laughed at, but then I deleted the whole thing. I deleted it because in 1999 I supported the building of a controversial mosque near my home. In other words, I was once just like you.
But then after 9/11 I started doing my homework. I attended mosques, I read journals, I read the Koran, and I built an impressive library on the topic over the years and was even invited to attend a conference or two. Through all this I came up with a point of view completely opposite to where I once stood. And I look back in shame at the derision I used to shell out on those whom I regarded as less intelligent or less enlightened than myself. I don’t know if the folks I sneered at were more or less intelligent than me, but they were better informed or at least had better instincts on the topic. I had neither.
So yes, after a lot of research, I changed. I had almost forgotten that I once held my old point of view until I started writing this post, and suddenly I felt a little embarrassed remembering it.
Through various conferences and forums I’ve met a handful of folks who have taken a similar journey. How rough the road of that journey seems largely a matter of one’s political/religious understanding before starting out.
Chet I don’t know your circumstances, and you might very well be quite young. But I’ll leave you with some wisdom from Thomas Sowell: “The question is not what particular policy or social system is best but rather what is implicitly assumed in advocating one policy or social system over another. (Conflict of Visions)
— Doug · Jul 23, 01:37 PM · #
I work a couple blocks from the WTC site. I am not the least bothered by this proposed addition. I think there were more Muslims, over 30 of, than Alaskans killed in 9/11 who were on those planes (not the clowns but as passengers) or unfortunately working in the buildings. We have to stop this hatred. There are concepts in all the religions that are unamerican but that is why we have separation of Church and State. If anybody ever read the Constitution anymore.
— chuck · Jul 23, 01:49 PM · #
So, bed-wetting conservatives are running to this site to publicly declare their hostility towards the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Religion. Sorry, guys, but we either have religious freedom here or we don’t. You can’t put a “yeah, but” when it comes to this. If you do, just where would you draw the line?
— Pete · Jul 23, 01:51 PM · #
It’s amazing that libs who are sensitive to everyone else’s concerns can’t even understand why some people are bothered by this.
That said, IMHO the opponents are wrong. Yes, there was a tradition among some muslims of building mosques on conquest sites to increase political control, and yes, it’s near an emotionally sensitive spot, but it’s not on ground zero. Most importantly, there is a US tradition of allowing freedome of religion, and that’s the tradition that should trump.
— J Mann · Jul 23, 01:59 PM · #
You see that is the point, Abu Qutada, Omar Mohammed, Setmarian Nasar at one point or another has been exiled in London, but ultimately they didn’t care. Didn’t they uncover the tenth plot, another Christmas flight targeted at New York, we almost had a scene right out of “the Siege’ bus bombing, some three months ago, by a pampered scion of the Pakistani elite
however it is more important to focus on the phantom tea party militia, who has shown no propensity for violence
— ian cormac · Jul 23, 02:09 PM · #
It’s like FDR said, “The only thing we have to sell is fear itself”.
— Mike Schilling · Jul 23, 02:18 PM · #
Some comments from Sarah Palin’s Facebook page on this. I collected them in 15 minutes and have screen captures to prove the provenance. Kind of puts a less reasonable spin on what’s driving this mini-controversy.
“People yell about impeaching Obama, again, I wish some psycho would just blow his sorry ass away! I’d love another paid holiday to celebrate the death of a black man.”
“If you have ever read the Bible, you evil very plainly that there is NO tolerance for any other religion save Christianity.”
“Let them build it … then … at sunrise … a tream of Navy Seals, and a few pounds of well place C4, perhaps a few claymores, could assist in the interior decoration that Mosque.”
“Fuck em, any fucking Muslin tries to build a mosque there I saw we get our guns and kill the mother fakers and shoot the piece of shit traitor that allowed it.”
“This could be the start of the Revolution. We all know there’s not enough cops in NY city to stop the riots.”
“[S]wamplands … make a perfect site … feed them to the alligators at the same time.”
“We should just bomb Mecca, that’ll teach ‘em.”
“I say kill them all and let Alli sort them out.”
— Terry Calhoun · Jul 23, 02:20 PM · #
Why do people keep pointing to the $100M as though it is an extraordinary amount, one that surely must be financed by nefarious means? Sure, it’s a lot of dough. And it is quite in line with the building costs that organizations of all types take on.
— Treefrog · Jul 23, 02:33 PM · #
It seems like the only argument anti-mosque conservatives have here is: it hurts my feelings.
I’m sorry, that’s not reason enough to piss on the constitution – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Period.
— htownmark · Jul 23, 02:35 PM · #
The literature on the Cordoba House website is all about fostering tolerance and understanding. Seriously, if they are secretly terrorists, they will not attract their target demographic with all that peace, love and understanding stuff they talk about. But who knows? Dig deep enough, and there will almost certainly be connections with extremist groups. Someone’s brother-in-law will have sent a check to Hamas, or have called for the destruction of Israel. Such tenuous connections do not mean that there are substantive links between Cordoba House and extremist organizations.
But all of the questions about whether Cordoba House is a front for extremism, while arguably fair to ask, are beside the point, because proponents of intolerance within our own American society have already equated all Muslims and practice of Islam with extremism. Rep. Gingrich’s remarks are all about excluding Muslims from the American community, throwing religious freedom out the window, and instituting a kind of tit-for-tat religious intolerance in the model of Saudi Arabia. Isn’t Newt the extremist, here?
— JonathanU · Jul 23, 02:45 PM · #
htownmark,
Who in Congress has proposed a law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof with regard to the Cordoba mosque? Period, as you say.
— Doug · Jul 23, 02:50 PM · #
Great post.
NYer: you claim that 100mil is larger than the endowment of all but the “most elite universities”. That’s just stupid. I matriculated in the UT university system, a state school as the ivy leaguers say, and UT Austin alone had a larger yearly budget than that. Similar sized campuses operated in the same system at San Antonio, Houston, El Paso and Arlington while smaller “feeder schools” existed throughout the wider state. Then there are the research labs. State colleges are massive entities with massive funds available to them. 100 mil is basic stuff to anyone other than the small private liberal art schools.
J Mann: Considering that the only people voicing opposition seem to be chickenhawk mid-westerners who didn’t have to deal with their friends being blown to ashes, I really don’t see why I, or the people of New York for whom the tragedy was something more than a CNN clipshow, should feel any sympathy for their “bother”. Beyond this, the folks behind an ecumenical Islamic community center are not in any way like terrorists, so there’s really no reason why they should be bothered in the first place. Would you consider it sensible to sympathize with modern day Protestants who didn’t want a Catholic church built in downtown Boston because 600 years ago the Pope authorized the massacre of most Parisian Protestants? When deciding who one sides with, it’s important to keep sight of perspective and perpetration.
Non-Muslim: No, Cordoba was not “occupied” by Muslims, it was built by them. Its libraries were filled with books written by them, in Greek, Arabic, the local Vulgate and Latin, its markets were stocked by them with crops they brought from North Africa and with local foods they grew, and their cities were governed and people by Christians, Jews, and Muslims for centuries. It was by no means a Utopian paradise, but it was a heck of a lot more inclusive, commercial, and peaceful than Spain during the Castillian Inquisition that followed the “Reconquista”.
— Julian · Jul 23, 03:28 PM · #
Doug, don’t be obtuse. What Palin and Gingrich are overtly saying is that the government of the municipality of New York should deny the zoning permit to this group for no other reason than the religion of the people who want to use the building. A couple hundred years of judicial precedent would tell us that such a move would be a violation of the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion.
If you don’t feel that such a move would be a Constitutional violation, then I would recommend that the city of Boston begin denying permits to Catholic Churches because the presence of those churches would stab the hearts of the hundreds if not thousands of children molested by priests there. Would you be ok with that?
(my Boston hypothetical is an example of the slippery slope you would go down if you allowed “religious discomfort” to be used for an end around of the First Amendment)
— Pete · Jul 23, 03:35 PM · #
Pete,
Could you please supply the “overt” quote from Palin and Gingrich stating that the municipality of New York should deny a zoning permit?
— Doug · Jul 23, 03:44 PM · #
I don’t take Newt seriously any more, Sarah’s was more of a heartfelt plea,
the Cordoba Mosque was built on the site of a Christian church, like the
Dome of the Rock, was on the footprint of the old temple. Sadly Jihad has been practically a part of Islam, specially in the Hambali schools, almost
from the outset, and in the hardier branches of Deobandism and Wahhabism
— ian cormac · Jul 23, 04:03 PM · #
Seriously, Doug? When the zoning permit was APPROVED by a 29-1 vote, suddenly out comes Gingrich and Palin demanding that the mosque not be built. So either they are requesting that the permit approval be rescinded (again, a Constitutional problem) or in fact inciting people at large to “do something about it” (not an appealing option either).
Right wing groups have been agitating against ANY mosques being contructed ANYWHERE in the US. Their rhetoric increasingly conflates Al-Queda extremism with ALL Muslims, rhetoric amplified when Newt referred to the NYC group as “Islamacists” without a shred of proof. Palin showed her contempt for the First Amendment with her conscending call for “peaceful Muslims” to kindly forgoe their First Amendment Freedom of Religion in the name of making bigots less fearful.
I don’t understand the eagerness of the Right Wing to declare open war on the totality of Islam as opposed to just a very small band of extremists. Leaving aside the fact that killing a billion and a half people really isn’t feasible, this “war of civilizations” crap is EXACTLY the kind of thing Bin Laden wants the West to do. Good thing fearful Right Wingers have gleefully walked right into his trap with idiocy like Gingrich and Palin’s recent statements.
— Pete · Jul 23, 04:21 PM · #
There’s some serious crazy going on in this comment thread.
How about we ban all houses of worship from the City of New York? That would solve the problem.
— Travis Mason-Bushman · Jul 23, 04:24 PM · #
Ah, so there is no quote. You didn’t mean “overtly,” you meant “this is what I think they meant based on how I feel about them.” And then you went on to write an argument based on nothing actual people said or did, but based on thoughts and deeds you imputed. You then concluded that those people are fearful idiots. I guess that was helpful. Thanks.
— Doug · Jul 23, 04:50 PM · #
One more time from Thomas Sowell: “The question is not what particular policy or social system is best but rather what is implicitly assumed in advocating one policy or social system over another. (Conflict of Visions)
— Doug · Jul 23, 04:54 PM · #
It all depends on whether you think this was an innocent site choice or an intentional one, in line with Islam’s long tradition of triumphalism. If it was an innocent choice then why not voluntarily acknowledge the sensitivities of the victims of 9/11 and move it somewhere else? Why INSIST that it go here? You have to be pretty naive to believe their rationale.
— J Willock · Jul 23, 05:01 PM · #
J Willock,
Well put.
— Doug · Jul 23, 05:09 PM · #
Doug, are you really trying to argue that when Gingrich and Palin demanded that the mosque not be built two blocks away from the WTC site (with no view of the site from there) after the zoning people approved the permit, that they somehow weren’t pressuring the NYC government to revoke the permit? Intelligent adults understand just what kind of ugly sentiment that Palin and Gingrich were pandering to. Intelligent adults understand that Palin and Gingrich don’t exactly believe in Freedom of Religion when it comes to Muslims.
J Willick – Care to point out the part of the First Amendment that says “you have freedom of religion, unless your religion makes people uncomfortable”. Does this mean that adults in Boston who were molested as children by Catholic priests there can demand the churches be shuttered, and using your “sensitivities” metric applied to the NYC mosque, that the Catholics should acquiesce.
We either have freedom of religion for ALL in this country or we don’t. Palin and Gingrich by their actions
— Pete · Jul 23, 05:38 PM · #
Should New York tear down the mosque that’s located four blocks from the WTC site? Does the Masjid Manhattan stab at the heart of Sarah Palin? Is it really soooooooo suspicious that after 9 YEARS an Islamic organization might want to build a community center open to everyone in the neighborhood, that happens to be near Ground Zero? Do any of you out there truly believe that we can legally stop this center from being built, or are you all simply guided by your emotions? If the latter, then will you all please butt out and let New Yorkers make their own zoning decisions?
J Willock, do you realize that the Imam at the head of this organization has been practicing Islam in lower Manhattan for almost 30 years? He’s also a professor at St. Josephs? Should we kick him out of his neighborhood and protest his employment because of the actions of a handful of psychos?
— ecmic · Jul 23, 05:56 PM · #
I am so impressed with all the anthropologists and cultural scholars who understand and teach the “true” mind of Islam. Before I read this page, I was unfamiliar with the scheming, two-faced, universal, triumphalist nature of all muslims.
But now that I have, I realize that allowing a community center in Manhattan will be the end of liberty in America. Only by suppressing their religious expression can the freedom of religious expression can be preserved.
I thank you, American Scene, for providing a forum for these fine and deeply learned men.
— Scrooge McDuck · Jul 23, 07:54 PM · #
Man, conservatives sure are scared of Muslims!
Has Sarah Palin ever even been to ground zero?
Also, this thread is shameful.
— Greg · Jul 23, 10:39 PM · #
The last time I checked, Most Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11. Gringrich and company are only adding credence to the idea that the US is at war with Islam. Thus, they are only helping Islamic extremists.
07/23/10
— George Arndt · Jul 23, 11:40 PM · #
“htownmark,
Who in Congress has proposed a law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof with regard to the Cordoba mosque? Period, as you say.”
The Est/Free Exercise clause has been incorporated under the DP clause of the 14th, and hence, applies to the states also.
— Chris · Jul 23, 11:57 PM · #
Hey, I’ve got an idea: ask New Yorkers what they think instead of asshat Fox New pundits. Chowderheads like Newt & Palin couldn’t get elected dogcatcher in NY, but they use 9/11 to justify the most outlandish BS.
— Derek Scruggs · Jul 24, 12:48 AM · #
“Hey, I’ve got an idea: ask New Yorkers what they think . . . .”
Umm, the one thing New Yorkers are not is libertarian. I’m not sure the Noah Millmans of the world would like the way that one would turn out.
— y81 · Jul 24, 03:05 AM · #
Islamic Triumphalism and the Practice of Building Mosques on top of Other Shrines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayodhya_Debate
Carol: How a Mosque at Ground Zero is Viewed in the Arab-Muslim World – By Dr. Steven Carol
Arab-Muslim conquerors have a penchant for destroying other people’s religious shrines and many times building their own on the ruins. It was, and remains, Islam’s way of saying, ‘We have defeated you, we rule you, and our god–Allah– is greater than your god.’ As I have pointed out, with numerous examples, in my book: Middle East Rules of Thumb: Understanding the Complexities of the Middle East, this has been a long established historic practice. Islam’s holiest shrine–the Kaaba, a cube-like building in Mecca–is an older pre-Islamic pagan Arab shrine. According to Islamic tradition the first building was constructed by Adam and rebuilt by Abraham (Ibrahim). The Black Stone, possibly a meteorite fragment, is a significant feature of the Kaaba. The Masjid al-Haram mosque was built around the Kaaba. The Ibrahimi Mosque was constructed in Hebron, in 637 CE, over the second-most venerated Jewish holy site, the Cave of Machpelah–the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Dome of the Rock was built on the ruins of Judaism’s holiest site, the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem, by the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik, 687-691 CE. Al-Walid, son of al-Malik, erected the Al-Aqsa Mosque at the southern end of the Temple Mount and also over the Basilica of St. Mary of Justinian, in 712 CE. By no means is this practice limited to venerated Jewish holy sites. The Grand Mosque of Damascus was put up over the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in 715 CE. On October 18, 1009, the Muslim Fatimid caliph Abu ‘Ali Mansur Tariqu’l-Hakim destroyed, down to the bedrock, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, a Christian church venerated by most Christians as Golgotha, the Hill of Calvary, where tradition says that Jesus was crucified. Gravestones were also destroyed. Muslim forces tried to dig up all the graves and wipe out all traces of their existence. The site is now within the walled, Old City of Jerusalem. This practice continued through the centuries and was applied not only to Jewish, Christian and Hindu sites but other faiths as well. Late in the 20th century, in Libya, on November 26, 1970, the Catholic Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Tripoli was converted into the Gamal Abdel Nasser Mosque. Two 1,400 year-old statues of Buddha in the Bamiyan Valley of Afghanistan were blown up in March 2001. This came after a fatwa (a religious edict), ordered by the Taliban directed all Afghan “idols” be destroyed as being anti-Muslim. In the Central Asian republics no Buddhist temples remain. While not a religious site, the World Trade Center stood as a symbol of Western commerce, industry and civilization. Then came the horrors of the destruction of those twin towers on September 11, 2001. No doubt many prayers were said there both during and after the calamitous collapse. In May 2010, it was announced that near the ruins of buildings reduced to rubble in the name of Islam, an Islamic mosque would rise. This fits the historic pattern of Muslim construction near or atop the ruins of their enemies’ symbolic buildings as a mark of Islamic supremacy. The land for the mosque has been bought for $4.85 million in unaccounted for cash. The estimated cost of the new building that will house the mosque is $100 million. It is to be funded by donations. Just who specifically, would be making these donations is one unanswered question? Once built, 1,000 to 2,000 Muslims are expected to pray at the mosque every Friday. The target date for the opening of this mosque is September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of the attack on New York and Washington, D.C. Furthermore, a second mosque seeks to build near ground zero. The Masjid Mosque has raised $8.5 million and is seeking an additional $2.5 million to begin construction. While it apparently has not settled on a final location, it has told donors it plans to build very close to where the World Trade Center once stood. In fact, the Masjid Mosque website states: “Insha’Allah we will raise the flag of La-Illaha-Illa-Allah in downtown Manhattan very soon!” The World Trade Center was destroyed in the name of Islam. The perpetrators stated the people that were murdered were not innocent, which is blatantly false. The planned mosque will be just 600 feet from ground zero, at the site of the greatest Islamofascist achievement over infidels in hundreds of years. Thus, three questions can be raised. Are these mosques to honor the perpetrators of 9-11 rather than its victims? Is the mosque to indicate Islam’s triumph and supremacy? Finally, how will the establishment of these mosques be viewed in the Arab-Muslim world? [emphasis added]— wakawakawoo · Jul 24, 05:02 AM · #
It seems a bit odd to me to claim that the fact that (many) Muslims consider themselves to be members of an Islamic “umma” – which means “community” or “people” – proves they are not “really Americans.” We are all members of many communities – some of them local or regional, some of them national or even international. They all shape our identities and inform our values to a greater or lesser degree. Catholics are part of the Catholic umma. They, ultimately, suborn their values to the Holy See in Rome. For hundreds of years in this country, we treated Catholics with the same suspicion many of you are treating Islam now – but most non-KKK members would think it foolish to worry about “Popery.” I am also a member of many communities – my city, my state, my gender, my profession, my class, my ethnicity, my political views, my country, my religion (or lack thereof) – and ALL of them are part of my identity. Identity is multifaceted, not singular.
So I would suggest that you not tell Muslim Americans who they can and cannot be. Americans don’t take too kindly to people who try to dictate the terms of their life to them.
— Aaron · Jul 24, 01:09 PM · #
Given most of the discussion, I imagine most folks here are just torn apart by this .
— Doug · Jul 24, 06:55 PM · #
The Masjid Manhattan has been located four blocks from the WTC for 40 years. A few years ago they were evicted from their building, and have been looking within the community for another site. They have “told their donors” they’d build close to the WTC site in as much as they’ve been a part of that community for almost half a century. Should a part of the downtown community pick up and leave it’s neighborhood because it makes people like wakawakawoo uncomfortable?
— ecmic · Jul 24, 08:42 PM · #
“…while Gingrich is using the American imperial rhetoric that implies we should impose our values on the world….”
Evidence for this accusation, please?
— The Reticulator · Jul 25, 03:32 AM · #
If there is a mosque within ten miles of the WTC, it should be dynamited and plowed into the ground.
No new mosques should be allowed anywhere close to the WTC.
Any Muslim demanding a mosque be built next to the WTC should be beaten to a pulp.
This is the only way to treat Muslims.
One proviso: I will change my opinion when there is a Roman Catholic Cathedral anywhere in Saudi Arabia. Anywhere.
— Patrick Carroll · Jul 25, 07:04 AM · #
“Evidence for this accusation, please?”
There is no evidence of this I suppose. There IS evidence that Gingrich wants to impose Saudi Arabian law within America. Which seems a bit worse.
— ecmic · Jul 25, 04:28 PM · #
One further proviso: I will end my opposition to the 19th amendment when a woman is allowed to vote anywhere in Saudi Arabia. I mean it. Anywhere!
— Patrick Carroll · Jul 25, 04:50 PM · #
Ecmic,
So let me get this straight, you think it’s right for the police to swarm Christians in Dearborn for handing out a pamplet, but you think folks holding the opinion that a mosque shouldn’t be built near the WTC site are bigoted and wrong?
— Doug · Jul 25, 10:20 PM · #
Praise Jesus Henry Ford didn’t live to see this day. Keep up the sharp analysis, Doug. You’re giving the y81’s of the world a run for their money!
Free the Pamphlet 3!
Free the Pamphlet 3!
Free the Pamphlet 3!
— Dearborn Don't Face East · Jul 26, 03:02 AM · #
“There is no evidence of this I suppose. There IS evidence that Gingrich wants to impose Saudi Arabian law within America. Which seems a bit worse.”
Yes, I suppose that is worse. However, in Newt’s defense I’ll point out that it at least is not going as far in that direction as those who are trying to impose ObamaCare on the U.S.
— The Reticulator · Jul 26, 03:05 AM · #
Doug, where did I say I thought it was right to “swarm Christians”? I think Christians should be allowed to hand out pamphlets where ever they want. And I think Muslims should be able to build mosques where they want. Am I being intellectually inconsistant, or could it possibly be others here who have the double standard?
— ecmic · Jul 26, 06:29 AM · #
Here’s something interesting. Earlier, Doug said,
“The site was selected precisely because it’s where Muslims took down the WTC in the name of Islam. I don’t think anyone could think up a location that would serve as a greater provocation, and it’s hardly a stretch to say that’s the whole point. So with that in mind what does that say about the folks trying to provoke?”
Doug, what exactly was the motive of the Christians in Dearborn handing out pamphlets at a Muslim festival? Am I taking too much liberty by assuming they were engaged in an act of provocation?
Listen, I have nothing against provocation. It’s the right to say and do things that might make other people uncomfortable that makes this country such a great place. I say let Muslims build mosques downtown (it’s not like there arent’ any there already anyway) and let Christians hand out pamphlets where ever they want.
I have no double standard. Why do you?
— ecmic · Jul 26, 06:43 AM · #
1 million Roman Catholics in Saudi Arabia? Unless they’re guest workers, that seems surprising. Let me google for a minute.
Year, it looks like you’re quoting this wikipedia page, except that you left out that the migrant workers aren’t allowed to practice their religion openly and have to do it in secret. (You’re correct, though, that the Saudis are apparently permitting the construction of a church in a different country).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Saudi_Arabia
— J Mann · Jul 26, 01:40 PM · #
Home medical equipment is a category of devices which is used for patients whose care is being managed from a home or other private facility managed by a nonprofessional caregiver or family member.
— medical equipment suppliers · Jul 27, 07:13 AM · #