NEW YORK, N.Y. – Even after Manhattan’s Landmarks Preservation Committee denied historical status last week to the Ground Zero building proposed to become a mosque, the debate over the Islamic center’s right to exist has not withered. The issue actually had potential to simplify after Mayor Bloomberg showed unwavering support for the mosque, saying anyone who disagrees with him should be ashamed of themselves.
But even after the mayor’s castigation of mosque opponents, the critics and supporters of the controversial Islamic cultural center have continued to opine. Governor Paterson has also chimed in now, telling New Yorkers he understands their qualms with the project, and that he would be willing to provide state aid should the mosque choose to move to a different location.
One thing is for sure: the mosque will be built. But arguments presented thus far have bounced from one extreme to the next, and few analysts have confined themselves to moderation. The proponents are weak and overly defensive, while the critics are self-destructive.
What the naysayers don’t seem to understand is that the only terms upon which Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s mosque project will be halted is if he is proven to have dangerous connections to radical Islamic groups. Any other protest will appear as a claim that the religion of Islam is inherently a reprehensible and dangerous ideology. When Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich says the mosque is a slap in the face they are following a dangerous logic. It concludes: the mosque is bad because it’s next to a place where people from a mosque did bad things. Imagine a group is split into two sects: dangerous and peaceful. If a congregation from the ‘peaceful’ division were to set up shop next to a crime scene committed by the ‘dangerous’ division, there would be no problem. If a group from the ‘dangerous’ division did the same, there would be trouble. So when the mosque is protested because it is an institution of the Islamic faith – without any radical ties – that distinguishing line is removed and the faith as a whole is impugned.
Nobody, especially the Mayor of New York, will ever reject the mosque on the grounds of limiting religious freedom. If, however, the critics exercised more tact in their protest they might have more success preventing the building. In their fervor they overlook what is their only reasonable point: that the Imam in charge of the operation, Rauf, is egregiously pushing what he knows to be a very controversial agenda that can only work positively for him. While he professes to be a teacher of peace, his statements on Hamas and the degree of radicalism of the 9/11 terrorists are dubious at best.
And in profiling Rauf and his deliberate instigation, the commentary from mosque supporters is simplistic and naive. Richard Cohen’s mostly accurate assessment of Gringich’s remarks collapses when he says “[n]ineteen so-called ‘jihadists’ crashed four airplanes that day.” Newt’s failure to distinguish the radicals as an abnormality is matched by Richard’s inability to recognize any connection between Islam and the 9/11 terrorists.
In typical fashion, Cohen and the leftists can’t bring themselves to use the term ‘Islamic extremism’ for fear of political incorrectness, and the Palin populists follow the one-way road of thinking that again drives them right into a wreck. The argument has proven to be unproductive, and it epitomizes the increasingly narrow minds on each side of the political spectrum.
The mosque plan will undoubtedly succeed in all legal procedures – and it should – but the fact that Bloomberg did not have the spine to even encourage Rauf to consider a different location is disconcerting. Governor Paterson, although offering a possibly impractical solution, has been one of the few to take the proper approach: to preserve our inalienable right to freedom of religion while retaining our backbone as Americans who don’t forget our fallen.
Oliver’s article is well-written and seems to be balanced, however, I can think of one major point that has been omitted. The apostle Paul, as a proponent of religious freedom, said to the Corinthians “that all things are permissible but not all things are helpful.” Having not yet read Gingrich or Cohen’s pro/con Mosque arguments but being fairly familar with both, I would only add that just because our Constitution allows freedom of religion and religious assembly that those practicing the free excise thereof should not refrain from using good taste or good judgment.
During the Crusades, and in subsequent historical contexts, the building of Mosques symbolized a military victory of Islam over Christendom, and vice-versa.(i.e. the cross on the Dome of Rock was replaced with the Golden Crescent after Saladin conquered Jerusalem) In light of the fact, that the ‘jihadists’ themselves have declared war on America, and for that matter the West, it would seem to me that building a Mosque near the sight of where 3000 innocents died at the hands of Islamic terrorism is not helpful and sniffs of Islamic triumphalism. If Islam is a peaceful religion and truly seeks to build bridges then Imam Rauf should offer a location “more helpful” to those still grieving 9/11. I might offer as a possible analogy-What if the United States, after the bombing of Hiroshima sought to build a Christian church complete with an American flag flying in the courtyard? After our victory over Japanese militarism we would have every right but would it be tasteful, or helpful. Of course not.
Rauf is a Hamas backer and refuses to condemn Islamic terrorism, referring to it as “complicated.” He is not a moderate, nor does he have good intentions (not that you necessarily said those things).
Either way, it is very clear that he is doing this to rub 9/11 into the faces of the American people. Radical Muslims always build mosques where they conquer (Gaza, Istanbul, etc.) and this is not an exception. They think that they have indirectly conquered America and are close to fully doing so. Therefore, they are building a mosque at the main conquer point.
Who owns the land at the WTC? Port authority?
You both bring up good points, and a similar point that was made in other editorials, including Pat Buchanan’s, which had what I believe to be one of the most sound arguments against the mosque. This of course, is that one has to exercise respectful judgment even if something is legally acceptable – i.e, building the mosque in a sensitive location. I agree entirely – as I said, “Rauf, is egregiously pushing what he knows to be a very controversial agenda that can only work positively for him…his deliberate instigation.”
My article isn’t about whether or not the mosque is a good idea. I wanted to illustrate where the left has failed in identifying a threat and where the right’s overzealousness is taking them backwards. Bloomberg should not have exhibited the knee-jerk reaction of ‘build the mosque or go to hell’ and instead encouraged Rauf to choose a different location, recognizing the concerns of New Yorkers. Among those concerns is the one you both brought up. However, the fact remains that the allegation only applies when a violent, radical sect of Islam ‘conquers’ a location (which they did). Saying Rauf can’t build his mosque is including him in that radical, violent Islamic sect, and if he doesn’t have provable ties then the assumption is all Muslims are violent.
Muslims erecting mosques at conquer points is a historical pattern, certainly. For that reason, among others, Rauf should, if he truly were a peace-seeking Muslim, take his house of worship somewhere else. Unfortunately the legal system won’t stop him. Unfortunately Bloomberg won’t dissuade him, and unfortunately pundits are too narrow-minded to put proper pressure on him.
Peter, I of course can’t be sure about his intentions. Of course, as I said, his commitment to peace is ‘dubious at best.’
Dennis, the site is owned by SoHo Properties.