Friday, March 29, AD 2024 10:48am

Just Build the Damn Thing

Travelling in the second half of last week, I had occasion to realize how pervasive the TV news coverage of the “ground zero mosque” has become — perhaps in part because it is doubtless a dream situation for TV news producers: All you have to do is draw 3-4 people into the studio and have them debate the question for twenty minutes, throw in a couple of commercial breaks, and voila! you have another 1/48th of the twenty-four-hour news cycle. I was reminded again of how glad I am to have cancelled the cable TV subscription and never put up an antenna.

As I think about it, this seems to me a made-for-TV controversy in more ways than one. For all the talk about this being the “ground zero mosque”, the location two blocks away will not be visible from the WTC monument itself, and is currently occupied by sacred precincts such as the offices of the University of Pheonix, Marty’s Shoes and the Dakota Roadhouse. This is New York, for goodness sake. A thirteen story building isn’t exactly going to stick out. And the visible symbols of religion closes to Ground Zero will remain St. Peter’s Catholic Church, St. Paul’s Episcopal, and John Street United Methodist. (If anything, it’s a little disappointing the plans for the mosque look rather like a vertical shoebox with abstract patters on it — no minarets here.)

Aside from the necessity of selling news, this project would be a mildly notable local event, leading to a mildly distinctive-looking building that people would rush by every day without thinking about it very much in that teeming mass of diverse humanity which is New York. The most “bridge building” likely to go on would be people stopping in at the halal food court for lunch.

But the media must earn a crust and find a way to fill the time, and so it’s time that we have one of these tiresome “national conversations” — this time about religious freedom and forgiveness and building bridges and the nature of Islam. Perhaps I’ve turned grumpy or obtuse, but I think it’s rather a tremendous waste of time. The idea that much of anything would be out of place in New York seems rather hard to credit. And once all the fuss has died down, and it’s become clear that there’s really not much of anything that can be done about how the owners want to develop this particular piece of real estate, then the thing will be built and people will walk by it every day, and it will be just as forgotten as all the other national conversations we’ve felt the unaccountable need to have over the last few years.

And if I may stray further into heresy against conservative orthodoxies: I think we need to get over our 9-11 exceptionalism a little bit here too. Given our place and preeminence in the world, the question pre 2001 was not so much whether the US would suffer a major terrorist attack, but when. Chances were good we’d eventually be attacked for foreign terrorists. Chances were good those terrorist would be of an Islamic background. And compared to the Tom Clancy type visions people had been reading for years, the real thing was actually a lot less destructive than it could have been. Goodness knows I’m all for sober recollection of the dead, but this is teeming, bustling New York. Build a monument where the WTC stood, and then just get on with live elsewhere. This isn’t some half-abandoned Mainstreet USA where we need to sit around agonizing with the city fathers about every building that’s renovated or put up.

Perhaps I read too much Heinlein at a formative age, but I’d tend to picture the US as the sort of dominant power which says to the world: “You’re welcome to come here and enjoy our liberties so long as you behave yourselves and follow our laws. If not, we’ll level your cities and depose your leaders. Once we’re done, we’ll rebuild your cities better than before, give you a better government, and leave you the hell alone unless you make the mistake of attacking us again in which case God help you.”

Let them build.

UPDATE:
Since I’ve been using the Google street view feature a lot lately to look at real estate, it occured to me to give Ground Zero the same treatment as regards the mosque. Here’s the view across Ground Zero towards where the Islamic Center would be — out of sight behind that other building.

And here’s the street view of Park Place, where the center would stand on your right.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
113 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 12:37pm

I don’t think “conservative orthodoxy” had a thing to do with JP II’s decision to put an end to the convent at Auschwitz.

I’ve tried to make the point that this isn’t about politics, or shouldn’t be at any rate. It is about people who claim they want to be friends behaving in a most unfriendly manner. It’s a contradiction in their entire argument, and it suggests that they either do not know the meaning of friendship, or that it was never really the goal to begin with.

And if friendship wasn’t the goal, what is? Was one more mosque needed that badly? Or shall we resort, once again, to the lazy, unthinking claims of power and rights: I do this because I can.

That’s why for all of the claims of “irrationality” here, it is those behind this project who cannot rationally justify it. I believe people act purposively, though. So if friendship is ruled out, and arbitrariness is not to be taken seriously, what is the goal? What is the reason?

It matters if we really are going to try and understand one another, all questions of legal rights aside.

Art Deco
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 12:59pm

You’re welcome to come here and enjoy our liberties so long as you behave yourselves and follow our laws. If not, we’ll level your cities and depose your leaders. Once we’re done, we’ll rebuild your cities better than before, give you a better government, and leave you the hell alone unless you make the mistake of attacking us again in which case God help you

Immigrant populations behave badly, so we attack their countries of origin?

University of Pheonix, Marty’s Shoes and the Dakota Roadhouse.

Among other things, Mohammed Atta is not known to have been motivated by a zeal for selling commercial educational services, shoes, or steak.

and it’s become clear that there’s really not much of anything that can be done about how the owners want to develop this particular piece of real estate,

Tell that to Larry Silverstein.

John Henry
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 1:05pm

“You’re welcome to come here and enjoy our liberties so long as you behave yourselves and follow our laws. If not, we’ll level your cities and depose your leaders. Once we’re done, we’ll rebuild your cities better than before, give you a better government, and leave you the hell alone unless you make the mistake of attacking us again in which case God help you.”

Not sure I subscribe to this rather aggressive approach to foreign policy (and it doesn’t seem to be working out well in Afghanistan), but otherwise I thought the post was spot on. I tried to make the media-generated controversy point last week.

DarwinCatholic
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 1:21pm

Joe,

While I can acknowledge that John Paul II did the culturally sensitive thing in asking the Auschwitz nuns to move, I don’t think it was particularly admirable of the Jewish community to demand that they do so. Similarly, I would like to see the American community not make a fuss about this.

Art,

I’m not clear that Mohammad Atta was motivated by a zeal for building community centers either.

My point was, this is hardly memorial row. It’s just ordinary businesses on a street a few blocks away from where the WTC stood. I don’t think there’s any call to consider this “sacred ground”.

Paul Zummo
Admin
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 1:50pm

I’m not clear that Mohammad Atta was motivated by a zeal for building community centers either.

I can’t believe the levels of obtuseness being displayed here. As has been pointed out repeatedly, first of all, this is not some random point two blocks away. This happens to be located on a street in which a building was destroyed because it got hit with one of the airplane’s landing gear. I really wish supporters of this thing would retire the “two blocks away” talking point.

Anyway, as to Art’s point, what he is saying is that none of the other businesses you mentioned were in any way remotely tied to the attacks on 9/11. I don’t think there’s a University of Phoenix terror cell that was linked to blowing up the World Trade Center.

And yes, we can’t link all Muslims to terrorism, blah blah blah. But we can actually link the particular Muslims associated with this structure to a brand of Islam that is certainly no more moderate than I am left-of-center. These are not individuals who have actually shown a real interest in “building bridges,” but rather seem not too eager to completely disassociate themselves from the radical jihadi movement.

Long story short, it’s quite silly to say that building a mosque (or community center) on this spot is no worse than building a shoe store. It betrays a level of dispassionate libertarianism that, is quite frankly a little disturbing.

Blackadder
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 1:58pm

I’ve tried to make the point that this isn’t about politics, or shouldn’t be at any rate. It is about people who claim they want to be friends behaving in a most unfriendly manner.

Joe, you seem to be really concerned about whether the Cordoba people are acting in a friendly manner. You don’t seem to care at all about the fact that lots of the mosque protesters have been acting in an unfriendly manner. Why is that?

Blackadder
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:04pm

Among other things, Mohammed Atta is not known to have been motivated by a zeal for selling commercial educational services, shoes, or steak.

Atta was motivated by a desire to do the will of God. I suppose one might therefore be offended by the existence of St. Peter’s so close by. Of course, that would be silly, because while both the hijackers and the parishioners at St. Pete’s believe in God, they have very different ideas of what God is about and what he desires of us. But then the Cordoba people also have a fundamentally different understanding of God’s will than the hijackers. It’s just that most Americans don’t know much about Islam, and can lump all Muslims together in a way that they would never do with all Christians or all theists.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:07pm

Paul,

I concur with that last remark. Not only is it dispassionate, it appears to be downright cynical.

Darwin,

Why is it so hard to just accept that people have certain boundaries that are formed by too many variables to even possibly account for, and simply respect them?

BA,

I couldn’t care less about how the Cordoba people act. I’m simply pointing out that THEY claim that THEY want friendship, and are acting in a manner most inconsistent with that goal.

I think that Americans who take 9/11 seriously – as the offended party – aren’t being unfriendly or uncharitable at all when they say that this building at this location should not exist. They’re simply making their boundaries known. Many of them (I include myself) would be more than willing to actually be friends should this simple and harmless request, which causes no injustice to anyone (legal rights aside), respected.

Your entire argument, BA, is based upon a perpetual conflation of those who categorically despise Islam and those who are merely opposed to this particular project.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:08pm

“It’s just that most Americans don’t know much about Islam, and can lump all Muslims together in a way that they would never do with all Christians or all theists.”

You did it again. It’s all you have, really. And lefties like Sam Rocha will appreciate you for it, but the rest of us see through the layers of obfuscation you have attempted to drape over this issue.

Art Deco
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:28pm

But then the Cordoba people also have a fundamentally different understanding of God’s will than the hijackers.

This fellow Rauf arguably has a fundamentally different understanding. What about who’s behind him? (And, again, his understanding of the political pathologies of the Arab world is fundamentally similar to characters rather familiar to us all, whose sentiments I do not want on public monuments).

You don’t seem to care at all about the fact that lots of the mosque protesters have been acting in an unfriendly manner. Why is that?

Because I do not regard their objection as an act of cultural aggression. It would be agreeable if everyone protesting was well-mannered and articulate. Friendliness has its time and place. So does asperity.

I’m not clear that Mohammad Atta was motivated by a zeal for building community centers either.

Clever.

Blackadder
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:41pm

Joe,

I don’t think that all opponents of the mosque despise Islam. On the other hand, it’s hard for me to see how someone could oppose the project unless he was lumping all Muslims together to some extent. People wouldn’t object to the building of a Jewish community center.

Deb
Deb
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:45pm

Oh my gosh, reading the comments in reply to this post, and then watching how supporters or should I say the “tolerant” seem to create a tic and tie issue out of what they want us all to believe is “no big deal”, no different then “just let them build the damn thing” attitude. It doesn’t really matter whether “you” or anyone else who supports this think we who see this as a smack in the face of our faith, rights , and safety should just “let them build the damn thing” in context as though it’s not a big deal. Truth be told Americans, too many of , have given in to tolerance way too much. In that I mean this definition of tolerant, medicine no longer responding to a drug that has been taken over a prolonged period, or suffering no ill effects from exposure to a harmful substance this kind of tolerance is why we are , in my opinion more exposed and in danger of terrorism than ever before. And certainly more than our forefathers anticipated our country to be. This nation was not founded on multiple religions, and the freedom of religion act was intended to separate the state from religion. Our forefathers were simplistic, not idealistic in that they certaintly didn’t expect their descendents or future immigrants to pick a part and search for loop holes in our constitution, twisting the words to fit their own agenda. I’m sure had they known this would happen i’m sure they would have clarified to prevent the “ostentatious” attitude in too many americans we see today!

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:49pm

“it’s hard for me to see how someone could oppose the project unless he was lumping all Muslims together to some extent”

Well there are many reasons.

My primary reason is this: regardless of the intent of the builder, the construction of a mosque that close to the site of jihadist triumph is an additional jihadist triumph, and will be recognized as such the world over, especially by those who cheered in the streets on the day the towers went down.

It is easy to project the Western liberal mindset onto the rest of the world, moreover, but what the educated, enlightened set in the West is now seeing as a “useless distraction”, the Muslim fanatic sees as an important symbolic victory.

I would deny them that victory. I would establish a 1 mile radius around ground zero in which no specifically Islamic religious structure could go up, in fact. Outside of that, they may build wherever they like, however they like, with what resources and property they are able to legitimately acquire, like the rest of us.

Sometimes abstract rights conflict real-world considerations. I think my view balances them both. And I find it shameful that we have become so materialistic in our outlook that we see issues such as these as “symbolic distractions.” This is why Western civilization will be defeated and destroyed, with Islam leading the charge against it.

Foxfier
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:53pm

…does the name of the group that wants to build it mean anything to you?

If a group called “Japan beat the @#$# out of you, stupid round-eyes” wanted to build a community center at Pearl Harbor today, would that be cool? Even if none of them even had relatives involved in the bombing?

The culturally sensitive response to this ‘cultural center’ (which includes a mosque in the design) is too rude to write here!

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:54pm

Moreover, I tend to agree with Geert Wilders. He doesn’t lump all Muslims together – but he argues that the “good Muslims”, the so-called “moderates”, are in fact bad Muslims by the standards of the Koran.

From what I have read in the Koran regarding how Muslims are to interact with the non-Muslim world, I can’t say he is wrong. But I haven’t read the whole book, so I’m not going to say anything for certain.

There was an excellent interview in Inside Catholic recently about the intellectual divide that took place in Islam way back in the Middle Ages, and the prospect of “re-Hellenizing” Islam, of bringing back to it the sort of synthesis of classical philosophy and theology that was achieved in the Catholic Church through the scholastics.

THAT, more than the construction of some mosque, will do more to bring Islam into the modern world. We should support any and all Muslims who are part of this “re-Hellenization”. I’m all for that.

Big Tex
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 2:59pm

And just how many people are familiar with the “two blocks” meme… with respect to falling landing gear and proximity to WTC? I’d venture to say not many. And in that light, I’d also venture to say that many people would say “Really!? This was has people’s panties in a wad both on the right and left? Really!?” Seems to me that “Ground Zero” is a bit of a misnomer to say the least. In the end, this strikes me as much ado about nothing.

Art Deco
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:01pm

On the other hand, it’s hard for me to see how someone could oppose the project unless he was lumping all Muslims together to some extent.

There is genus and then there is species.

People wouldn’t object to the building of a Jewish community center.

Gong.

Foxfier
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:11pm

I found the mental image that some of the folks who jumped fell further than this cultural center with a mosque will be from the footprint of the towers to be a useful visualization.

That the site they want to build on is clear because it was nearly destroyed by debris on 9/11 would also classify it, in my mind, as part of “ground zero”– even if it is not the footprints of the twin towers, since it is a primary damage rather than a secondary (smoke, dust, etc) damage.

That an already existing Christian church was denied the ability to either rebuild or re-locate makes it even more offensive that folks would depend on the willful cultural ignorance– perhaps we can call it taking advantage of our polite tendency to not point out the rude actions of others?– of folks.

Michael Denton
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:22pm

I would establish a 1 mile radius around ground zero in which no specifically Islamic religious structure could go up, in fact.

And you would violate the First Amendment in doing so. Considering how much Catholics will desperately need the strength of the First Amendment to be upheld as forces try to impose change upon Catholicism to fit the values of modern secularism, I think Catholics ought to be eager to defend the right of the Muslims to worship their God in the way they choose.

Although I wish they would follow the JPII example, the First Amendment has no provision limiting its application to only the prudent, considerate, and charitable exercises of religion.

Art Deco
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:26pm

And you would violate the First Amendment in doing so.

Thanks for the advisory. Since the 1st Amendment, in the hands of our appellate judiciary,holds that the tender sensibilities of the village atheist must not be injured by prayers at football games, you are going to have to excuse me if I tend to suspect that provision, and several others, have degenerated into excuses for a faction of the bar to impose the social policy it prefers. We are not protected by that 1st Amendment.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:36pm

Michael,

“And you would violate the First Amendment in doing so.”

Though I’m sure the courts would see it that way, in the end, I certainly don’t. I don’t think establishing a zone in which a certain kind of religious building cannot go up is tantamount to denying freedom of religion if they can do anything they like outside that zone.

I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about it. I think it’s unreasonable to insist that anyone has a right to build whatever they want, wherever they want, regardless of all other human and social considerations. To me, that’s a sort of fanaticism detached from reality.

We’ve already seen the FA abused by pornographers and perverts of every stripe. Invoking it to prevent a prudential consideration such as the one I have brought up is, I think, another abuse. Not even the founders believed that these rights were absolute and unconditional, applying to all possible modes and methods of expression in all times and all places.

” I think Catholics ought to be eager to defend the right of the Muslims to worship their God in the way they choose.”

Like the others, you totally muddle this issue. The “way” they worship is not in question; it is where they propose to construct a building that will offend the sensibilities of millions and serve as a symbolic victory for the jihad that is in question.

I’d like to say, though, that I’m sure glad that here in Catholic Fascist land, we can have such a hearty and vigorous disagreement. Our fascist taskmasters must be losing their grip to allow such dis-uniformity of opinion!

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:40pm

“I tend to suspect that provision, and several others, have degenerated into excuses for a faction of the bar to impose the social policy it prefers.”

Considering United States Supreme Court jurisprudence in regard to abortion clinics and buffer zones, Art, you are absolutely correct. Here is Scalia’s comment in dissent in Hill v. Colorado:

“What is before us, after all, is a speech regulation directed against the opponents of abortion, and it therefore enjoys the benefit of the ‘ad hoc nullification machine’ that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law that stand in the way of that highly favored practice.”

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/topic.aspx?topic=buffer_zones

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1856.ZD.html

Tell me how chattering class elites line up on any issue, and I can predict with a high degree of accuracy how the federal courts will rule, Constitution be hanged.

John Henry
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:41pm

for whatever reasons, you refuse to consider the consequences of these actions.

No, I just disagree with you about the consequences. I don’t think the cultural center/mosque will cause much of a problem in NY; it’s a pretty crazy, busy place with all the varieties of humanity on display. A mosque is not going to change that, and, absent the borderline obsessive coverage of the news media, it would hardly attract notice at all. In six months, no one will care about this, least of all New Yorkers.

Blackadder
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:44pm

regardless of the intent of the builder, the construction of a mosque that close to the site of jihadist triumph is an additional jihadist triumph, and will be recognized as such the world over

I’m not sure that jihadists would view this as a triumph (sufis aren’t considered Muslims by Wahabis, but polytheists). In any event, not doing something because it might be viewed positively by jihadists is a fool’s game. It’s letting the jihadists control you.

I tend to agree with Geert Wilders. He doesn’t lump all Muslims together – but he argues that the “good Muslims”, the so-called “moderates”, are in fact bad Muslims by the standards of the Koran.

You know, I hear people say this sort of thing from time to time, but I’ve never been able to figure out why I should care. If I were a Muslim, then whether my beliefs met with the standards of the Koran would be important. But if Islam is not the true religion, then the claim reduces to saying that moderate Muslims are following one set of made up beliefs rather than another. So what?

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:44pm

Here’s a REAL example of denying religious freedom:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jihadwatch.org%2F2004%2F10%2Findonesia-brandishing-weapons-muslims-demand-catholic-church-and-school-shut-down.html&h=c4c53

No, there’s no equivalence. Most Americans are either fine with or indifferent to a mosque almost anywhere else. But it appears that many Muslims don’t want Catholic churches ANYWHERE in their societies.

Blackadder
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 3:47pm

I would establish a 1 mile radius around ground zero in which no specifically Islamic religious structure could go up, in fact.

Joe, less than 48 hours ago you were saying that no one denies the right of Cordoba to build near ground zero. Now you are denying that right.

Blackadder
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:01pm

Joe, less than 48 hours ago you were saying that no one denies the right of Cordoba to build near ground zero. Now you are denying that right.

Actually it’s worse than that. In a comment at 2:41 p.m. today, Joe says “I don’t dispute their right to build. I never did.” Eight minutes later, at 2:49 p.m., he says that he would “establish a 1 mile radius around ground zero in which no specifically Islamic religious structure could go up.”

At first I though he must only be speaking morally, not legally (i.e. Muslims have the legal right to build wherever, but morally it’s wrong to do so within 5,280 feet of the WTC). But no, in a follow up comment he elaborates: “I don’t think establishing a zone in which a certain kind of religious building cannot go up is tantamount to denying freedom of religion if they can do anything they like outside that zone . . . I think it’s unreasonable to insist that anyone has a right to build whatever they want, wherever they want, regardless of all other human and social considerations. To me, that’s a sort of fanaticism detached from reality.”

That’s a remarkable turn around.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:01pm

BA,

“I’m not sure that jihadists would view this as a triumph (sufis aren’t considered Muslims by Wahabis, but polytheists).”

I don’t think that distinction matters to a growing number of young Muslim fanatics who are themselves not too educated on the subtleties of their own religion’s varieties and history. Steyn documents this in “America Alone.” This sort of nebulous “Islam” is an identity filling a cultural vacuum among young Muslims in Western countries. And these particular Muslims are just as, if not more, prone to acts of terrorism and violence than Muslims living in a place like Saudi Arabia or Indonesia.

“In any event, not doing something because it might be viewed positively by jihadists is a fool’s game. It’s letting the jihadists control you.”

Well gee, you might as well say that defending yourself against a violent attack is letting the aggressor “control you” as well. Naturally anyone who initiates force is attempting to “control” another person. As always, the use of reason must be employed to discern whether or not to respond, and how to respond.

Yes, we must modify our behavior to meet the aggressive behavior of others. Such is the sad reality of the fallen world in which we live. But by doing so from time to time, we actually prevent our enemies from establishing an even GREATER degree of control over us.

Allowing the enemy an important symbolic and psychological victory boosts his morale and emboldens him to undertake more aggressive actions. Doing nothing, by contrast, is a sign of weakness. It is therefore better to prevent that victory than to allow it. Meanwhile no injustice is done to the Muslims who aren’t terrorists. They are free to build wherever else they choose, and most Americans won’t begrudge them that.

Why anyone would want to avoid this win-win situation is absolutely beyond me. Something to do with some unreasonable desire to cling to abstract ideas, I suppose.

“if Islam is not the true religion, then the claim reduces to saying that moderate Muslims are following one set of made up beliefs rather than another. So what?”

Well, it was just brought up in response to the notion that opponents of this mosque “lump all Muslims together.” I don’t, but if Islam is inherently a violent religion, and we oppose it on those grounds, then it “looks like” an attack on Muslims in general. When the reality is, of course, that we have no problem with the doctrinally “bad” Muslim, though I am sure it is an insult to those Muslims to suggest they aren’t consistent in their faith.

It seems unavoidable. The best thing we can do for Western Muslims, in the end, is convert them to Christianity. Because they’ll never get Sharia here without a war. And if they can’t have Sharia, I don’t see how they can remain “good Muslims.” So we should step up our conversion efforts.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:06pm

BA,

You’re right. I guess I did have a sort of rhetorical turn around there.

I’m not quite sure what to say about it or think about it at this point. The more I hash things out, the less sure I am of what the right position is.

I can only put it like this: I recognize their legal right to build it.

I don’t think they should use it.

And I don’t think there would be anything inherently wrong with them being denied that right by our courts.

But that won’t happen. Our courts will allow it. And so I’m not even proposing that we make an attempt to deny that right. It would be a pointless waste of time. In my perfect world, it wouldn’t be a problem.

So I really haven’t changed my position. I was engaging in a bit of fantasy myself, I suppose, but taking the REALITY of the situation into account, that’s not my position.

Foxfier
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:22pm

Joe-
FWIW, I took it as a statement of your understanding of what IS, vs what you would do.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:35pm

Thanks Fox 🙂

WJ
WJ
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:41pm

What’s the justification for allowing Muslim structures on the island of Manhattan at all, for that matter?

tim shipe
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:44pm

Joe struck upon something that has finally brought me out of the teeming family woodwork for a moment- my thoughts on this have been mostly centered upon how this whole episode has been a wasted opportunity to put the issue of reciprocity of religious freedom front and center in the international diplomatic arena.

Obama could have scored big If he had weighed in to say- “Look- we aren’t going to re-draft our religious liberties so as not to allow some few violent extremists in the Middle East some moment of misplaced celebration- we should allow the community center/mosque to proceed with the same mechanisms as would a Christian or Jewish community center/place of worship. BUT this is a moment where the world should take Big Time Notice- there is a major problem in Muslim-dominant nations with the legal and moral principle of respecting religious freedoms- to allow Christians, Jews, Muslims and others to follow their conscience to worship freely, to speak freely, to share their Holy Books and literature- this is something that the UN should take up with increased vigour…..” And so on.

I think if we had leaders take up this tack we would do much better than the two main approaches put forth as I have been reading and seeing. We need to be looking at even economic relationships as places where the principle of true religious freedom enters into Trade Pacts- lest we continue allowing the Money to trump the freedom concerns at the end of each business day- be it in Saudi Arabia or China. How can anyone take Americans seriously on something as huge as Reciprocity of Religious Freedoms if it makes no difference in the way we go about doing business- I don’t expect obama to take up this fight- the Left doesn’t really care much about the religious question- it is just a place of discomfort for them, and the Right certainly doesn’t like to bring in moral qualifiers into Trade/Economic policy discussions- so I’m not sure there are any white hats in the mainstream for me.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:46pm

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1476/europe-mosque-wars

We need to learn lessons from Europe.

DarwinCatholic
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:48pm

I’m a bit unclear as to why anyone would consider the building of a mosque/cultural center in New York to be a sign of “jihadist victory”, given that the 9/11 attacks killed far fewer people than intended at the WTC, only slightly damanged the Pentagon, completely failed in attacking the objective of Flight 93, and resulted in the US taking the Taliban out of power, largely dispursing Al Qaeda, and turning Iraq into a fairly functional liberal democracy.

Yes, a bad thing happened. We were attacked and Americans were killed in a cowardly and underhanded fashion. But we turned around and beat that tar out of those who had attacked us and generally strengthened our position in the world. How does the fact that we are so strong and so secure that it is no threat to us to allow a mosque to be built on our territory represent a victory for jihadists?

Nor am I sure that examples relating to the Islamicization of Europe are on point here — the US does not seem to even remotely have that problem, for various cultural and political reasons.

Come to that, if anyone wants to build a shrine to the cult of the emperor at Pearl Harbor, I’m fine with that too. That didn’t exactly work out too well for Imperial Japan in the end either…

WJ
WJ
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:49pm

I thought America was different from Europe (in a good way)–i.e. easier acculturation, a bill of rights, a republic founded on ideals, etc.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:53pm

Learning a lesson isn’t the same as emulating. I’d rather NOT emulate them in this regard, since their laxity has resulted in an increasingly dangerous situation.

WJ
WJ
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 4:56pm

But I thought the problem of Islam in Europe was related to their secularism–something that is not a problem here.

Foxfier
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 5:01pm

I’m a bit unclear as to why anyone would consider the building of a mosque/cultural center in New York to be a sign of “jihadist victory”,

Because, looking at the prior pattern, the Islamists–or Jihadites or whatever phrase we’re going to use for the violent ones– go in to an area, destroy a cultural, religious or easily identifiable land mark, and build on it.

As I linked earlier, the Cordoba Cathedral is a rare example of one of these structures that was later converted back– only rather than destroying it and building on the rubble, they just used it as a church.

The name of the “cultural center”– before it became Park51– was the “Cordoba House.”

Once conquered by Islam, always under Islam, is the belief– if we’re going to have a “dialog,” I’m going to listen to the other side.

Michael Denton
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 5:03pm

I will heartily agree that the First Amendment has unfortunately been used to uphold filth and not uphold genuine speech and religion. In fact, I intend to be writing a lot on that topic.

However, I reject the idea that just b/c others have trashed it that it it is useless. I think the First Amendment if interpreted properly can protect genuine religious expression. Catholics, knowing full well that the secularists hate us far more than Muslims, ought to be encouraging the idea of the First Amendment protecting religious expression that is deeply unpopular.

And yes, Muslims have often denied Christians their right to worship. But their injustice does not justify injustice on our side. I believe there is a saying involving cheeks which applies.

To that end, a 1 mile “no-Islam” zone is not tolerable.

The “way” they worship is not in question; it is where they propose to construct a building that will offend the sensibilities of millions and serve as a symbolic victory for the jihad that is in question.

Most sensibilities are offended nowadays by crosses marking tombstones and by the mere existence of large churches that look like churches, not to mention public prayer or other displays of religious expression. If you go down this road, you have no defense for those who wish to use similar arguments to further exclude Catholicism from the public square. Our rights, however trampled they may be, are extremely valuable in protection from those who wish to silence the Church. It is folly to throw them away in order to prevent this mosque.

I’d like to say, though, that I’m sure glad that here in Catholic Fascist land, we can have such a hearty and vigorous disagreement. Our fascist taskmasters must be losing their grip to allow such dis-uniformity of opinion!

Not if we’re only pretending to heartily disagree, in order to confuse the liberals into thinking we’re open-minded, and thereby ensnare them into the recognition of the American state as the City of God.

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Foxfier
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 5:13pm

But we haven’t been conquered by Islam. Indeed, be pretty much obliterated all of the visible groups that were involved in the 9/11 attacks — aside from a few guys hiding in caves so remote that it’s difficult to get at them.

And the mosque would only be built there because the land was purchased and built on just like any other organization could. By our laws, under our system.

I’m just not seeing any kind of victory here.

I mean, when the Turks conquered Constantanople they took over Hagia Sophia and renovated it as a mosque. (It’s now a secular museum, because of Ataturk’s secularizing regime in the 20th century.) That was done by the Turks as a conquering power because they could take anything they wanted.

There is no conquering power in New York — and we are the conquring power in Kabul. I’m just not seeing it as similar.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 5:14pm

Michael

“However, I reject the idea that just b/c others have trashed it that it it is useless.”

So do I. I never said it was useless, and I don’t think anyone else did either. Saying it isn’t applicable in every conceivable circumstance isn’t the same as saying it is useless, and I think you recognize that. So we agree on that basic point.

“Catholics, knowing full well that the secularists hate us far more than Muslims,”

I question that assumption, Michael. I think some Muslims hate us more than some secularists.

“But their injustice does not justify injustice on our side.”

No one says it does. There’s no injustice in preventing the construction of one building for prudential reasons. It would be unjust if we said they couldn’t build anywhere.

“If you go down this road, you have no defense for those who wish to use similar arguments to further exclude Catholicism from the public square.”

Well, I disagree. This is about a very specific thing. Now of course I grant that unreasonable, duplicitous people try to make equivalents out of things that are not. But these are truly not equivalents. Genuine religious freedom is not denied through this prudential consideration. It is denied when secularists attempt to banish a whole religion from every aspect of public life.

Foxfier
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 5:15pm

But we haven’t been conquered by Islam.

By our sane measure? Goodness, no.

And a consecrated Host is just a bit of bread to that PZ Meyers fellow.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 5:16pm

Darwin,

With due respect to you my friend, I think you are being incredibly naive. Take a look at my last link.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 5:35pm

“What’s the justification for allowing Muslim structures on the island of Manhattan at all, for that matter?”

Freedom, the same reason racists are able to freely spread hate in our society. That does not mean we allow racists to set up shop at Gettysburg.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 5:38pm

The victory will be in the eyes of every fanatic in the Middle East who believes this is further proof that the US is the weak horse. I have absolutely no doubt that this is precisely the message the Cordoba House (Dhimmis always welcome!) Imam is intending to send to one of his audiences, while his talk of peace, tolerance and bridge building is purely for gullible Western consumption.

Blackadder
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 6:05pm

“I’m not sure that jihadists would view this as a triumph (sufis aren’t considered Muslims by Wahabis, but polytheists).”

I don’t think that distinction matters to a growing number of young Muslim fanatics who are themselves not too educated on the subtleties of their own religion’s varieties and history.

You know, one of the “dogs that didn’t bark” in this whole situation is that I haven’t seen any comments from actual jihadists about how the mosque represents a victory for Islam (maybe they are out there but I’ve just missed them somehow). There’s been lots of talk about how Muslims all secretly believe this, but they seem to be remarkably well disciplined in keeping their true feelings under wraps.

This sort of nebulous “Islam” is an identity filling a cultural vacuum among young Muslims in Western countries. And these particular Muslims are just as, if not more, prone to acts of terrorism and violence than Muslims living in a place like Saudi Arabia or Indonesia.

If this is going to be the standard, then you have to ask: what is more likely to make young Muslims in Western countries turn to violence, 1) allowing a group of moderate Muslims to build a cultural center, or 2) treating all Muslims as if they are terrorists until proven innocent?

Well gee, you might as well say that defending yourself against a violent attack is letting the aggressor “control you” as well.

No, if someone is *actually* physically attacking you then you have to defend yourself. But if the “aggression” involves nothing more than a guy thinking he has conquered you because you wore a white shirt today, then I say let him have his pathetic fantasy. Never wearing white again to deny him his “victory” allows him much more control over your life than if you just ignored him.

Allowing the enemy an important symbolic and psychological victory boosts his morale and emboldens him to undertake more aggressive actions.

We’re talking about building a community center. Some aggression. (“if we don’t nip this in the bud, next time they’ll want to add bingo night”).

Joe Hargrave
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 6:13pm

BA,

It’s getting boring responding to things such as this:

“treating all Muslims as if they are terrorists until proven innocent?”

Objection your honor.

No one claims this, no one said this. Sigh. Yawn. At what point does it become immoral for you to keep repeating it? You think about it.

In any case, it may be damned if we do, damned if we don’t let them build. If we do, we are weak. If we don’t, we are “oppressive.” Either way, it gives them an excuse to do what they want to do anyway. So there’s no reason for us to give them a morale boost.

Your last paragraphs are nothing but a flippant dismissal of the realities of warfare, which are as much psychological as they are physical. In any case, I didn’t say the mosque itself was aggressive, but that it’s construction will embolden aggressive behavior.

Foxfier
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 6:20pm

Iraqi-American against the meaning of the name. It’s inflamitory.

Muslim cleric saying it would “become a focal point for both the supporters of terrorism and the champions of Islamophobia.”

“In an interesting sidebar, some clerics from Al-Azhar recently spoke out in opposition to the construction of the Cordoba House mosque near New York’s Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center once stood. Dr. Abd Al-Mu’ti Bayumi, a member of Al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy, said that the mosque’s construction could link Islam to 9/11, even though Islam is innocent of the deed. He also called the plan a “Zionist plot.”[1]”

Opinion article from ME English-language newspaper accepting the tradition of building on the enemy’s ruins, but arguing that the Cordoba “Mosque” was really about a victory over other Muslims, and this cultural center will be a victory of “culture and religion over commerce and fashion.”

That’s from a moment’s search, and a few minutes of sorting. It honestly took more time to write the links and copy stuff over than to find it. (Amazing how the news stations haven’t managed it, eh?)

Art Deco
Monday, August 23, AD 2010 6:21pm

Most sensibilities are offended nowadays by crosses marking tombstones and by the mere existence of large churches that look like churches, not to mention public prayer or other displays of religious expression.

Very few people are offended by that. Those that are have the solicitude of people in gatekeeper positions. Someone else would be told to buck up and get lost.

I’m just not seeing any kind of victory here.

Because you have forgotten what the battle is.

I never said it was useless, and I don’t think anyone else did either.

I did.

You know, one of the “dogs that didn’t bark” in this whole situation is that I haven’t seen any comments from actual jihadists about how the mosque represents a victory for Islam

Perhaps because it is money that talks.

If this is going to be the standard, then you have to ask: what is more likely to make young Muslims in Western countries turn to violence, 1) allowing a group of moderate Muslims to build a cultural center, or 2) treating all Muslims as if they are terrorists until proven innocent?

What induces troublesome youths to engage in self-aggrandizing behavior in other situations:

1. A deficit of clear and consistent discipline;

2. Lack of domestic responsibilites.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top