Parallels
In following the debate over whether a Islamic house of worship should be built at Ground Zero in New York, I was reminded of the debate many years ago about whether it was appropriate for a community of Carmelite nuns to locate themselves near the Auschwitz concentration camp. In both cases, it is suggested by some that the presence of these communities would be an act of reconciliation. Others, of course, saw the presence of these communities as causing pain to the families of the victims.
Does anyone else see a parallel here? If the two cases are different, why are they different? If similar, why are they similar? Is it possible to acknowledge a right in the abstract while questioning the wisdom of its exercise in a particular case? Discuss….
The ADL, which was come out against the Islamic Center, and its director Abraham Foxman seemed to compare the 9/11 attack to the Holocaust (in a quote in the Times this morning). That surprised me since the ADL and other organizations, Jewish and otherwise, are usually vehemently critical of comparing the Holocaust to anything else. Why is this comparison between it and 9/11 now okay. It strikes me as unfortunate. Foxman in his later years has lost sight of the League’s mission; sorry to say, he’s become a political hack.
Ergo, it seems to me the comparison to the convent at Auschwitz is very much beside the point.
Different but related. The WTC consisted of people of all stripes while Auswitch was mainly Jewish and were executed precisely because they were Jewish. The Catholics who died there opposed the Nazis but were not executed for being Catholic. In Auswitch it was a religion. At the WTC it was a nation. Prejudices against Jews appeared to be the reason for the Carmelite site while prejudices against Muslims is the reason for opposing the Mosque. The Vatican controls the Carmelites whereas radical Islam does not appear to control the group which desires to build the Mosque. So there are differences in tone and perhaps quantity. Millions killed because of their ethnicity is different than three thousand killed to attack a symbol. Both are terrible but the comparison is weak. Finally, there is the long history of prejudice by Catholic officials and particularly in WWII.
I vote in favor of the Mosque being built while I agree the Carmelites should have made a different choice. In both cases I believe both sides should have or should be talking to each other and not past each other.
Nuns are to a concentration camp as Muslims are to 9/11 Ground Zero? Parallels? Good grief.
It seems the real parallel would be a neo-Nazi organization’s headquarters being built next to Auschwitz.
In all seriousness, how on earth are you connecting Carmelite nuns to the Holocaust? Hitler = baptized (but non-practicing) Christian = Nazi SS = Carmelite nuns = Christians? Absurd.
Such a ridiculous equation makes bigots who think all Muslims are terrorists look rational in comparison.
I think the parallel is good, as far as pointing up essential similarities and differences.
The facile parallel is (1) Auschwitz is a place where Catholics murdered Jews. When Catholics wanted to establish a religious institution there, Jews were unenthusiastic. (2) WTC is a place where Muslims murdered Americans. Now Muslims want to establish a religious institution there and Americans are unenthusiastic.
I think the substance behind P. Flanagan’s incoherent sputtering is that it is not valid to say “Catholics murdered Jews” and certainly not “Carmelites murdered Jews” at Auschwitz. The main reason (ISTM) is that the murderers at Auschwitz were motivated not by Catholic religious doctrine, and not even exclusively by hatred of Jews but also by Nazi military ambition. Whereas the WTC murderers were motivated by Islamic religious doctrine.
But the parallel is useful because the Carmelites’ relation to the Nazis is roughly equivalent to the Cordoba Initiative’s relationship to bin Laden. Blaming the first for the actions of the second is, in both cases, preposterously unconvincing.
It’s an explosive point because it suggests the question “To what extent was the extermination of the Jews motivated by plain old Christian anti-Semitism and to what extent were the perpetrators really convinced by Nazi dogma?” I myself have no opinion on this question. My life is stressful enough without explosive questions.
The parallel is there was a loud outcry over a religious building being built next to a sensitive site. Peter also asked how they differ. Or maybe your air conditioning is not working PF.
I would like to say, just for the record, that the idea that this proposed Muslim community center is being built “at Ground Zero” is itself an invention of the fearmongering opposition. It’s proposed for an available site in the Financial District of Manhattan, a couple of blocks from the site where the World Trade Center stood. That part of the city is still a functioning neighborhood where people live and work, and not just a static monument to terrorism — thank God.
There’s no coherent reason for opposing this; it’s just an opportunity for fundraising and demagoguery. But even if one did grant the proposition that having a mosque anywhere near the site of the attacks is somehow a problem — which I don’t — the question becomes, how far away is far enough? And who gets to decide?
As far as the comparison goes, I think this is important. As I understand, the proposed Carmelite convent didn’t just happen to be near Auschwitz; they wanted to put it there because that’s where Edith Stein died. That was what Holocaust survivors found objectionable — not the proximity, but the perceived appropriation of the site as a Christian monument. Whereas I don’t think there’s any cause to believe this group wants a “Ground Zero Mosque” — they just want to build a community center in a neighborhood where it’s needed. Unless there’s some kind of press release I haven’t seen, the notion that this plan is a triumphal gesture on their part is pure projection.
“Whereas the WTC murderers were motivated by Islamic religious doctrine.”
I don’t think so! A perversion of Islamic religious tenets, maybe. But to accept your premise is therefore to justify saying that murders of Jews by a large number of “Catholics” in Poland in general and concentration camps in particular were motivated by Catholic religious doctrine.
“A perversion of Islamic religious tenets, maybe. But to accept your premise is therefore to justify saying that murders of Jews by a large number of “Catholics” in Poland in general and concentration camps in particular were motivated by Catholic religious doctrine.”
The 9/11 terrorists yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as they plowed into the World Trade Center towers. Are you suggesting that the concentration camp guards sang “Onward Christian Soldiers” as they shoved Jews toward the “showers”?
It’s a difficult and disturbing truth to concede, but Muslim terrorists are explicitly acting on an extremist but widely held form of Islam, Wahabbism. The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but those that are, are acting on what they sincerely believe to be their Islamic duty. They are killing themselves to destroy infidels, and you don’t take them seriously?
“It’s proposed for an available site in the Financial District of Manhattan, a couple of blocks from the site where the World Trade Center stood.”
And yet that very building was hit by airplane debris on 9/11. Close enough? Is that not a rather direct connection with the attacks?
“Whereas I don’t think there’s any cause to believe this group wants a “Ground Zero Mosque” — they just want to build a community center in a neighborhood where it’s needed.”
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is behind the building of the mosque himself says it is being built near Ground Zero explicitly to foster dialog between Islam and America: “The proposed center is an attempt to prevent the next 9/11. What could be a better use for the citizens in lower Manhattan? What could be a better monument to the victims of that tragic day?”
Now, you may say that he is not being triumphalist, celebrating the attack, but seeking to engage understanding, and those are wonderful words. But you cannot pretend that these Muslims “just want to build a community center in a neighborhood where it’s needed.”
So, apparently, the imam is well-intentioned, but just is clueless as to how offensive his initiative really is to a large number of Americans. We can rest assured that such intolerance by Christians in an analogous situation would not be acceptable.
Of course the two things are ENTIRELY different because the nuns are Us and the Muslims are Them.
If I may follow up on Mollie’s excellent analysis and if my memory serves me, the Carmelite Convent controversy eventually ended in a compromise. A couple of years later the location of the convent was moved out of the actual camp site and to a nearby site. This was based upon some of the facts Mollie outlines – the Jewish objection was that most of the victims at Auschwitz were Jewish – not catholics, priests/nuns, Poles, other Nazi undesirables. Factual evidence indicated that more than 1.2 mil died at Auschwitz – less than, 80,000 were not Jewish. Thus, the arguement used by the church was seen in a different light and the compromise happened quietly.
Here is an interesting point of view by J. Chittister: http://ncronline.org/news/about-other-shoe
Highlights: “So, where do all of us stand now that the shoe is on the other foot? This time we are the ones wrestling with the question of whether or not we will refuse the olive branch and a public witness to unity and peace. Will we tell an American Muslim community that the country is theirs — except, of course, for this one square of it two blocks away from Ground Zero which we will use to remind them always of how outside of us they really are?
From where I stand, there has to be another way to deal with this that is sensitive to both sides, accepting of both positions, healing of both wounds and a monument to real peace. In that case, it will surely be a monument that will shine a strong Islamic light in the very face of that small part of Islam that wants, it seems, to shatter that glow.”
Not sure a few facts will make a difference, but here goes: the first convent proposed at Auschwitz was at the site in a building that had served as part of the camp. The Carmelites had also raised a large cross at the site. The mother superior at the time seemed to be pretty uninformed about what the affront might be to Jews, and others. The hierarchy of Poland urged her to move the convent and she did. Another convent was built nearby, not on the site.
Downtown: as Molly says this is a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, not on the site. There was a few blocks further up, and as far as I know there still is, an Islamic book store/cultural center (just below Canal on West Broadway). As I recall it was a Sufi center.
Not a fact, so much as an irony: The U.S. House, including all the Republicans, voted against a bill to provide a long-term fund for the health care of first responders after 9/11. So….we can’t really imagine taking care of those who rushed to the site, and actually rescued some people, but we can vehemently protest mostly from afar the peaceful and reconciling gesture of a moderate group of Muslims.
the No-Muslim mosque initiative has just become a Republican talking point.. expect a few more to pop up before NOvember. These ‘talking points’ are not coming from think tanks like Hoover Center at Stanford, Free Enterprise Institute, Heritage foundation they are coming out of hack and strip shops that feature dart boards of Obama. ..
Even more complicated than I remember it:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/28/books/on-the-outskirts-of-auschwitz.html?ref=bookreviews&pagewanted=all
On the Outskirts of Auschwitz
By Margaret O’Brien Steinfels;
Published: July 28, 1991
THE CONVENT AT AUSCHWITZ By Wladyslaw T. Bartoszewski. 169 pp. New York: George Braziller. $17.95.
In “The Convent at Auschwitz,” Wladyslaw T. Bartoszewski sets out to tell us how it is that two peoples who suffered so tragically under the Nazis — Jews and Polish Catholics — came to fight so bitterly over efforts to memorialize their dead.
In 1984, with the permission of Poland’s Communist Government, a group of Carmelite nuns moved into a building at a concentration camp for Polish political prisoners built by the Nazis in 1940 on the perimeter of Auschwitz. The camp was the first of three constructed in the vicinity of this southern Polish town. Birkenau, a death camp, was put up in May 1942 about two miles away. Monowitz, a labor camp, stood two miles in the other direction. In the United States we know this entire complex as Auschwitz, where about 1.5 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. In Poland, Auschwitz-Birkenau is known as the place where 270,000 Poles (a disputed figure) and about 2 million (also disputed) deportees from eastern and western Europe, most of them Jews, were killed by the Nazis. (Most Polish Jews were killed elsewhere, at Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor and Chelmno.) Until recently, the Auschwitz camp — its brick prison blocks intact — and the adjacent museum were used to highlight the Communist movement’s resistance to Nazism. When a special Jewish exhibition was opened in 1978, the extermination of the Jews at Birkenau was acknowledged only indirectly. Left virtually as it was in 1945, Birkenau is a desolate series of wooden buildings fenced off from the surrounding countryside.
The same racist theories Hitler used to justify the extermination of the Jews were applied to the Poles, but in attenuated form; the Poles were not slated for total extermination but were to become a slave nation. With the elimination of the Polish elite (anyone with at least a secondary education), and total deaths during the war amounting to 10 percent of the prewar gentile population, this distinction was lost on postwar Poland. The Iron Curtain dropped like a guillotine on Poland’s independence and most of the surviving community of approximately 100,000 Polish Jews fled after an anti-Semitic outbreak in 1946. In the view of Mr. Bartoszewski, a lecturer in modern European history at Warwick University in England, Polish gentiles never confronted the tragedy that befell their fellow countrymen, the Jews, nor did they ever examine their own degree of complicity in the Holocaust or their prior history of anti-Semitism.
In 1984 when the Carmelites established their convent, the flood of this repressed history washed over them. For Polish Catholics, the nuns’ presence at Auschwitz was meant to sanctify a place desecrated by the Nazis, and to rectify the imposed ideology of the existing Communist “memorials.” For many Jews around the world, the convent was a brutal affront; in particular, the phrase “conversion of strayed brothers” in a Belgian organization’s fund-raising appeal for the convent was read (actually misread) as part of an effort to de-Judaize the Holocaust and recast it in terms of Christian symbolism. The convent was taken as another instance of the Poles’ insensitivity to Jewish suffering and their refusal to confront their history of anti-Semitism.
The Polish view of Auschwitz is barely known in the United States. One of Mr. Bartoszewski’s great virtues is that he deftly sets it forth without diminishing the Jewish view. It becomes possible to understand why moving the convent was so difficult, even though an agreement to do so was signed in February 1987 by Jewish and Roman Catholic leaders, including Franciszek Cardinal Macharski of Cracow, in whose diocese Auschwitz lies. When the February 1989 deadline rolled around and the nuns had not moved, the controversy shifted into high gear.
There were certainly practical problems of expense and Government permits. Yet Mr. Bartoszewski makes clear that the inaction was rooted in divisions within the Polish episcopacy. Jozef Cardinal Glemp, the Archbishop of Warsaw and Primate of Poland, would neither take responsibility himself for relocating the convent nor acknowledge Cardinal Macharski’s authority to do so. Other bishops thought the time frame was unrealistic. And while Cardinal Macharski stood by the 1987 agreement, he appears not to have actively explained the intertwined theological and historical issues to the Polish people, especially those living in the town of Auschwitz.
The failure to move the convent led to Jewish demonstrations in the spring and summer of 1989, including the scaling of the convent wall and a confrontation with local residents (photos of Polish workmen pouring water on Jewish protesters first alerted most Americans to the problem). The Poles, in turn, found this “attack” on a cloister incomprehensible.
Here the narrative is enhanced by the author’s sharp understanding of the religious differences and organizational misunderstandings dividing Jews and Polish Catholics. Each group saw the other as highly organized and disciplined, with a leadership that could assure compliance by its members.
Jewish leaders, who had no more authority over the demonstrators than Cardinal Macharski had over the workmen, insisted that Pope John Paul II could resolve the problem. Though technically true, this would have meant choosing between Cardinals Glemp and Macharski, a step the Polish Pope seemed reluctant to take. There were, of course, Jewish leaders who knew that, contrary to stereotype, the papacy does not operate like the military, at least not until other approaches prove fruitless. But other Jewish spokesmen concluded that the Pope must have been secretly committed to leaving the convent in place, despite considerable evidence that he supported its relocation.
In the meantime, Cardinal Glemp, in language that sounded like old-fashioned anti-Semitism, chastised the Jews for their behavior at the convent and for internationalizing the conflict. He also insulted his fellow cardinals, signatories to the 1987 agreement, by suggesting that they had no authority in the matter. The result was more uproar.
So the Pope finally acted, and peacemakers on both sides prevailed. Construction is under way for a new convent and an interfaith center at some distance from the Auschwitz camp. But what of the museum and the tourist buses and the thousands of visitors a year, and the myriad occasions for conflict over symbols? Large issues remain: two views of history and two understandings of Auschwitz. Auschwitz is not yet a place of memory and silence.
“The main reason” for the conflict, according to Mr. Bartoszewski, “was an almost total lack of understanding of Jewish matters on the part of the Poles.” But the Jewish community was “only marginally better informed about Christianity.” The nationalistic and liberal wings of Polish Catholicism were pitted against each other. The competition among Jewish organizations to demonstrate effectiveness in speaking for Jews encouraged militants “to make spectacular gestures” and to claim superiority over moderate voices in defending Jewish interests.
These sad events in a place with an unspeakable history may yet have a reconciling value, if not a redeeming one. Through the conflict over the convent, many Poles have finally gained a fuller understanding of what went on under the Nazis. This in turn has allowed a more mature dialogue to emerge on the complex history of Poland’s Jews and Catholics.
Margaret O’Brien Steinfels is the editor of Commonweal magazine.
What have our bishops told us to think about the proposed Islamic center?
There were sensitivity issues about the canonization of Edith Stein and of Maximilian Kolbe, as many will remember.
http://www.adl.org/opinion/edith_stein.asp
“P Flanagan,” you have all your talking points lined up, but that doesn’t make them convincing. One of the problems with your attempted rebuttal is that it makes believe that people are objecting to this proposal because of the way the organizers described their intention and its connection to 9/11. The truth, of course, is that the organizers were forced to defend their intentions and say nice things about reconciliation post-9/11 because people are objecting to their exercising their rights. And the reason people are objecting is because some demagogues find it useful to keep alive the idea that we are at war with Islam. And because Newt Gingrich has a book to sell.
One of the most painful chapters in my career in journalism was trying to report accurately and dispassionately the controversy over the Auschwitz convent. There were hotheads on both sides determined to inflame the issue and force a confrontation, and sometimes they tried to manipulate the media to those ends. There were also, fortunately, measured and reconciling souls. Like Peggy herself, it has been years since I looked at her review in the New York Times, posted above, and I find it a superb summary of that complex, needlessly prolonged, and sorrowful episode.
I cannot say that a parallel between that episode and the current Islamic center controversy would have occurred to me. Nobody in this family died on 9/11, which is true of all but a few of those opposed to the Islamic center. But that day was particularly frightening, given that our daughter and 21-month-old grandson had to evacuate their building near ground zero — amidst rumors of broken gas mains and after being trapped in the lobby by the dust and debris from the collapse of one Tower. For what it’s worth, our daughter, who continues to live near ground zero with her husband and two children, thinks that the agitation against the center is crazy and largely the doing of people from a distance. “I don’t want to have to wear a burqua,” yelled a woman at a recent community board meeting, part of a group that quickly disappeared as soon as the board turned to other neighborhood matters.
If there is a parallel, it is in the potential of both cases to stir ugly passions, especially with the help of self-righteous and self-promoting individuals. In the case of Auschwitz it was wrong to talk simply of “Jews” and “Catholics” and “Poles,” without recognizing the differences and independent impulses within each of these groups. In the case of the Islamic center, it is wrong to talk of “Islam” and “Muslims” as though there are no distinctions within this faith and its adherents.
For me, the bottom line is that the hysterical opposition to the Islamic center, a center with a prayer room but not a mosque, one near ground zero but not at it, only confirms the claim of jihadi terrorists that the U.S. is pursuing a struggle not against them and their murderous methods but against all of Islam. Is that what we want to do?
Jean nailed it.
The nuns are not us–believe me!
Gettysburg Battlefield may help shed some light on this sensitive debate. For decades the North did not allow Southerners to place monuments there to commemorate fallen Confederates. Once the tiny monument to fallen Confederate General Armistead was erected in the 1880s, at a point known as the high water mark of the Confederate attack, the process of reconciliation between North and South gained momentum. Now you can see along the old Confederate lines beautiful monuments placed by every state of the Confederacy. Occasionally a tiny Confederate flag adorns the north side of the Armistead monument, placed there by an American citizen from the South, possibly one who lost an ancestor at the battle. We should not underestimate the emotive force of such gestures and symbols, as one will easily note when visiting the holy ground at Gettysburg. The mosque issue at Ground Zero is different, it’s much too close to the memory of 9/11, and the forces advocating reconciliation between Islam and the West are notably weak if not reticent. We should let more time pass to heal the wounds that have not been mended.
Thanks, Mr & Mrs. Steinfels. Appreciate enhancing the poor memory of the event that I had retained.
Mr. Marcella – interesting parallel that you have contributed. You may be right in terms of time but wonder if the comments by Sister Chittester don’t rign true – we are coming up on nine years.
I think, 2000 years later, Gabriel again brings a message of hope.
Bill,
I would tell Sister Chittester that her idea is a noble one, but nine years is much too soon. We need more time for the two sides to build some bridges of trust and confidence. There is another angle to the Gettsyburg story. At Gettysburg there are only 2 statues of Confederates, Generals Robert E. Lee and his right hand man James Longstreet. All the other statues are of Union heroes. Longstreet’s spendid equestrian statue was erected in 1998 in the woods of Seminary Ridge, much to thre consternation of some people, including historians. In his later years Longstreet became a Catholic, probably because of the influence of his fervently Catholic wife (who passed away in the 1940s). Southerners who blamed Longstreet for the defeat at Gettysburg now had another reason not to like him.
Two sides? What are these in the current situation? The attackers of 9/11, all dead and their mastermind Osama bin Laden hiding out somewhere in Pakistan along with Al Queda members strung out along the Middle East and East Africa? That’s one side.
And the other side? Us and the three thousand who died 9/11: Catholics and other Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, atheists and citizens of many countries.
The analogy to the Civil War is insulting to the hundreds of thousand of soldiers, North and South, who died during the civil war for noble, if different, reasons.
The Islamic Center is not a monument on a battle field!
For those who live/work in/near Ground Zero, lately heavily referred to as “hallowed ground”:
1. What is the general surrounding neighborhood like? Is it replete with the usual touristy kitschy stuff, bars, drug houses, etc., or is it truly a pristing neighborhood into which the introduction of an Islamic Center would be a travesty?
2. How far away from GZ does one have to go before being far enough away from “hallowed ground?” and an IC would be an acceptable addition to the city?
I suspect for a large segment of people, the answer to #2 is —-nowhere.
— The 9/11 terrorists yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as they plowed into the World Trade Center towers. Are you suggesting that the concentration camp guards sang “Onward Christian Soldiers” as they shoved Jews toward the “showers”? ––
There is a substantial difference between outward expressions of alleged faith and the underlying motives. To deny the historicity of anti-semitism in Europe, much of which was an outgrowth of the church’s theology and overt attitude toward Jews over the centuries, is to deny reality.
The motivation of Fred Phelps’ group shouting “God Hates Fags” is readily apparent. The motivation of many who oppose equal citizenship status for gays and lesbians may be more subtly expressed but can be just as insidious. Both motivations are differently manifested but may be equally repugnant.
Ditto for the matter the P Flanagan seems to disagree with above.
I am curious to know what Peter Nixon, who posed this question, has concluded about it. A number of facts have been presented here about both Auschwitz and the Islamic center. No one has challenged them. In my opinion, there is not a parallel except in the most distorted sense.
So now we’ve thrown up a handful of dust about Civil War memorials. Interesting.
But let us be clear. The Islamic Center is not a mosque and is not at the ground zero site. That site is still, thanks to a lot of New York politics and real estate haggling and other delays, a construction site. Specifically, what will be put there by way of memorial and commercial buildings (believe me, no one is going to allow a large piece of downtown Manhattan real estate to be dedicated solely to memorializing) has been the subject of extensive and excruciating public discussion, with, as I hope some of you recall, a major competition, displays, public discussion and hearings, etc., etc. There is no mosque, or Islamic center, planned for this site; nor was anything like that of any faith group ever proposed for the site. The real tension has always been between memorializing and commerce.
What we are talking about is the plan of a group of Muslim Americans to create a center a couple of blocks away, in a building like the surrounding (mostly commercial) buildings. It is a group which bears about the same relationship to the jihadi murderers of 9/11 as I do to Torquemada or as Commonweal to the Holocaust-denying Lefebvrist bishop. These are people whose opposition to that minority and violent strand of Islam is utterly unambiguous.
These people, who have enlisted Christians and Jews on their board, are exercising the normal rights of Americans to association and freedom of religion. On what grounds are we to tell them that because the terrorists of 9/11 acted in the name of Islam, you anti-jihadi Muslim can have your Islamic center under the First Amendment but only if it is fifteen more blocks away or only after 50 more years? There are of course other religious properties in the neighborhood, both centers and schools and places of worship — the small chapel near ground zero where my grandson made his First Communion was put to use in the many months of clearing the area and later restored with government funds — but you Muslim Americans are different and, sorry, this neighborhood is off limits to you until you get our okay.
Factually, the “mosque at ground zero” is like the death panels of health reform — and some of the same people are demagogically pushing the one as pushed the other. Historically, the logic here is reminiscent of 19th-century anti-Catholicism or the Paul Blanshardism of my youth that argued no Catholic could be elected president in view of the Syllabus of Errors or Franco’s persecution of Protestants in Spain. Symbolically and politically, the campaign against the Islamic center sends exactly the wrong message to the Islamic world. Fanciful talk of parallels does not change these realities.
I’ve read that the Muslims in question are Sufis. The Sufis are a Muslim sect which emphasizes contemplative prayer, not Jihad. (They include the whirling dervishes — that dance is a religious practice which leads to a contemplative state of mind, not violence.) Some Muslims don’t consider them real Muslims in the first place. Perhaps the best known among them was t he Persian poet Rumi whose love poems and religious poems are amongst the world’s greatest, and, in fact, he is among the most popular poets in the U S. today — B&N usually has a number of different books by him for sale he’s so popular. Perhaps with better PR the group that wants to build the Center could become better known and overcome at lest some of the prejudices being shown.
Little Syria was an area that flourished in Lower Manhattan until construction of the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel in the 1940s and the the World Trade Center in the 1960s made it a less desirable place for an ethnic community. The neighborhood’s formerly Christian character is now memorialized by a few tokens such as St. George Maronite Church, originally a boarding house and at other times a dance hall and now a landmarked restaurant.
The Syrian quarter extended to the area north of the current WTC area so the current plans do not represent the first entrance of middle easterners to a colorful neighborhood. Still it’s quite a change from yesteryear.
from the NYT of March 29, 1903:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E00E3DA1E30E733A2575AC2A9659C946297D6CF
And from the landmarks commission:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports/stgeorgechurch.pdf
The desire to assimilate evident in the NYT article seems almost quaint.
As far as whether these situations are similar, I quote from Yogi Berra’s son, “yes but the similarities are different”.
I think that the core issue really is the particular meaning of the symbolic attack of the twin towers from an American cultural point of view. Osama bin Laden saw the towers of symbolic of globalized, capitalist, Western hegemony and that a strike on the twin towers, was therefore, a strike at the very heart of Western global capitalism. In this, he was correct (but only partially). Many Americans and global leaders framed the attack as an international attack on all of Western culture. Many people (including cultural elites and educated people) in Canada and elsewhere saw the attack on the twin towers as America getting a taste of their own medicine.
I think that if Ann is correct and this mosque is a Sufi mosque, then that is a very good thing indeed, As the narrative can be shifted to be about why violence, whether that violence is perpetrated by Americans or jihadists, cannot be justified based on a reading of the most enlightened religious and mystical sensibilities from religiously minded people.
The more the symbol of 9/11 is about politics (e.g. support of Jewish expansionist policies, American intervention in Arabian lands, clash of civilizations, etc, , etc.), the less it can become a symbol of ethical transformation of a people, including of course the American people.
To the extent that Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, can move us to a space of non-violence, and peaceful co-existence, these efforts should be supported particularly by religious people of good will.
People seem to be making this issue too complicated. The only appropriate question for either a Christian or an American to ask is whether these Muslims are innocent or not. Since we know that they are, in fact, innocent, then Christian charity and American values both require us to leave them alone to worship in peace. People are free to have other opinions (in peace) of course. But anyone who is not willing to support the rights of these people in law and charity is not fit to be any kind of leader.
Peter Nixon’s post concluded with the question whether one could have a right that he or she ought not to exercise in some particular circumstances. If one is speaking of a legally granted right, e.g., a Constitutional right, then obviously there are some times when it would be morally wrong to exercise it. Indeed, it might always be morally wrong to exercise it. For example, it is always morally wrong to choose to have an abortion, especially a purely elective abortion, regardless of the constitutional right that one has.
There are many other cases, including cases of moral rights, in which it would be morally wrong to exercise them. For example, I have a moral right to seek to improve myself intellectually. It would be morally wrong for me to do so on occasions when my child needs urgent medical attention.
Regrettably, so many people in our society seem to think that if I have some Constitutional right, then I can never be rightly blamed for exercising it.
I am not seeing any sort of right belonging to people who think that a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center is some kind of desecration that is stronger than the right other people have to build what they want.
What I am seeing is political correctness coming from the Right. All of the elements of political correctness as we know it on the Left are here: moral indignation; the fake appeal to the sensitive feelings of “others”; the framing of an issue (If you say “A”, then it proves that you mean “B”) in order to assert some sort of authority or power; the pressing need to “send messages” and the conflation of this with actual action; and the confusion of one’s feelings with one’s rights (as though these have the same status) are all signs that what is being played here is the old American game of capture the moral high ground.
CORRECTION: Sufism is not a Muslim sect distinct from the others, It is a spiritual movement within the others. Some Muslims condemn it as non-Muslim.
Sorry.
Yes, Peter. When I heard of the protests against the proposed Islamic center, the first other thing I thought of was the uproar over the Carmelite house in Oświęcim. (Although it’s handy and understandable to do so, perhaps it might be unjust to the Poles to keep calling that town by its German name?)
By the way, New York has laws about who and who may not build what. Those are what need to be obeyed in this as in every case of new construction, not the sentiments (or bigotries or political ambitions) of people from — just to take a place at random — Alaska.
Please – this is not high school. Carmelite nuns are not Nazis, and while the 9-11 Muslims were insane killers, the Muslims who want to build that NYC mosque are not eveil incarnate.
Of course the people who live in NYC can grant Muslims a building permit if they want to, or they can deny permission to build so near to Ground-zero if they like. It is the business of people who live in NYC; it is important that we outside New York should not meddle.
People in NYC went through a lot that day and have worked hard since then getting back to normal. I say allow them to heal in the manner they prefer. If a consensus of New Yorkers want to allow NY Muslims to build near the Twin Towers site, fine. If they would rather that their Muslim neighbors build a mosque elsewhere in NYC, fine.
But to compare Carmelite Nuns to Nazis is worse than ridiculous.
A few years ago, the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, moved their high school out to the town’s edge and decided to construct some sort of megalith in its place. (I’m fuzzy on details. Maybe Bob Nunz can help.) The city refused the building permit, on the grounds that in order to preserve Santa Fe’s tourist appeal buildings more than some specified umber of floors were not allowed in the downtown area.
The Archbishop, who had a reputation for moderation on some issues, turned out to be a raging extremist on the subject of zoning laws. He wrote a letter to the town newspaper about how anti-Catholic the zoning laws were and as far as you could tell from his homilies, every Sunday Gospel reading for a month turned out to be, properly interpreted, all about zoning laws.
I don’t know how that ever turned out.
If the building is legal and within zoning restrictions, New York City, consensus or no, cannot stop it from being built to house a community center. The entire basis of disagreement has to do with the fact that it is a MUSLIM community center. A city (or state) cannot stop a project just because it disagrees with its symbolic value, and it certainly can’t stop a project based on sectarian considerations. Should Berkeley, California be able to stop a Catholic community center because Catholic doctrine offends and would restrict the rights of gays and lesbians? These people had as much to do with 9/11 as you or I did, and this building is merely “near” ground zero — it certainly isn’t on the site. It’s disgusting that anyone would equivocate or do anything other than stand up for their right to be treated equally under the law.
I think the situation of the Carmelite convent was a bit more complicated, but, in general, my sympathies were mostly with the nuns.
“Should Berkeley, California be able to stop a Catholic community center because Catholic doctrine offends and would restrict the rights of gays and lesbians?”
Should Berkeley, California be able to stop a White Aryan Nation community center because it offends some members of the community?
I would say no. But the question whether Islam is an international hate organization which promotes violence against some citizens of Berkeley is not absolutely invalid. Which is more threatening, the Holy Qur’an or Mein Kampf? Is it really obvious?
Unagidon–
There were some things about your recent comment that I found to be off.
No one has the right to build whatever they want (whenever they want, wherever they want). Just ask any member of a condo association. I think framing the issue this way elides the legitimate concerns of those who have a problem with the construction so close to ground zero.
I’m not sure what you mean by the fake appeal to the sensitive feelings of others–and perhaps I’m being overly sensitive–but I thought this comment insensitive. Considering the *others* may include those who had loved ones killed by the terrorists, I think the feelings of these others have standing (though they may not necessarily carry the day).
Last, and perhaps least, I wish you had not included the word American in the last sentence. Something about it sounded condescending and off-putting.
Though some people may be posturing, that doesn’t mean everyone who has concerns about this is coming from a bad place. My understanding is that Rudy Giuliani has come out strongly against the construction, because the imam has been hesitant to condemn radical Islam. I, for one, would like to know more about the background of those who are pushing to have this built.
“These people, who have enlisted Christians and Jews on their board, are exercising the normal rights of Americans to association and freedom of religion”
Amen! What could be a more American response than for Americans to defend these rights that are embedded in our Constitution and are, quite literally, constitutive of the United States?
I’d like to see Archbishop Dolan, as a religious leader and as an American who unabashedly loves his country, out front, taking the lead in advocating for these Muslims to have a community center in the United States, whether it’s two blocks or 2,000 miles from Ground Zero.
Flapton,
Obviously New Yorkers cannot stop Muslims from building mosques; that would violate our national constitution and our common notion of freedom of religion. However the people of NYC can stop the Muslims from building a mosque on this exact cite, or they permit the building; it is their choice.
And no, the Aryan Nation is not the same as the Catholic Church and no, the Aryan Nation does not have many community centers. Why do some folks always seem to like to take an exception (in this case it would be a rare exception indeed) and pretend like it is now, or ever could be the rule?
No matter; most cities are capable enough to use the zoning laws and municipal codes they already have on the books in order to keep out the unwanted elements altogether, or at least locate them in a portion of town where the will not be so offensive.
And locals can also have a great effect and get a good dig in too, if they are so inclined.
I recall a re-model job in the Midwest years ago; I was not involved in the job but heard and read about it. In one city, word got out that the remodel of an existing building was not going to be a clinic but instead would be an abortion mill. The contractors were informed by local pro-lifers that they would publish their names and associate them with the abortionistas. Well that both put the skids on the job and greased the rails for a hilarious and (for some) a profitable outcome of what in fact was a tragedy. Contractors raised their bids so high the the owners re-located the job to another area. Rumor was (unconfirmed) that since they managed to drive up the bid so high, the local contractors were able to “partner” with (share with) what normally was their competitors, who got the job in the next county. Anyway, when word of this whole thing got out over there, the sky was the limit and so workers drove up labor costs on that job to over twice what they otherwise would have been and because they did not want publicity, the abortionists-owners never said a word; they just paid. I heard of windows being put in wrong and having to be re-done, but not before the stucco guys had already been by; things like that. Some guys made lots of overtime and money made in the end, but the abortion mill did not go in the town where the owners originally wanted it. Result; a very pricey abortion mill but in the process, some guys took home nice checks. A very small battle in the overall pro-life struggle.
And so about your speculation that people in Berkeley could not keep an Aryan Nation community center out of their town, if they wanted to they could.
Felapton, no, they can’t stop a project based on zoning considerations that are pretextual. Certainly, if the center is inconsistent with existing zoning regulations then that could stop the project. That would be to treat this group equally, the same as any other group, but the people of New York can’t band together and prohibit a community center because it is associated with Muslims. I know all about joint efforts to keep out “unwanted elements,” but you are forgetting that in this fight, the Muslims have a powerful federal law on their side, a law that was lobbied for by conservative Christian groups who grew tired of churches being continually challenged on land use planning grounds by local governments. I can’t wait to hear the first opponent stand up and say “but that was supposed to be for churches not mosques!”
FWIW, the pastor of the nearby Catholic parish defended in a testy community board meeting the construction of the Moslem community center:
“Catholic priest Kevin Madigan, of St. Peter’s Church, which is about a block away, agreed. ‘I think they need to establish a place such as this for people of goodwill from mainline Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths so we can come together to talk,’ Madigan said.”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyers_wage_jihad_vs_wtc_mosque_UgJiOBYEhrSOw4Q6hpvbQL
As another aside, it’s fascinating to observe the impressive acrobatics of some participants in this case: those on the Left make an unaccustomed defense of near absolute private property rights while those on the right propose the use of heavy-handed eminent domain procedures to stop the construction.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/29821/paladino-would-use-eminent-domain-to-block-mosque/
If the issues were rent control or neighborhood landmarking the sides would switch in a proverbial New York minute,
Barbara – While you typed: “New York City, consensus or no, cannot stop it from being built…” You probably mean to say NYC “should not” stop such a building.
Of course New Yorkers can stop such a building; that much is clear. The question is whether they should stop it or not.
I say let them develop a local consensus and base their collective decision on that; let New Yorkers decide this one. You seem to want them to listen to you regarding this; to do what you say is best for them.
I maintain that this proposed NY mosque is not such a simple matter. Sure, – in my opinion – NYC should be fair regarding this. I would probably grant the building permit.
However my town was not attacked by insane Muslims flying jumbo jets that killed thousands – and that is only one example of the things NYC has suffered at the hands of violent Muslim nit wits. I would defer to the good judgement of the New Yorkers who have been through much more than either you or I can imagine.
I am willing to let New Yorkers decide what they think is best for their city. Are you?
“Some guys made lots of overtime and money made in the end —”
Ah, yes: morality for fun AND profit. Kinda makes you feel warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it?
Mark P said: “No one has the right to build whatever they want (whenever they want, wherever they want). Just ask any member of a condo association. I think framing the issue this way elides the legitimate concerns of those who have a problem with the construction so close to ground zero.”
I wasn’t saying that this group could go around the building codes, provided that the same codes apply to everyone else. However, while I have heard many “concerns” about this group building a mosque near the site, I have yet to hear a legitimate one.
Mark P said: “I’m not sure what you mean by the fake appeal to the sensitive feelings of others–and perhaps I’m being overly sensitive–but I thought this comment insensitive. Considering the *others* may include those who had loved ones killed by the terrorists, I think the feelings of these others have standing (though they may not necessarily carry the day).”
It has become very fashionable for people to appeal to emotions these days in the quest for political power. It’s part of the rot of our political system. I am sure that there are people who had friends and family killed by the terrorists (in fact, I know a few also) who feel bad about the idea of a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero. And I can understand their feelings. It’s just that their feelings are utterly irrelevant. And I mean utterly irrelevant. We’re a society of laws. People whose feelings are hurt are not victims. On the other hand, people whose rights are violated by people whose feelings are hurt are, in fact, victims. Emotions are being used here for something very pernicious and that is the definition of whose side people are on, as though emotions indicate something deeper and more authentic about a person than their rational defense of their political ideas. In the meantime, we are engaged in two long, bloody, and expensive wars in part under the banner of the equal enforcement of laws without regard to religion or sentiment or things like that. Now I either find this very hypocritical or I find it very consistent of “conservatives” who are actually radical nationalists who believe more in their “guts” than in our Constitution.
As far as being off-putting, I apologize. When I wrote the comment originally, I was also going to say that the Right, which likes to portray itself as full of tough gun toting militarists, are acting like a bunch of whiny babies here asking people to appeal to their sentiments. But I thought that would be off putting. Still in for a dime, in for a dollar I always say.
Unagidon–
Thanks, but an apology is unnecessary, I’ve been accused of saying off-putting things in here too–imagine that! You argue your point well, with emotion, if I may say. Still, I’d like to think there’s room in the law for it to say, “Technically, it’s legal, but how about we move things down the road a bit for the good of the order?”
For what it’s worth, I had no problem with your intended initial formulation, though I would not have agreed with it.
Mark-
Some people see parallels to Polish convents here. I see a parallel to the neighborhood of Austin where I grew up and where my family had lived since about the time of the Chicago Fire. At that time, it was all the good arguments about why Black people shouldn’t move there. People had “concerns”. People weren’t racist, they were just worried about their property values. Maybe things should move a lot more slowly, etc. Blacks just refused to understand how people were feeling.
And yes, Austin turned completely over in much less than a decade. One might say that the residents were correct or that they at least had a point. Except that the whole thing was fueled from the beginning by a sort of bigotry that I am also seeing in this thing with the mosque. Some of the bigotry was overt. Some of it was genteel. But at the heart of it all were people giving into their fears.
In neighboring Oak Park, they kept their heads. Which is why Oak Park became integrated and kept its economy while one block over Austin became a ghetto and a slum.
We have an opportunity to keep our heads over this thing in New York. But I think that in the end, people are going to give counsel to their fears, egged on by the frauds that want to lead them.
The First Amendment issues in which freedom of religion comes into tension with zoning regulations or historical preservation and landmarking laws or simply health and safety concerns (e.g., traffic and parking lots) are fascinating, and although I can pretty confidently say that the constitutional protection of religion generally has the upper hand, that is not without limits or modifications. But the one thing that is out of the question is the application of a rule differently to one religion rather than another.
You cannot have a zoning law or historical preservation or landmarking practice that works one way for Presbyterians and another way for Catholics or one way for Catholics and another way for Muslims, even though you think that Catholicism is a despicable faith or that some Catholics have made it the basis for doing horrendous things — and likewise for Islam.
I would like to see someone come right out and say what appears to me to be the real argument here: “You Muslim Americans are not quite full citizens because of what some people did in the name of your faith. This is the case, unfortunately, regardless of the fact that you despise that action and want to promote what you and millions upon millions of fellow Muslims here in the US and throughout the world consider the genuine Islam. Perhaps at some point in the future we will forgive you for what Osama bin Laden’s followers did and then you can carry on like Americans of other faiths and of none. But not now, not until American opinion is ready to do so.”
Incidentally, the Islamic center continues to be described in many comments as a mosque. That description conjures up the image of distinctly religious architecture with a minaret, etc. The proposed center, as I understand it, will indeed include a prayer space, where I presume regular services may be held as well as private prayer. In that sense, it is definitely a place of worship. But it is also my understanding that this will be a renovation of a multi-story building that was damaged on 9/11, that it will contain meeting spaces, auditoriums, restaurant, swimming pool and other recreational facilities, much like many YMCAs and Jewish community centers. i believe that the renovated building will preserve the distinguished 6-story facade of the existing building.
I work in a 12-story building of Fordham University in midtown Manhattan, a building which contains classrooms, offices, student lounges, an auditorium and other spaces for performing arts, eating facilities, library, and bookstore. But right across the hall from our offices is a chapel where Mass is celebrated and where — don’t anyone by shocked! — Muslim students sometimes come to pray. Is this building therefore a church? Is it perhaps even a mosque?
If we’re talking symbolism here, let’s be accurate about the nature of the symbol.
Felapton, zoning laws can keep people from doing lots of things they may want to do with their property, but they can’t be used unevenly to circumscribe the property rights of a particular group in a way that would violate the first amendment, be it due to political or religious affiliation. Many states go well beyond what the U.S. constitution would grant in the way of rights against unequal treatment and routinely overturn land use decisions that appear to be merely inconsistent or arbitrary, but not invidious.
Certainly, neighbors can cause delays and increased expenses through lawsuits and other tactics, but the exhaustion of normal legal processes is not the same as veto power over an unwanted project.
Barbara, I wasn’t suggesting using zoning laws to prevent this community center. For what it’s worth, I think they should have their community center. I am convinced that the more contact people have with real Islam, the less respect they will have for it. I was in Saudi Arabia with the Army during the First Gulf War. Everybody went over a proper, smug little relativist, eager to encounter Islam and learn from it. Everybody came home with the realization that not all cultures are equally worthy of respect.
The parallel I was drawing with the Santa Fe zoning incident was the excessive rapidity with which the whole thing became about “anti-Catholicism.” In that case, as in this one, as soon as religion is involved, all the practical considerations are immediately forgotten and both sides reach for their most hysterical and irrational ammunition.
The parallel of an Islamic community center and a White Aryan community center is not necessary compelling to me. But, as Socrates used to say, one should consider a question from all angles to be sure we have really understand it as well as possible. (“Don’t you agree, Glaucon?” “I agree completely, Socrates.” It’s a dialogue, see?)
Peter told us to discuss. I’m discussing.
I think a simpler solution would be to give them their community center, then sell the plot next to it to a manure-processing plant.
“I think a simpler solution would be to give them their community center, then sell the plot next to it to a manure-processing plant.”
The world is certainly a lot simpler when one has a big enemy all the time, isn’t it?
“all the practical considerations are immediately forgotten and both sides reach for their most hysterical and irrational ammunition.”
“give them their community center, then sell the plot next to it to a manure-processing plant.”
OK, you made your point. You’ve turned your response into an applause line on talk radio.
“I would like to see someone come right out and say what appears to me to be the real argument here”
Peter – don’t you think, though, that the (perhaps inchoate) fear is that the Muslim community center will be a symbol of triumph, of Islam dancing on the graves of Western victims?
If I’m right about that fear, could the Al-Aqsa Mosque be the better parallel to this situation?
It is worth noting that unless you live in NYC (I do not), it is difficult to see why you would have a say in this matter.
I think they should probably grant the building permit, but in fact this is really something for New Yorkers to decide – on their own.
It is their city after all.
And yes Jimmy Mac; I am sure they did have fun and make money – why not?
:-)
I’d like to know when “love thy enemy” was transformed into “hurt your enemies even if you have to hurt your friends in the process.” Because that’s where a lot of sentiment on immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, seems to be heading.
And that’s what makes this particularly ugly, the feeling that somehow reaching out to slap down the other will have no impact on one’s own goals and aspirations. Having witnessed very closely multiple lawsuits undertaken by “concerned citizens” to try to impede churches, all I can say is, you should be incredibly careful what you wish for in the way of precedent that diminishes the rights of the Muslims involved here. There are, after all, people who probably hate you and the Church and what it stands for. That’s why the Berkeley/Church example is much more instructive than the Aryan Nation one (and yes, if you want to know, I think the Aryan Nation should be able to build a community center if they want one and can pull it off).
I also wasn’t aware that the entire borough of Manhattan had turned into one giant co-op.
Mark said “Peter – don’t you think, though, that the (perhaps inchoate) fear is that the Muslim community center will be a symbol of triumph, of Islam dancing on the graves of Western victims?
If I’m right about that fear, could the Al-Aqsa Mosque be the better parallel to this situation?”
You may be right about the fear, but you are wrong about the threat. The community center could just as well be a symbol of triumph, where America refuses to fall into the trap of a few Muslim terrorist heretics capturing all of Islam and turning it against the West (which is what their intention was.) Hasn’t this been the thrust of our message to the Islamic world since 911? Didn’t this message come especially from the Right (originally)?
It was Jim Pauwels who said that, Unagidon, and I wanted to respond along similar lines. That is the fear some people seem to have, insofar as they can articulate any argument more sophisticated than “Muslims Go Home” — and it’s an invalid fear, stoked by irresponsible media figures willing to deceive to keep that fear alive. Fearmongers, as they are known. That’s why it’s necessary to keep pointing out that the Cordoba Initiative is not, in reality, a “Ground Zero Mosque.” The only reason there is even a potential whiff of Islamist triumphalism here is that someone on the fearmongering fringe distorted reality to make it come off that way.
Sorry Mark and Jim for the mix up.
Unagidon;
you are correct in saying the original Right’s thrust was to ameliorate the worldwide Muslims e.g. flying out Osama’s relatives to safe haven in Saudi Arabia. Now the New Right [Beck Palin Rush] wants a few Congressional cheap seats in November and to get them are willing to inflame all 1.5 billion Muslims into enemies.
“I think they should probably grant the building permit, but in fact this is really something for New Yorkers to decide – on their own. It is their city after all.”
Then how come only New Yorkers aren’t going out to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan?
This argument isn’t about convents in Germany or mosque in Jerusalem.
It isn’t about zoning ordinances or whether the proposed building is a mosque or a “worship center.”
It’s about whether Americans ready to accept that Muslims are our fellow citizens and whether we’re willing to accept their building a house of God near the place where misguided adherents of their faith murdered a lot of people (not all of then New Yorkers or Americans).
I don’t think Americans are ready to accept that right now, but the arguments, painful and ugly as they are, seem to be a necessary means by which people eventually come to terms with each other. It may take decades.
Seems many New Yorkers are willing to acknowledge that not all Muslims are dangerous:
http://www.freep.com/article/20100803/NEWS05/100803022/1320/Vote-approves-mosque-near-ground-zero
Hi, Jean, the last time I checked I am also an American. As are Unagidon and Peter Steinfels. It is an insidious and easily assumed habit, to generalize from the particular, whether for Muslims or Americans or New Yorkers. It is a trait to be resisted for most purposes.
It looks like New York City has decided:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/mosque-near-ground-zero-clears-key-hurdle/?hp
Barbara, what did I say that made you infer I said you nor Unagidon nor Peter weren’t Americans?
Different participants here are free to frame the issue any way they want, but I think Peter Nixon’s invitation to find parallels with German convents (or Jerusalem mosques per Jim Pauwels) isn’t very useful.
The issue has to be viewed in the context of circumstances and people involved at this particular juncture in history.
I do not see Americans in general as particularly generous souls when it comes to outsiders, even if they’re not really outsiders, as in the case of American Muslims. And especially not “outsiders” who are perceived as part of a group that poses a national threat, trumped up or not.
Perhaps I am overly cynical, but we have centuries of track record with Native Americans, African-Americans, Irish, Catholics, Japanese, Chinese, Mexicans, Jews, etc., to refer to.
Barbara,
“I also wasn’t aware that the entire borough of Manhattan had turned into one giant co-op.” Not yet, but there’s a slope that’s awfully slippery. Thanks to Tom Wolfe, Woody Allen and assorted other celebrities who can stop development on the flimsiest grounds (no pun intended) we now have this situation:
“Not counting parks, southern Manhattan contains about 7,700 acres of potentially buildable area. Today, nearly 16 percent of that land is in historic districts and therefore subject to the commission’s authority. This preservation is freezing large tracts of land, rendering them unable to accommodate the thousands of people who would like to live in Manhattan but can’t afford to.”
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_preservation-follies.html
The building projects of numerous churches (and the late lamented St. Vincent’s Hospital) have been stopped on dubious aesthetic grounds even when it meant their mission had to be severely compromised. Community residents are too often happy to have religious buildings preserved as quasi-museums but are less concerned if funds for the poor must be diverted.
Two wrongs don’t make a right and I’m not suggesting that the Muslim center be stopped. But with Manhattan land use issues there are usually scoundrels (and valiant souls) on all sides. It will be a better world when a) the property rights of all religious groups are equally honored and b) the discretion exercised by regulators is severely restricted across the board. As long as we are considering parallels why should Woody Allen’s concerns about the character of neighborhood development be recognized by regulators and officials while the concerns of 9/11 families are rejected? I don’t think it’s due to any superior wisdom on the part of the mandarins who decide these matters.
Yes, Patrick, it’s a slippery slope. The plight of properties purely on aesthetic grounds is disturbing, especially as it applies to desperately needed developments, like hospitals or affordable housing or grocery stores. It’s a hard thing to get right, and I would say that one thing going on in Manhattan is the legacy of unrestrained expressway building by Robert Moses, that really galvanized the perhaps overzealous monitoring of all new development by residents.
Jean: you said, and I quote:
“It’s about whether *Americans* ready to accept that Muslims are our fellow citizens and whether we’re willing to accept their building a house of God near the place where misguided adherents of their faith murdered a lot of people (not all of then New Yorkers or Americans).
I don’t think *Americans* are ready to accept that right now, but the arguments, painful and ugly as they are, seem to be a necessary means by which people eventually come to terms with each other. It may take decades.”
Sure, SOME Americans fit this bill, but you seemed to be unduly generalizing the same way opponents are unduly generalizing Muslims. That’s all.
Today’s WSJ has an op-ed comparing the Carmelite convent to the situation at hand–wonder where they got that idea? Pope JP II, as usual, rose to the occasion. I didn’t realize he asked the nuns to locate the convent elsewhere. Interesting.
“Sorry Mark and Jim for the mix up.”
No worries on my part. Plus, it gives me a chance to clarify that I don’t oppose the communicy center, and don’t see it as the equivalent (in any possible way) of the Al Aqsa mosque. I was trying to get into the heads of those who do oppose it.
“Today’s WSJ has an op-ed comparing the Carmelite convent to the situation at hand”
Presumably, this William McGurn piece:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405330350430368.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
It’s an interesting idea.
“I was in Saudi Arabia with the Army during the First Gulf War. Everybody went over a proper, smug little relativist, eager to encounter Islam and learn from it. Everybody came home with the realization that not all cultures are equally worthy of respect.”
As I understand it, the form of Islam in Saudi Arabia is Wahhabism. According to the Fount of All Wisdom and Knowledge (Wikipedia — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Saudi_Arabia) —
“The vast majority of the fifteen to twenty million Saudis are Sunni Muslims according to the conservative Wahhabi ideology. Around 15% of citizens are Shia Muslims, most of whom live in the Eastern Province, with the largest concentrations in Qatif, Al-Ahsa, and Dammam, another large concentrations is found in Najran, in addition to a small minority in Medina. Islam is the established religion, and as such its institutions receive government support.”
Is it not fair to say that what you encountered in Saudi Arabia was a virulent strain of Islam, not the larger religion? Was the culture you encountered Saudi Arabian flavored by Wahhabism, or Islam flavored by Saudi tribal culture?
I would hate for Christianity to be judged by what has been and can still be found in Northern Ireland or the American South.