Fact Check from the AP
From Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press: “Fact Check: Islam already part of WTC neighborhood.” Useful for anyone having trouble separating what’s been claimed with what’s actually known about the Park51 Islamic Cultural Center (and New York City, and America in general). I’ve seen these facts and rebuttals laid out elsewhere, but this brings a lot of important points together in a non-opinion-journalism format — as “balanced” an accounting as is possible when one side is hysterical claims and the other is a matter of record — and so I hope it will be widely read. Between this and Justin Elliott’s timeline of manufactured outrage at Salon, I don’t see any “controversy” left standing. So, inshallah, the day will come soon when it will no longer be necessary to say things like this:
No mosque is going up at ground zero….
The center’s location, in a former Burlington Coat Factory store, is already used by the cleric for worship, drawing a spillover from the imam’s former main place for prayers, the al-Farah mosque. That mosque, at 245 West Broadway, is about a dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center grounds.
That would be the mosque founded by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in 1983. The one his community has outgrown after being in the neighborhood for many, many years. Maybe it’s just because I live in New York City myself now, but given their long presence “in the shadow” of the former World Trade Center, I find the suggestion that these New Yorkers perceive the September 11 attacks as a “triumph” utterly obscene.
Regardless, the matter is more complex than what has so far been presented.
Americans’ thoughts on this are more complex than the press has let on. Unlike the professional Left, when most of us Americans think of the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero, our view is not as simplistic as permits and local zoning ordinances. Rather, our view is more complicated and includes, among things like our deeply valued US Constitution and deeply held notions of freedom of religion and other things, images of our fellow Americans leaping out of windows to their deaths, the twin towers collapsing on the brave police and firemen and everyone else involved, workers pulling bodies from the smoking rubble, New Yorkers searching frantically for loved ones; the subsequent overwhelming sadness and depression and strife from which otherwise rough and tough New Yorkers suffer still.
That those who try to reduce this to a simple and superficial analysis, bawling about bigotry and reminding their fellow Americans of the First Amendment and that we need to remember freedom of religion is amazing– to say the least. New Yorkers understand the Constitution. We all have solid notions of the religious freedom. While they seem to prefer and strive for freedom From religion, the ACLU and the rest of the professional Left would instead do well to demonstrate more respect for the notion of freedom Of religion.
The fact is that nothing has yet been built – after nine years – is telling enough. The normally rough-and-tumble New Yorkers seem to have been badly and deeply shaken by the 9-11 attacks.
It is easy for me or anyone else who does not live in NYC to say they should allow the mosque at that location, or that New Yorkers should just buck up and get back to business. However nobody attacked my town or (excepting of course the Pentagon) anyone else’s town.
New Yorkers should be allowed to tend this matter in the way they themselves see fit.
Neither President Obama nor any number of interlopers has the right to blather on and on about what they think New Yorkers ought to do regarding this.
It could very well be that NYC has yet to psychologically recover from 9-11 and who can blame them? They lost a lot.
Add to this that NY leftists have to date – via the labyrinth of codes and permits processes – deftly prevented a Greek Orthodox parishioners from re-building their (Christian) chuch that was situated near Ground Zero and that was for the most part destroyed on 9-11, and it is easy to understand New Yorkers’ frustration with it all.
This is not over course; NY has strong trade unions that will not sign up for this work. Moreover they will probably try actively, to thwart non-union scabs in their efforts as well.
This could have been handled politely and quietly by Mayor Bloomberg and-or President Obama, but they both seem to have dropped the ball.
“Americans’ thoughts on this are more complex than the press has let on.”
KEN –
Really? Where did you get your information from if not the press?
Glad to see that “Professional left” has entered into the vocabulary. Jesus Christ.
Abe, Jesus Christ has nothing to do with these folks. Sadly.
Take a look here or anywhere else the American public is commenting on this controversy, and what you’ll see is an outpouring of hatred and prejudice. I am not saying that all opponents of the mosque are bigots. But just read the stuff that people are posting in public forums, and you’ll see there is a tremendous amount of ugliness out there.
Ken, you don’t need to read accounts in the press of what people think. Just go anywhere on the Internet that’s open to comments from the public, and you’ll see for yourself.
David N. –
From what i”ve seen in the press a lot of attention is being given to expressions of hatred. But what else is new? What are the complications its missing?
“But just read the stuff that people are posting in public forums, and you’ll see there is a tremendous amount of ugliness out there.”
Are you sure those people reflect a representative sample? I would think there was self-selection going on in that sample set such that it would reflect an extreme more than a median opinion.
American, American etc… the Americans I know are not anonymous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/nyregion/19dolan.html?src=me
Archbishop Dolan said “it was his ‘major prayer’ that a compromise could be reached, and that while he had no strong feelings about the project, he might support finding a new location for the center.”
Dolan is not alone. Not everyone has “strong feelings about the project”, pro OR con.
(Imho, the bloggers on some liberal Catholic web sites who accuse others of bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, etc., are actually revealing their own misgivings. Their enthusiasm seems a bit forced, a bit out of proportion to something as innocuous and unimportant as one more mosque in a city as diverse and tolertant as New York.)
Are you sure those people reflect a representative sample?
MAT,
According to a Time Magazine
How many of the 70% who believe building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero would be an insult to those who died in the terrorist attack do you suppose could give you good reasons, free from prejudice against Muslims, for taking that position?
Also, what exactly is a “median opinion”?
Archbishop Dolan said “it was his ‘major prayer’ that a compromise could be reached . . .
Which is another way of saying the mosque should relocate. It was a shameful statement on the Archbishop’s part.
I just do not understand why people outside NYC – people who incidentally cannot imagine what New Yorkers feel – do not seem to want to let New Yorkers decide this one – ?
I like this take – by Victor Hanson:
———————————————
“…Most recently, President Obama pontificated about the proposed mosque next to Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, in what his supporters might call a “teachable moment.” The issue is not a legal one. Both sides recognize the legal right of Muslims to build mosques anywhere that local zoning ordinances permit them. Instead, the controversy pertains to common decency, and the nature of the funding and proponents of the project.
No matter: The president instead lectured his mostly Muslim audience that America respects the rights of all religions — again, not the issue in question. A day later, in embarrassment, he backtracked a bit.
Where to start with all these teachable moments?
All these controversies involve issues addressed at the state and local level, with presidential action unnecessary. In such contentious matters, why intervene when Obama cannot do much other than polarize millions?
President Obama has a habit of impugning the motives of those with whom he disagrees. In the Henry Louis Gates case, he rushed to condemn Crowley and the police. Arizonans were not to be seen as desperate citizens trying to enforce federal law, but instead derided as hateful bigots who harass minorities when they go out to get ice cream. In the NY mosque case, the president disingenuously implies that opponents of a Ground Zero mosque wanted to deny the legal right of Muslims to build religious centers….”
———————————————
I think Hanson sums it up nicely.
“How many of the 70% who believe building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero would be an insult to those who died in the terrorist attack do you suppose could give you good reasons, free from prejudice against Muslims, for taking that position?”
I do not have sufficient information to even begin to suppose. I was hoping someone here would provide a link to that statistical data.
“Also, what exactly is a “median opinion”?”
It is from the so-called “median voter theorem” in economics based on Anthony Downs’s “An Economic Theory of Democracy.” It is the opinion represented by the “median voter”. That was poor drafting; I really should have wrote “median voter’s opinion” for clarity. I apologize.
David N, aren’t there other ways t reach a compromise than to relocate? For example, the mosque could be especially focused on peace and reconciliation and have some kind of interfaith link to St Paul’s chapel (that chapel is next to Ground Zero and, I hear, since 9/11 has redefined its mission as one of peace and reconciliation).
President Obama has a habit of impugning the motives of those with whom he disagrees.
Ken, this whole “controversy” exists because people like Newt Gingrich decided — consciously made a choice — to impugn the motives of the Park51 developers and their prayer community. That is the ground it stands on: cynical fearmongering for its own sake. The objection to the “Ground Zero mosque” represents, not a higher standard of “common decency,” but rather the total abandonment of “decency” to score some political points at the expense of a vulnerable minority. How could that be any more clear?
Claire: the Cordoba Initative is focused on peace and reconciliation. That’s been a part of their plan from the beginning.
Mollie is right about the “controversy.”
Last night on cable I heard several claims of “the truth” about Obama , Muslims and the mosque which were essentially political propaganda.
The NPR report this morning indicates the politicized nature of things and how easily folks are guiled into believing what their iseologies and even prejudices desire -so now Obama is a Muslim, etc.
This is happening i fear, notr only in politics but in religion, in claimin g”truth” for political power by spin with even an under dark side not afreaid to utiliize prejudices, including xwnophobia, but in religious and poltical matter also, homophobioa and even mysogyn -
but, I know, everyone is well intentioned, even Newt…..
“Archbishop Dolan said “it was his ‘major prayer’ that a compromise could be reached . . .
Which is another way of saying the mosque should relocate. It was a shameful statement on the Archbishop’s part.”
Aw, c’mon. To say something about prayer is not to say something about relocation no more than to say something about horses is to say something about organized crime, or to say something about Brad Pitt is to say something bout Jennifer Anniston or whatever her name is. You might associate the topics in your own mind, but your own mind is not the same thing as reality. It can reflect reality but only if it sticks with the evidence. You’re putting words in the AB’s mouth.
Connecting things in your mind which show no evidence of being connected shows nothing. You need more evidence to say they’re related.
Ann, here’s the whole sentence from the NYT article:
“I just do not understand why people outside NYC – people who incidentally cannot imagine what New Yorkers feel – do not seem to want to let New Yorkers decide this one – ?”
Ken –
The big reason is because the case involves the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United “States. You seem to think that’s a trivial matter. As the old saying goes, if they can do it to them they can do it to me. That’s more than good enough reason to be interested. Not to mention the fact that some of us love New YOrk City. And when the towers went down weren’t’ YOU interested?
Furthermore, since when are Christians supposed to be indifferent to people who live far away? Or who are different from ourselves in some ways?
Complexity, complexity, and you’d better believe it.
Ann – Please hold the lecture on the Fist Amendment; this is more complicated than just that.
Everyone agrees these folks have the right to build a mosque and to worship according to their conscience.
The question is not about Mulims’ right to worship or builld a mosque; it is about building a mosque on this particular site. As such, I think the matter ought to for New Yorkers to decide.
I do not have a strong view one way or the other, but I do not live in New York. Regarding all this then, I would defer to their good judgement.
I say let New Yorkers decide what is best for their town; we (non-New Yorkers) should give them some space, some peace; we should stop bothering them.
Tell that to Newt Gingerich and Glenn Beck.
“I do not have a strong view one way or the other’ [yeah]
“I say let New Yorkers decide what is best for their town’ How ? overturn the property laws.?.throw out the court system? overturn the bill of rights? use force? If objecting to rebuild on this wreck of dirty building site becomes the path to a right wing victory in Nov. we are in for a bad decade .. both for the domestic economy and foreign affairs. SAD/Bad politics.
From the New Yorkers who publish Irish Central and Irish Voice and Irish America:
“Ground Zero Mosque: Obama is misleading the American people about Islam and American history”
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ground-Zero-MosqueObama-is-Misleading-the-American-People-About-Islam-and-American-History-101062619.html
Aw, c’mon. To say something about prayer is not to say something about relocation no more than to say something about horses is to say something about organized crime . . .
Ann,
You need to read the full account of what Archbishop Dolan said. Here’s a most of it:
Governor Paterson offered to find an alternative site. The Pope had the convent moved. And the arcbhishop things people who question the location have “legitimate questions.” Instead of supporting the Muslims, Archbishop supported those who want the mosque relocated. I think it’s shameful.
David N. –
Yes, the AB does seem to want it both ways — welcome those particular Muslims but tell them to move. If he had said that there are legitimate questions to be asked and asked for a moratorium until the questions are answered it would have been different, But he has jumped to saying, OK. move it.
I don’t think the analogy of Pier51 and the Carmelites at Auschwitz is a good one. The Jews weren’t rejecting the nuns as Catholics — they were trying to preserve the site as what it overwhelmingly was — a machine for destroying Jews. Representing other groups would have distracted from the main fact: the Nazis were trying to eliminate *all* Jews, not all nuns or all Catholics.
The Carmelites : Auschwitz : : the Muslims : GZ ? True, both the nuns and the Muslims aren’t welcome at those places, but why? What’s the proportionality based on? What’s the similar kind of relation that holds between the nuns and Auschwitz and between the Muslims and GZ? I just don’t see any of importance.
The president is right. This is a teachable moment about religious freedom both here and overseas. If the New York City zoning board decides that the mosque should be allowed to be built, and it is funded by local New York Muslims, I would say that our principles of religious freedom should allow them to build it.
My concern is where is the money coming from. And it appears that it is not being raised domestically. In addition, the Cordoba group refuses to reveal who is funding it. Don’t we have any responsibility for the freedom of religion overseas? That is – if we allow Saudi Arabia (a likely contributor) to fund a mosque in NYC, when they have no intention of allowing a Christian church to be built in their countries, aren’t we saying to the world that we care about religious freedom here, but couldn’t care less about those religious minorities that are being persecuted overseas?
Let’s be consistent. If this mosque is funded by nations which have no religious freedom, we simply can’t allow it to be built and then claim that we did it to promote religious freedom. So if this is funded by a Muslim country (other than Qatar) I vote no.
This is a teachable moment – let’s teach the world that we really care about religious freedom – worldwide. We simply will not allow that transfer of funds from an intolerant government to build a church of their choosing in the United States.
Hi Dennis,
I don’t know how reliable politico.com is, but they have this:
“The Cordoba Initiative hasn’t yet begun fundraising for its $100 million goal. The group’s latest fundraising report with the state attorney general’s office, from 2008, shows exactly $18,255 — not enough even for a down payment on the half of the site the group has yet to purchase.”
…
“The group’s spokesman, Oz Sultan, wouldn’t rule out developing the site with foreign money in an interview with POLITICO — but said the project’s goal is to rely on domestic funds. Currently, they have none of either.”
article
We shall see….
Dennis,
Is this a variant on “no religious freedom for Muslims in the United States until there is religious freedom for Christians in Muslim countries”?
What law is applicable if some foreign funds are donated to help build the mosque? Is it only this mosque your rule should apply to, or all mosques built in the United States?
There’s no reason why foreign money should not be used to erect houses of worship in America.
Many Americans sent money to Ireland during the famine: slaves in the South, orphans in a New York orphanage, Choctaw and other Indians, New York’s Congregation Shearith Israel and Temple Shaaray Tefila, inmates at Sing Sing, Baptists, Methodists, etc., etc., etc.
Abraham Lincoln attended a mass meeting in D.C. convened by Vice President Dallas to raise money for Ireland.
It would be churlish of American Muslims to turn down donations from foreigners.
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/Irish-Famine-sparked-international-fundraising.html?showAll=y
I think every American bishop should contribute to Park51 and send a stone from his diocese. (We have wonderful limestone here in Missouri.)
Ken said: “I just do not understand why people outside NYC – people who incidentally cannot imagine what New Yorkers feel – do not seem to want to let New Yorkers decide this one – ?”
Because New York can’t have it both ways. New York and its citizens were quite happy to have Federal funds expended to compensate the victims, assist in the restoration of the damage, etc. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11th_Victim_Compensation_Fund; http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/wtc/html/background/funding.shtml
The attack on the WTC was just part of an attack on the US. It was not just a New York-specific attack. The issues at stake are national issues, not Manhattan issues.
“Instead of supporting the Muslims, Archbishop supported those who want the mosque relocated. I think it’s shameful.”
David N – I missed it -which words of Archbishop Dolan state, ‘I want the mosque relocated’? I don’t see that anywhere in the quote you pasted.
David,
No, this only concerns funds from the governments of nations which are intolerant. And no, there is no current law – but there should be, and it should cover all houses of worship in the US. It could work like GSA Schedule sales by the US government. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the US government only buys from countries which it considers to be “good” under its Trade Agreements Act. Here is a list of those nations: https://gsa.federalschedules.com/Resource-Center/Resources/TAA-Designated-Countries.aspx Notice that China, for obvious reasons, is not one of those nations.
Now we can debate all night and day whether these countries are really “good” or “bad”, but Congress does make this determination.
My suggestion is that we make a similar list for those countries devoted to religious tolerance. Only those nations would be allowed to contribute towards the building of any house of worship in the United States.
Just a note on pole data re this issue. According to a pole report on NPR heard Tuesday, within the Greater New York Area, Manhattan in which the site is located is polling in favour of the project at about 53%. The other boroughs have a majority against.
You might call it the reverse of NIMBY.
Lets just be honest, if it was any religion but Muslim this would be a non story.
“The attack on the WTC was just part of an attack on the US. It was not just a New York-specific attack. The issues at stake are national issues, not Manhattan issues.”
—-
Agree. We all watched the jumpers jump and the buildings fall. Everyone in the world watched the attack on AMERICA. (I had calls from Germany and Ireland that day. Shock. Sympathy.)
Just as all America suffered from the attack on Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t something to be left to the residents of Hawaii.
In 1862, the largest insurrection in American history, except the Civil War itself, took place in New York, perpetrated largely by Irish Catholics, and resulting in much loss of life and property. Protestant churches were burned to the ground. Three years later, construction resumed on St. Patrick’s Cathedral a few blocks from the epicenter of the Draft Riots. Anyone’s sensiblities offended? Have any second thoughts about its having been built?
Correstion: Th Draft Riots happened in 1863.
Ok Ed, I cannot resist:
Ed – “I do not have a strong view one way or the other’ [yeah]
Ken – That reaction (of yours) is quite infantile.
Ed – “I say let New Yorkers decide what is best for their town” How ?..”
Ken – We would let New Yorkers decide this by leaving the matter in their hands; by letting New Yorkers handle this; by giving them some room to breathe; by giving them time to think, time to properly consider the matter – in peace.
Ed – “..overturn the property laws.?.throw out the court system? overturn the bill of rights? use force? If objecting to rebuild on this wreck of dirty building site becomes the path to a right wing victory in Nov. we are in for a bad decade .. both for the domestic economy and foreign affairs. SAD/Bad politics.”
Ken – Calm down and get hold of yourself Ed; nobody is talking about anything you so hysterically suggest. Be sad and depressed if you like, but I am confident that New Yorkers can do – and eventually will do – that which is right for their city. I just wish we out-of-towners would leave them alone to tend this.
I saw Archbishop’ Dolan’s entire (08-13) interview on EWTN with Ray Arroyo. It was obvious he was not giving a knee-jerk slam dunk reaaction. That is what President Obama did the very same Friday night to his Islamic audience and then tried to pretend he was giving a lecture on Freedom of Religion when he came to Fl and was caught in a worse mess with his imprudent comments that the oil spill he came to do a “toe in the water” photo op for which he came. His speech would have shown leadership and class IF his intended hearers and viewers were the Islamists in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps among his listeners who never allow any freedom of worship to non-Moslems and are working to take what they have away wherever they have and can take power. We recall that he did not have all teh facts either but damned the New Haven police as “stupid” when his professor friend grabbed his cell phone instead of his ID! That gave us the “Beer Summit’ Moslems do not drink beerso as not offend their Allah’s name and their faith in Him but a heck of a lot of them spill blood in His Name
Regarding an alternate mosque site, how far from ground zero is a satisfactory distance. For most of those opposed, I suspect Alaska may not be far enough. Anyone ever heard someone opposed to the mosque specify a distance?
David N – I missed it -which words of Archbishop Dolan state, ‘I want the mosque relocated’? I don’t see that anywhere in the quote you pasted.
He was not supportive of the right of the Muslims to build their mosque. He said those who were concerned about the location of the mosque asked “legitimate questions” that he thinks “deserve attention.” (What are the legitimate questions?) He gave as an example of a solution to the controversy the moving of the convent away from Auschwitz and said, “It worked there; might work here.”
It’s true he didn’t come right out and call for the project to be moved, but he never even hinted that what ought to happen is that people should drop their opposition and let the Muslims build their mosque where they want it.
By the way, if you check out the Wikipedia article on the controversy at Auschwitz, you’ll find it went on for years and is hardly to be looked upon as exemplary.
A view from my colleague at Boston College, Peter Skerry:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/08/19/the_real_debate_is_among_muslims/
Interesting segue:
Where is the “positive gloss” in pointing out that the guy who couldn’t blow up a van in Times Sq. isn’t part of a major terrorist group? Or in saying it was a “one-off” incident? Because Skerry doesn’t quote Holder, I have no idea what “virtually refused” means, but given the professor’s rather loose definition of “positive gloss,” I’m not inclined to believe he’s got it right.
I wonder what the professor would make of Catholic bishops mobilizing Catholics as Catholics. (God forbid it be on some contentious issue like religious freedom, which we wouldn’t know anything about.) Sounds portentous, doesn’t it?
At the end of the Day, a group of Muslims who refuse to condemn terrorist acts as well as terrorists groups such as Hamas are not practicing the Islamic Religion and thus not only do they not have the right to build a Mosque or community center, they should not be allowed to build a Mosque or community center because they are a threat to all those who value our unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness that has been endowed to each and every one of us from God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd5EysW-oJM
Skerry? Always amusing when non-Muslims attempt to explain what Muslims believe/think. And then to draw a conclusion from his notions about what “the rest of us should” do?
——–
Draft riots? I don’t see the comparison some are drawing to the opposition to Park51. The protestors/rioters opposed the draft, not a religion. The riot turned into a racist rampage in which victims were targeted because of their skin color, not because of their religious beliefs.
——–
Nativist/Know-Nothing attacks? If all the churches and convents had been burned and if all the convent “investigations” by Protestant officials had taken place in the same time span as the draft riots, they would have been waaaay worse. Nuns were verbally assaulted by APA people well into the 20th century. (Anyone unfamiliar with the Al Smith campaign would find the newspapers, etc., of the period interesting.)
——–
Today? After many years of reading anti-Catholic tracts, etc., I’m still shocked at the hatred of Catholics expressed by various religious groups on their web sites and in their sermons, ads., etc.
Political correctness requires us to pretend/imagine that certain groups do not believe and intend what they do believe and intend.
Nancy,
In 1946, a Jewish/Zionist group called the Irgun, headed by Menachem Begin, bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which was being used as the headquarters for the British Mandatory Authorities. There were 91 people killed and 46 injured.
Menachem Begin later became the sixth Prime Minister of Israel (June 1977 – October 1983). Do you condemn Israel?
“[Archbishop Dolan] was not supportive of the right of the Muslims to build their mosque. He said those who were concerned about the location of the mosque asked “legitimate questions” that he thinks “deserve attention.” (What are the legitimate questions?) ”
I believe what he’s trying to do – and what he expressed, not in a carefully wordsmithed, formal statement but in off-the-cuff remarks at an impromptu news conference – is to break out of the cycle of I’m-right-you’re-wrong, you-win-I-lose brinksmanship that characterizes this issue, and seek a peaceful, amicable, solution – which, yes, might involve some compromise from all parties involved.
Note that he praised two local politicians, Paterson and Bloomberg, who seem to stand on opposite sides. The common thread that he apparently sees from these two officials is a desire to work out a peaceable solution.
I don’t know what he believes are “legitimate questions”, as he didn’t explain himself on that point, but it may be that he doesn’t attribute all of the opposition to xenophobia, anti-Islam, racism, or other evils. It’s possible that there may be other, better reasons that people would oppose putting the cultural/worship center there. Granted, those can be difficult to articulate. Douthat groped toward it, and probably stubbed his toe.
This may be worth pondering, though: if the outcome is that the cultural center is built at the planned site, and then it becomes a focus for ongoing anger and antipathy on the part of victims’ families and their supporters – is that a victory? What have we won? What principle have we upheld, that wouldn’t equally be upheld by some sort of a compromise?
David, I condemn all acts of terrorism and any terrorist group like Hamas. Do you condemn Hamas, David?
Grant–
Not sure I understand what you’re getting at regarding “positive gloss”, but I would take it as a positive if the terrorist were acting alone and not motivated by Muslim hatred of America, rather than as one small piece of a larger terrorist organization that is still a major threat, fostering hate and moving to violence even those who might not be “official” members of its organization. Wouldn’t you?
Jim–
I generally don’t find consequentialist arguments all that convincing, but I think you are right about the potential outcome and it would indeed be a God-awful shame.
To Ken, Mark, MAT who oppose the site. The WSJ has just posted an important demographic that sides with those of us who have no problem with Park 51 building. These strippers work near the Park 51. You have Newt on your side… we have working class neighbors..
“What principle have we upheld that wouldn’t equally have been upheld by some sort of a compromise?” The false principle that one can be seeking Peace while refusing to condemn terrorism, simultaneously.
“Political correctness requires us to pretend/imagine that certain groups do not believe and intend what they do believe and intend.”
Gerelyn –
Indeed, and it seems to me that one of the reasons many Americans inf the political right and the political middle never trust the judgement of liberals is because of political correctness. The extreme liberals, God bless them, are so simple-hearted and willing to think the best of everyone that they don’t see the meanness and evil that are part of the world. So they do nothing when action ought to be taken. Hence the truism: all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
Ironically such blindness makes the polarization deeper. Political correctness needs to be examined. It is the besetting sin of the left.
The sin of the far right, of course, is the opposite — postulating evil where there is none. Beset by fear, the far right endorses comforting but ding-bat hypotheses as fact (e.g., Obama is a Muslim), and at its worst it results in conspiracy theories. So he went to a Muslim school as a child. He also went to a Catholic one. Does that make him a Catholic Muslim? Fear, fear, fear.
I think I’ll take the politically correct liberals. Sigh.
Ed – I do not oppose this Mosque. I happen to agree with the Pope and the local NY Bishop who (it seems to me anyway) favor engaging Muslims in honest, sincere dialogue.
In my opinion, this Mosque might be a good start to that sort of dialogue.
However I live in California, not NYC. Consequently, I think this is a local NY issue and moreover, considering what happened in New York City on 9-11-01, that we should leave New Yorkers alone, give them room to breathe, and let them decide this for themselves.
Geez – Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Political correctness requires us to pretend/imagine that certain groups do not believe and intend what they do believe and intend.
“Political correctness” is a red herring in this case, invoked to justify bigotry and recast it as some sort of wordly wisdom. We have laws and protections. They apply the same to everyone. We don’t get to add another layer on top because we just have a bad feeling about Muslims.
No one who is both honest and even moderately informed about the circumstances could actually argue that allowing this project to go forward would represent some sort of victory for Islamist terrorists. If it represents any “victory” at all, it will be the triumph of America’s laws and “freedoms” (chiefly the freedom of religion) over bigotry during a time when strong emotions threatened to carry the day. That’s why changing the location is a loss, and not a fair compromise. The standards of participation in discourse and civic life are no more stringent for Muslims than they are for everybody else, and if that guarantee is subject to public pressure then it’s meaningless.
Nancy, you seem convinced that the faith leaders of this community have been insincere in their frequent denunciations of terrorism — and that despite their collaboration with the state department in reaching out to moderate Muslims since 9/11. You’re entitled to your suspicion, but you’re not entitled to carry out a misinformed interrogation here. That’s enough.
Ken is right that this is a local issue — and the fact is, New York has settled it. The “debate” is bogus, driven by cynical opportunism, a rank willingness on the part of politicians and pundits to exploit anti-Muslim sentiment for political or personal gain. Advocating for “discussion,” however well-intentioned, merely concedes the bigoted premises that made it possible to target the Park51 organizers in the first place. What these people do with their land (provided they can legally raise the funds to do it) is simply not up for a vote.
“To…MAT who oppose the site. ”
I have no opinion on the site. Is your pattern of false statements a result of your struggles reading the English language or is it intentional?
Mark Proska,
Regarding “positive gloss,” isn’t it understandable that government officials are hesitant to cry “international terrorist incident” before there are solid facts to support it?” I think we saw the same kind of thing from the government in the initial stages of the Gulf oil spill — an attempt to portray the problem as not catastrophic.
And although both could have done considerable harm, I wouldn’t put the “Underwear Bomber” and the “Times Square Bomber” in the same class as the 9/11 terrorists, even though they had foreign training and support.
I guess I must have read posts incorrectly.. apologies to all ; from Ken; “Ed – I do not oppose this Mosque’
From MAT; “I have no opinion on the site”
Now I’m going to email Newt.. maybe the strippers will change his views!!!
now that Park51 is settled..
Just found out that Park 51 sponsors have $18,000 in the bank. $109,999,982 to go. DIDN’T WE WASTE A LOT OF POSTs?
I recommend a NEW thread… ‘All combat troops just left Iraq’.. 50,000 militatry trainers to leave next year .US says No Iran bomb till next year, warns off Isreal attack. .
“‘Political correctness’ is a red herring in this case, invoked to justify bigotry and recast it as some sort of wordly wisdom.”
———–
Maybe so, and maybe your vehemence is really just an anodyne for your own qualms.
Gerelyn, I can’t figure out whether you have a real opinion on this, or whether you’re attempting, clumsily, to stir the pot. Mostly I can’t tell what you’re talking about. But here’s the point: my “qualms” about Islam, whatever they might be, are simply not relevant to the question at hand, and neither are yours. And what you’re labeling “vehemence” is actually annoyance, and alarm, at the notion that bigotry against Muslims is a valid position that must be honored in public discourse. I don’t have an opinion about the “wisdom” of this project; that’s for the funders to decide. But I’m afraid I do have a pretty cut-and-dried view of the definition of bigotry and the application of the first amendment. There’s no “unless Mollie has serious qualms” clause, and there shouldn’t be.
Many of us are straining for analogies that will help us understand the situation. Let me toss this one into the ring:
At one time, there was an organization of Pearl Harbor veterans – service men and women who were stationed there when the Japanese attacked. Perhaps the organization still exists, although the number of members still living surely has dwindled in recent years.
I think it’s pretty well-known that the Japanese fighter pilot who led the first assault on Pearl Harbor emigrated to the US after the war. He may even have become a Christian minister (sorry, my memory is fuzzy).
At one point, he requested that he be able to join the Pearl Harbor veterans association. This was many years after the end of WWII – may have been the ’60′s or ’70′s. He argued, accurately, that he was himself a veteran of that battle. But my recollection is that the veterans’ group turned him down flat.
So, what motivated the veterans’ group to deny the application? My guess is that it was what i call “high feelings”, motivated by a catastrophic incident in these veterans’ lives. Was bigotry part of it? Human nature being what it is, there are people with varying degrees of bigotry in any group of human beings. But do we conclude that the Pearl Harbor veterans groups are all bigots?
I would suggest the following:
* The phenomenon I’ve described as “high feelings” doesn’t reduce to bigotry, although it may certainly inflame bigotry
* “High feelings” are the emotional reaction to a catastrophic incident that happens in someone’s life
* “High feelings” aren’t rational. They’re *feelings* – emotions. But they’re extremely potent, and color the behavior of those who have them.
* As we can see with the Pearl Harbor veterans, those feelings can last for a very long time. (We saw something similar at the 50th anniversary D Day celebrations – some of those veterans still harbored very strong feelings against the Germans).
Of all the people who have weighed in on this Muslim Center issue, to my mind, there are two groups of parties with a real interest in the issue: the Muslims who want to build; and the families and friends of 9/11 victims. Everyone else, from the President to Newt Gingrich to loudmouth bigots to pundits of every stripe, are entitled to their opinion, but they aren’t interested parties. I wouldn’t feel obligated to show their arguments and opinions the deference I would show those of the interested parties.
My assumption of the families./friends of 9/11 victims is that they are afflicted with “high feelings”; and that we shouldn’t expect those feelings to subside quickly.
So then: if I am right: the question I am trying to think through is, ‘What deference should be paid to the “high feelings” of the families/friends of 9/11 victims? Are their strong emotions sufficient reason for the Muslim group to relocate its center?’
Sorry, neglected to include something vitally important in my previous, lengthy post: where my analogy hits its limit is that the Japanese fighter pilot was definitely involved in the Pearl Harbor attack,while the Muslims who want to build the community center were *not* involved in the 9/11 attacks.
But the emotional reaction – the “high feelings” – are, I’m suggesting, the same phenomenon.
“I think this is a local NY issue and moreover, considering what happened in New York City on 9-11-01, that we should leave New Yorkers alone, give them room to breathe, and let them decide this for themselves.
Geez – Why is this so hard for you to understand?”
Uh, let me repeat myself (which I dearly love to do!):
“Because New York can’t have it both ways. New York and its citizens were quite happy to have Federal funds expended to compensate the victims, assist in the restoration of the damage, etc. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11th_Victim_Compensation_Fund; http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/wtc/html/background/funding.shtml
The attack on the WTC was just part of an attack on the US. It was not just a New York-specific attack. The issues at stake are national issues, not Manhattan issues.”
Whenever I read the words, “No one who is both honest and even moderately informed about the circumstances could actually argue that…”, I don’t need to read any further, because I know that I am being bullied. It would be comforting, I suppose, to live in a world where people holding a different view from our own are thereby either bigoted, or not even moderately informed, or have bad feelings towards others, or irrationally emotional, or cynically opportunistic, or guilty of a rank willingness to exploit the weaknesses of others for personal gain…wait, so who’s being provocative for its own sake?
David–
I agree that government officials often want to downplay the seriousness of an event, particularly if they feel it was some oversight on their part that led to the event, but my sense is that the terrorist threat, unlike the oil spill, was downplayed out of political correctness.
Ed–
For what it’s worth, I do wish they’d move the site, but voluntarily, not by force of law–guess my view is that I’m semi-against the site. I have no view of the strippers.
Mark ‘ “I have no view of the strippers.”… as it should be and we can all agree to that… I think?. !!!next//
Mark, what you’re looking for is not “different views,” but different facts, and I’m afraid they just aren’t available. I’m sorry if you feel being restricted to the actual facts of the matter is unfair, but if it makes you feel better, I never said you were both honest and informed.
Ed–
Oops, I meant, of course, I have no view *on* the strippers. That is, I see no reason to be against them.
Speaking of stripping, if we strip away all the anti-Islamic emotion laden rhetoric and return to as Mayor Bloomberg attempted to do in his excellent speech remind America of its first principles then this project must proceed.
American Catholics should certainly if they know their own history be aware of this need. Imho Abp Dolan didn’t make the point strongly enough.
“. . . if it makes you feel better, I never said you were both honest and informed.”
That’s really nasty,
Beware of “high feelings.” They result in such things as denying human personhood to blacks; the right to vote to women; the right to marry to interracial couples; the internment of all Japanese in the US at the start of WWII in concentration camps; the KKK; HUAC; the support of Fr. Coughlin (and Glenn Beck!); the right for blacks to be educated in the same places and manners as whites, etc.
Thanks, Ann. It’s not always easy to practice what we preach, I suppose.