Intro | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Although my normal blogging beat is movies, I’ve been writing 9/11-related pieces since September 2001. I live in New Jersey, but New York is practically my second home city; I went to school there, and I’m there all the time for screenings and such. On September 11, 2001 I watched with my own eyes from my balcony at work across the Hudson in New Jersey as the towers burned and fell.
I didn’t know anyone who died at Ground Zero, but my brother-in-law, whom I mentioned in that first story and in other 9/11 related pieces, was in the dust cloud on that day. Almost exactly five years later, right at the time that numerous cases of 9/11-related respiratory ailments began cropping up, he suddenly succumbed to an explosively aggressive leukemia and died; he also had some sort of growth in his lungs. My wife Suzanne, an RN, thinks his death was probably 9/11 related. Her diagnostic track record is scary accurate, and I’m inclined to credit her.
There are still gaping wounds left from the September 11 attacks. One of those gaping wounds is Ground Zero itself, which to this day is still significantly “a huge, noisy, and dirty pit with almost no visible architectural progress,” in the words of Christopher Hitchens.
As hostile as he is to Abrahamic religion generally and Muslim extremism in particular, Hitchens makes interesting reading for his statement of the case against opposition to the plans to build a large Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero. Some of the opposition’s rhetoric, as Hitchens rightly argues, has been overheated, manipulative, strident sophistry. For that matter, so has some of the rhetoric on the other side. There has been a great deal of heat but too little light from either side.
On the one hand, appealing to an outrageously inflammatory analogy, Newt Gingrich recently said, “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington”—as if all Muslims, not just extremists and terrorists like al-Qaeda, were morally equivalent to Nazis. On the other hand, New York City Mike Bloomberg, an ardent advocate of the project, has repeatedly floated the equally outrageous and offensive claim that opposing the mosque is tantamount to wanting “the terrorists to win without firing a shot.”
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s wife Daisy Khan, who is co-sponsoring the project with her husband, has described opposition to the mosque as “beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.” Unfortunately, some opponents seem happy to live up to her assessment. But this isn’t the whole story. You wouldn’t have figures like Archbishop Dolan and Governor Patterson offering to step in and help resolve the issue if the whole controversy was a matter of bigots and cranks. Their willingness to become involved is an indication that there is in fact something there.
Getting to the bottom of it amid the rhetoric, though, is daunting. Opponents have dubbed the project the “Ground Zero Mosque,” “9/11 Mosque” or “Mosque de Triomphe”—language that critics have satirized by talking about the “Burlington Coat Factory Mosque,” while some advocates have claimed that it’s “not a mosque” at all. None of this rhetoric on either side is unproblematic.
Opponents reach for provocative but potentially misleading analogies: Imagine, they say, a Japanese monument at Pearl Harbor—or, conversely, an American monument at Hiroshima. And what about the Carmelite nuns at Auschwitz whom Pope John Paul relocated in response to Jewish objections? Critics object to these analogies, more or less credibly, while floating highly dubious analogies of their own: Imagine someone objecting to building a Christian church near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing.
A lot of questions and insinuations have been raised. Who’s paying for the mosque? Does the money have ties to terrorism? Who’s behind the opposition? Are flames of anti-Muslim sentiment being fanned for political gain? What about plans for a shopping mall on Ground Zero itself: Where’s the patriotic outrage over that? What about the Greek Orthodox church destroyed on 9/11: Why are authorities allegedly stonewalling them over previous agreements to rebuild the church on a nearby parcel of land while the Cordoba project is fast-tracked?
There are way too many issues to tackle here, but I’d like to try to shed a little light on some of the key issues and help clear the air for reasonable discussion among those willing to engage in it.
Next: Mosque or Community Center?
Intro | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Note: Combox etiquette will be strictly enforced.
Comments
Post a Comment
what’s missing from the discussion of pros & cons, i think, is a bit of historionic preshadowing:
in many years time, the arguments about tolerance/intolerance will be forgotten. what will be remembered is that a group of people crashed a plane into a big building killing thousands. the choice is whether to add to that the historical fact that members of that group then built nearby a place of worship (by then it will or will not include a library and community center - who knows, it may even have a sharia bank inside called twin towers banking) to comemorate their deed (positive or negative connotations in the eyes of the beholder).
it’s like calling pius-12 a saint: who cares?! only in many centuries time will it be said that the catholic church had nothing to do with the hollocaust - how could they have: their representative at the time was “a saint”...
What? How is that missing? Did you read anything I wrote? Cheers.
Seven pages?!?! Can’t you just give us some half-considered, knee-jerk reaction on the issue like everyone else has done? I’d better put on another pot of coffee before I plunge into this…
It is difficult to ‘touch the earth’ on this issue. The non-western manner of thinking is so foreign to us that those who describe are perceivered to be outrageous. Read Frontpage magazine - http://frontpagemag.com/ - critically but read it. Check out Roger Scruton, ‘The West and the Rest’. Uncommon Knowledge -http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/ - is entertaining and excellent.
I believe the touchstone is reciprocity.
No mosques in New York unless Christian Churches are allowed in the places that are sponsoring the mosque.
If a group from Saudi Arabia wants to build a mosque they must permit and protect a Christian Church in Saudi Arabia.
Does that square with First Amendment protections for American Muslims? Hypothetically speaking, if Saudi groups give American groups money, doesn’t it become their money, and aren’t they free to spend it in accordance with American freedoms?
What the author does not take into account is the role of such people as the mayor. The project would not have gone forward if the promoters had not already cleared with “the people who count.” The indignation we hear from them says, quite, plainly, “Well,WE have no problem with it, and WE are the ones who makes decisions around here. Shows that a billionaire mayor can be as much a naif as a world-famous physicist.
There are ten thousand things I don’t take into account. Please feel free to list as many as possible in the combox. Thanks!
of course.
you’re dealing with the various pros & cons as represented in mainstream media.
i was commenting on the Islamic edict to build mosques at places of victory (Koran 018:021 “Build a building over them…”).
Life Site News for Aug 24 has many newsclips relevant to this discussion.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/
“Hypothetically speaking, if Saudi groups give American groups money, doesn’t it become their money, and aren’t they free to spend it in accordance with American freedoms?”
Certainly, but we can then dispense with the “we are doing this to build bridges nonsense” and evaluate what is really going on here. They are entitled to build it, the rest of us are entitled to not like it.
I agree. I was merely responding to the question of “reciprocity.”
“I agree. I was merely responding to the question of “reciprocity.”
But shouldn’t reciprocity be part of a wider discussion about Islam in non-Muslim countries? Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden did not come up with the ideas that: (1) Muslims cannot convert to other religions; (2) non-Muslims cannot try to convert Muslims; (3) non-Muslims cannot build places of worship in Saudi Arabia; and (4) non-Muslims are not even allowed to step foot in Mecca or Medina. These are mainstream Muslim ideas, and that is troubling.
I don’t disagree with anything you say. Is this a separate discussion from allowing American Muslims to exercise their First Amendment rights? I’m just trying to be clear what we’re talking about.
“Is this a separate discussion from allowing American Muslims to exercise their First Amendment rights? I’m just trying to be clear what we’re talking about.”
Yes. It is a separate discussion, but one that it seems appropriate to raise at this time. Muslims like Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan claim to have a high regard for freedom of religion, so it is reasonable to ask them how they reconcile that position with the Islamic principles I referred to above. When the “moderate” position among Muslim clerics on apostate Muslims, which is apparently held by Imam Rauf’s spiritual mentor, is that they should only be executed if they make their conversion publically known, we have a problem.
Nobody should build ANYTHING new until the Greek Orthodox Church is permitted to rebuild. It was there first, and it deserves to be treated as legitimate…unlike this monument to Islam’s thumbing their noses in the faces of Christians and Americans everywhere.
When the Orthodox Church is rebuilt, then we can talk about “new” stuff going in. The Orthodox Church has priority, but it is being denied the right to rebuild because its structure would have been higher than the proposed “memorial” to 9/11. So how is this Islam center even being CONSIDERED, since it’s clearly going to be taller than the Orthodox Church would have been?
And why isn’t this question asked of Mayor Bloomberg EVERY TIME HE OPENS HIS MOUTH about “religious tolerance”?
JB
This debate is not about religious liberty, nor is it about whose right and whose wrong. It is purely about “sensitivity” to the offended parties. Let’s compare this issue to Auschwitz the Carmelites, and Pope John Paul II. The issue is similar, not rhetoric, but historical fact.
The nuns wanted to pray and offer reparation for the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated in the concentration camp in Auschwitz. A historical fact to remember, in that debate was, not only Jews were killed, but a large portion of Eastern European Catholics, including many religious. These religious included Edith Stein and Maximillian Kolbe.
Still, the Jewish people consider Auschwitz and all other death camps, “Holy Ground” for the Jewish people; as well they should. The Pope recognizing that this issue was not going to be solved in the press, or by public debate, intervened with “sensitivity” as opposed to “which side was right or wrong”. He did not engage in a defense of Christianity’s guilt or innocence regarding the Holocaust. He simply conceded to the pain and anguish that the Jewish people felt about their Holy Ground being invaded. Right or wrong did not matter to the Holy Father. He simply moved the convent.
Your review of the Cordoba House is well thought out but unfortunately misses the mark in my opinion.
1. Islam is a heresy for Catholics plain and simple. From a secular stand point, it is a philosophy spread throughout history by force or military conquest. It incorporates a legal system (Sharia) which subjugates women and returns us to 7th century jurisprudence. Thus from a religious or a modern secular standpoint, I do not support Islam in anyway. It should be discouraged at every opportunity and no amount of philosophical gymnastics can reasonably call it a religion of peace in modern times.
2. Giving ground to the proponents of Cordoba House gives their philosophy cover. I do not wish any harm on non-militant Muslims but I do no wish to encourage their philosophy under the guise of peace and bridge building. I do not wish to assist its spreading of acceptance. It is similar to the way we have given ground to homosexuals. We have allowed homosexuals to re-brand themselves as “gay” and to portray themselves as just two normal men who “love” one another. The fundamental of the “gay” lifestyle is homo-sex-uality and homosexuality is based on sodomy, which has been recognized since earliest history as unnatural and repugnant. Ano-rectal intercourse is what is objectionable and a public health risk. It is homosexual behavior which is at the root of the problem and the more we allow them to disguise their lifestyle in terms of fairness and rights the more society is deceived about the real issue. Dittos for Islam.
3. You should restudy the history of Cordoba. Building victory mosques is a tradition in Islam. Cordoba House is what it is. The Empire State Building will light up for Elvis or Mariah Carey, but won’t recognize Mother Teresa.
4. I agree with your final conclusion just not your resoning.
Jay, thanks for your comments.
1. Catholics believe that Islam is gravely deficient (sub-Christian) and erroneous in many respects; “heresy” may not be the best word (although it has been used) because it implies a species of Christian error.
However, as Catholics we also believe in the right to religious freedom, including the right of religious communities
We also believe as Americans in freedom of religion. It’s in the First Amendment. Now, this doesn’t mean that any religious community may build any building anywhere. Building buildings is an endeavor with implications for the whole community and can legitimately be regulated. Somehow, though, we have to distinguish between regulation and hindering (Vatican II’s word) or “discouraging” (your word).
2. There is a difference between encouraging a philosophy and encouraging peaceful coexistence. You say you don’t want to harm non-militant Muslims. Which kind of Muslim would you prefer there to be more of in the world, militant or non-militant? Would you prefer that Muslims in the middle ground somewhere between militant and non-militant move in a militant direction or a non-militant direction?
Is it possible that our actions, responsible or irresponsible, strong or cowardly, respectful or disrespectful, might help to encourage one kind of Islam over another? I’m not saying pick the lesser of two evils. I am saying that making friends is better than making enemies. That’s what bridge-building—genuine bridge-building—is all about.
3. I did look into the history of Cordoba, and I did mention the mosque built on the site of a church in part 5 above. However, I’m unconvinced of the “victory mosque” thesis (here’s another take). Feel free to present alternative evidence.
P.S. Just because I’m a film critic doesn’t mean everything I write is a “review”! :-)
I am not Muslims but a cradle Catholic. It upsets me that no one is mentioning the fact that dozens of Muslims also died on 9/11. If you google How many Muslims died on that day you will find many names and several stories. One woman, after loosing her husband, gave birth two days after 9/11. Another story is of one couple who were on flight #11 and she was 7 months pregnant. One young man was a cadet on the NYPD. After 9/11 his family was questioned because they thought their son may have had something to do with the Towers coming down since he was Muslim…..it seems most people do not realize that people from many country’s died on that day. I don’t think most people realize that this imam was the one that Pres Bush went to after 9/11 for advise…..please let’s all step back and take a deep breath.
Actually, I did mention it, in Part 6 above. Just like how many Catholics died at Auschwitz. That didn’t mean that Pope John Paul II wasn’t right to move the Carmelite monastery away from Auschwitz, and it doesn’t mean that Cordoba House shouldn’t be moved away from the site of 9/11 violence.
As for stepping back and taking a deep breath … that’s exactly what this whole blog series is about. Please take a deep breath and read it again! :-)
” It upsets me that no one is mentioning the fact that dozens of Muslims also died on 9/11.”
The daughter of one of them wrote a letter in the LA Times in which she objected to the mosque.
To bring this back to the usual subject of this blog, one of my favorite movies is El Cid, in which Catholics and tolerant Muslims fight against Muslim fundamentalists (led my Ben Yussuf, who gives a speech at the beginning of the movie that could have been written by Osama bin Laden).
The tolerant Muslims are led by Emir Moutamin. Where is the modern Emir Moutamin?
Brian English,
Ross Douthat has a couple of blog posts that might be of interest (I’ll probably blog them early next week). He cites liberal Muslims like feminist Irshad Manji (“Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare” according to the NYTimes!) as an examples of a sort of “moderate” Islam that Westerners can thoroughly cozy up to. But he also argues—and this is very much to the point of what I was trying to say in part 2—that what Muslims who side so thoroughly with the West not at all with traditional Islamic cultures are offering is
I think he has a point.
The real meaning of “Cordoba” to Muslims - -
Cordoba was the seat of the caliphate established in what is now modern Spain after the Islamic invasion from North Africa in the 8th century A.D.
The medieval occupation of Spain – “al-Andalus” – is considered by Islamic theorists to have been an inevitable step in the manifest destiny of Islam, and its eventual reversal through the lengthy European “Reconquista” a tragic but temporary triumph of the infidels.
The great mosque at Cordoba was built on the foundation of a Christian cathedral, and when Europeans retook Cordoba in the 13th century they turned the magnificent mosque back into a cathedral.
There is more to this so-called Mosque to radical Muslims than most Americans understand.
Anne, please see Part 5, “What’s in a name?”
FWIW, the Great Mosque was built on the site of a Christian church, not a cathedral. It is not clear to me that this was an act of triumphalism over Christians ... I’m open to evidence, but I haven’t seen it so far.
Everything is in a Name. It identifies a specific person, place or thing.
Radical Muslims understand the name “Cordoba”, as well as the radical Muslim triumph over the US World Trade Towers.
Radical Muslims are very symbolic in their thinking - and what they believe to be their “destiny” and goals.
“FWIW, the Great Mosque was built on the site of a Christian church, not a cathedral. It is not clear to me that this was an act of triumphalism over Christians ... I’m open to evidence, but I haven’t seen it so far.”
The Great Mosque “was built on the site of a former Christian church. The siting of the mosque was a gesture of Islamic triumphalism, an architectural manifesto.” Page 4 of Moorish Spain by Richard Fletcher (1992)
Thanks, Brian, that’s helpful. Certainly Fletcher’s expertise—as well as his sympathy for Islam—adds considerable authority to his assertion. I’ve seen the contrary argued, though ... If there is more to be said in this regard one way or the other, especially other examples, I’d like to know about it.
All the King’s horses and all the King’s men can’t put Cordoba House in any better light again. Just like Humpty Dumpty, who had a great fall. All the debate boils down to this. Cordoba House shows no sensitivity. It never was a question of religious freedom - only framed that way by the major media, who seize on any opportunity to create chaos, while the Muslims build a house over a site that is sacred ground. The bones of the men and women, who are still buried there, may rise again. If you were a murder victim, would you want the name of your murderer glorified by a engraving on your headstone. That’s what Cordoba House’s intention is. Otherwise they would have lobbied to rebuild the Greek Orthodox Church, if they were so interested in religious freedom.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.