Intro | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Previous: The Mosque and the Monastery
Finally, one last point about the Carmelites at Auschwitz is worth noting. The Carmelites were not forcibly expelled; they left in response to objections from Jewish groups—though it was Pope John Paul II, not the Carmelites, who acknowledged the legitimacy of Jewish concerns in this regard, and the nuns apparently took their sweet time about leaving, missing the pope’s deadline by a few years.
The Park51 project should not go forward at 51 Park Way. But what should opponents do about their concerns? The best solution would be if project sponsors came to recognize the insensitivity of their proposal and voluntarily agreed to move the project elsewhere.
Rauf and Khan say that they are all about building bridges. If they are sincere in that, it is clearly in their best interest to move elsewhere. At present, bridges are being burned, not built—and the longer they buck growing public opposition, the worse the damage becomes.
It may be the case that in part bridges are being burned through unscrupulous or incendiary attacks from opponents stirring up tribal resentments and fears against Muslims. But that’s not the whole story. In the meantime, Rauf is giving those with an axe to grind all the ammunition they need to use against him—and American Muslims of good will may be the ones to suffer.
While I could be wrong about this, for what it’s worth my impression is that Rauf and Khan did not intend their project as a “Mosque de Triomphe.” Those who view them as closeted (or semi-closeted) radicals are, in my opinion, misreading them. Although their message at times seems muddled by glib, agenda-laden speech playing to different audiences, fundamentally I’m inclined to take them at their word that they are opposed to terrorism and deplore what happened on 9/11. I suspect that they genuinely want to “send the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”
Some will consider my reading of Rauf naive. In my opinion, it was Rauf who was naive, about the ultimate fallout of his error in judgment. (Note Rauf’s openness about the “iconic” location in that NYTimes.com story mentioned earlier. Clearly he didn’t realize at the time that this might pose a problem for him down the road.)
Making matters worse, though, is Rauf and Khan’s slowness to acknowledge their error. In part, perhaps, this may be linked to conflicting interests involving other parties who may or may not have shared their naivete.
Rauf and Khan’s bridge-building mission necessarily reaches out to multiple constituencies, and their work domestically and abroad brings them into contact with both non-Muslims and Muslims of many stripes. I doubt anyone will deny that there are Muslims in the world who would like to see a Mosque de Triomphe on the site of 9/11 violence—on Ground Zero itself if possible, but on a site where airplane wreckage fell as a next-best option. While I think Rauf opposes terrorism, he probably sees Muslims who do not oppose terrorism as within the scope of his bridge-building efforts. Indeed, he practically says as much in the WABC interview.
Whatever Rauf’s intentions, surely from his perspective an Islamic center that could be welcomed by non-Muslim Americans, Muslim Americans and non-American Muslims could only be a good thing — even if not all these constituencies necessarily saw the center in exactly the same way or appreciated it for the same reasons. The exciting prospect of such a win-win victory could have led to excessive optimism on Rauf’s part, leading him to turn a blind eye to potential difficulties.
It could also help explain Rauf’s reluctance to admit his mistake. Bridge builders don’t like to disappoint their constituencies. For awhile it looked like a coalition on both sides could be held together, even as the first voices of dissent arose. Now, though, it looks increasingly like Rauf and Khan will have to disappoint one group or another.
Which group they choose will prove telling. The longer they continue to stick to their guns, the hollower their talk of bridge building will sound, and the more it will seem as if they are less interested in building bridges than in building their “close to 9/11” mosque. It’s not too late to undo the damage, at least in part, but time is running out.
Comments
Post a Comment
Very well written Steven. Great to hear some common-sense amidst all the rhetorical bombs being thrown from both sides of the argument!
This is the best analysis I’ve read on the issue. Granted, I haven’t read may commentaries of this length as there aren’t many writers writing online that I’d wade through 8 pages for, given my short attention span, but I’m really, really glad that I took the time to—oh, look! A squirrel! The length was necessary in this case, though, to fully explain the nuances of situation, and I was impressed at all the angles covered (location, name, plus a chartiable consideration of the planners’ motives), and that they were covered with such temperence. Which is all to say: thank for this piece. For people, like myself, who hadn’t stopped to fully consider the issue thoughtfully, this piece is a real boon.
Hey hey! Didn’t you read what I said about combox etiquette? You two are treading on thin ice. No seriously, thanks Victor and Ben, your words are greatly appreciated.
Insightful and balanced as always, Steve! I following this from a link on FaceBook, where I’d recently gotten into a bit of a kerfuffle with a rather noisily Islamophobic friend over this very issue. I have my reservations about the issue, but I look at it as a chance to build a bridge, however, my friend can’t seem to see all Muslims as “the enemy” no matter what and unfortunately, there are too many people like her who can’t see the forest for the trees on this issue. Your piece gives me some hope and it’s a great antidote to the very vitriol-laden spam my friend kept sending me this week. I just wish there were more people who had as balanced an outlook on the matter as you do.
Thank you so much for the great analysis. You have given the issue much thought and were able to argue both sides. I liked that. I agree with you that moving the mosque would do a world of good for American Islamic relations, at least in the way many Americans view Islam. There is suspicion about Islam and a decision to be sensitive to the opponents will go far to allay that fear and suspicion. Thanks again for your clear thinking.
The Nuns had been hiding sixty Jewish girls during the whole war but that item is just a no-brainer to a fanatical group.
The author is naive.
Part of this Muslim Center will be to monitor Shariah compliance in America!
As for “bridge-building” I think this will be a first and is actually part of the “soft-jihad.”
Islam and secularism are incompatible.
The American value of freedom and shariah law are incompatible.
Read the article: Ground Zero Mosque’s Hidden Websites: Follow the Shariah. by Christine Brim. Aug 17th 2010 at 10:45 am
http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2010/08/17/ground-zero-mosques-hidden-websites-follow-the-shariah/
Really? “Monitor,” huh? What do you think they’re going to see there on Park Way that they wouldn’t be able to see somewhere else?
Thank you very much, Steven, for putting into clear prose exactly my sentiments on this issue. I agree with literally every line of what you have written, and I find myself frustrated in my attempts to explain in friendly debates with friends what my take on the mosque situation is. You’ve done the country a favor here, and I hope your piece is widely disseminated and read from now on.
I, for one, will keep the link and repost it to several people.
Thank you Steven, for your “on this hand” and “on the other hand” way of showing things.
My opinion: Build the mosque elsewhere, to prove their sensitivity.
Excellent stuff, Steve. I had grown so weary of this whole situation that I had decided to stop reading about it, but I couldn’t resist, in this case.
I’m sort of troubled by what else is within a block or two of Ground Zero, while we’re at it. Given the strip clubs and porn shops that are already there, a Mosque seems positively edifying by comparison.
An exceptional analysis of such an emotional and divisive issue. Would like to see the Writer’s treatment of the Memorial at crash site of Flight 93, which is said to be an Islam Crescent opened to face Mecca.
Steven, thank you for mapping out this issue with honesty and nuance. Prior to reading your piece, my only sense of the issues at hand came from bomb-throwers on both sides. The public discourse about religious issues in America has become hijacked by the uninformed, and venues like the NCR and First Things have become the only sources I trust on these matters.
Thanks for the great article, and your work in general. I pretty much agree with your entire article - except for two items. 1) While I don’t think all Muslims are evil, terrorists have a legitimate interpretation of Mohammed’s teachings. In his later writings, he was pretty radical and encouraged oppressing and even killing infidels. 2) I don’t think it’s fair to say that Americans have to claim responsibility for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While America bombed the cities, the vast majority of Americans were unaware of the decision to bomb, and therefore did not give their consent. Saying that all WWII Americans share the responsibility for the bombings is like saying all WWII Germans are responsible for the Holocaust.
Jews weren’t the only ones who died at Auschwitz; thousands of non-Jews were killed there. The Carmelites were going to pray for the souls of all, not just Christians. Remembering and praying for the souls of the millions of non-Jews who died in the Holocaust doesn’t mean the we don’t remember and pray for the souls of Jews who died in the camps.
Bridget, thanks.
I don’t disagree; more accurately, I don’t take a position on this one way or another. I allow Imam Rauf his own position that terrorists are distorting Islam, but I don’t assume that he is right about that. My argument doesn’t depend on answering this question one way or the other.
I agree that individual Americans are not personally responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What I’m saying is, those were our leaders. Our leaders’ offenses, committed in their leadership capacity, don’t necessarily make us guilty, but they do shame us as Americans in a direct sense that does not apply to actions of individual Americans not acting on behalf of the whole country.
It’s like the difference between hearing that individual soldiers at some camp were torturing and mistreating prisoners contrary to military policy versus hearing that torture was sanctioned by military leadership going all the way up to the White House.
You neglect to address the question of where the money to fund this project ($100 million est) is coming from. Any chance it is coming from Saudi Arabia:
Do not permit Christian or Jewish places of worship; the home of the majority of 9/11 bombers;the sponsor and source of funds for schools that preach the Wahabi form of Islam embraced by the radicals.
I don’t “neglect” it. I mentioned it in the intro, then said there are too many questions to talk about everything. It’s being discussed in in the intro post combox. What if the money is coming from Saudi Arabia? What follows?
Our leaders’ offenses, committed in their leadership capacity, don’t necessarily make us guilty, but they do shame us as Americans in a direct sense that does not apply to actions of individual Americans not acting on behalf of the whole country.
That sentence was very nicely formulated and well said. I should print that out and carry it around in my wallet.
Here’s what I really don’t get about “peaceloving Muslims”.
“These comments are interesting as they apparently mean to imply a wish or intent to exclude certain undesirable points of view (terrorism advocacy, perhaps?) among Muslims who could claim right of access in a “mosque” but not in a “prayer space.”
Why don’t these “peaceloving Muslims” say that clearly? I’m always hearing how the “real” Muslims aren’t fanatics and don’t live by Sharia law. So show me? Where are these Muslims, I long to believe in it. But if they are so filled with fear that they can’t speak up loudly and clearly in the media and say NO to terrorism then what kind of peace loving religion are they practicing? Why the need to build bridges to terrorists? If the peaceloving Muslims truly want to get along why don’t they speak up and clearly over and over again condemn Sharia law and terrorism. They don’t and won’t and that’s the problem most American’s have with Muslims.
As far as I can tell, Imam Rauf has clearly spoken up against and condemned terrorism. As far as building bridges goes, I don’t think anyone believes there is any building bridges to terrorists per se, but building bridges to devout Muslims with the potential either to be friendly to the West or friendly to the terrorists I think is a worthwhile endeavor. We want to make the case for the Western liberal tradition (liberal here used in the broad sense of favoring freedom and tolerance, not a specific political sense) to people who are not familiar with it, people with illiberal backgrounds and cultures. In that regard, someone like Rauf, or someone like Rauf represents himself as being, may do some good. Given a choice between making friends and making enemies, or between making friends with people who, not being friends with us, might become friends with terrorists, and not doing so, I think it is better to make friends.
Having read to the end of your reasonable commentary, I’m confused at the mostly black-and-white analysis and conclusion that you seem to come to:
“[Rauf claims that his goal is to build bridges.
It seems clear that a community center and mosque at 51 Park Way is not building bridges.
Therefore, Rauf should build his community center and mosque somewhere else.]”
It seems to me that one of the claimed geniuses of America is our historic “melting pot.” “Melting” is not necessarily an enjoyable experience. But it seems to me that other groups that have gone through the process and have won acceptance, as it were, in the greater community, have refused to back down in situations similar to that faced by the Cordoba House initiative.
It would seem to me that the mere fact of “losing” their protest could serve to bring to bring some of those who are protesting Cordoba House to a more nuanced and reasoned understanding of Moslems, etc.
Paul S, I’m curious what sort of “situations similar to that faced by the Cordoba House initiative” you might be thinking of. Care to offer any concrete examples? I would think that 9/11 provides a pretty unique context. Your thoughts?
Wonderful, insightful analysis. I hadn’t found such a balanced exploration of this hot-button issue until now. Thanks a bunch.
If all involved parties follow your lead and deal with this maturely, we can build true bridges.
Excellent commentary Steven. This is the best analysis that I have encountered on this issue. Unfortunately I have encountered extreme rhetoric not just from the usual suspects but from major Catholic news organizations as well. The whole situation seems to come down on a lack of prudence from the Park51’s planners. Why I do see the bridge building potential in such a structure, the planners have neglected to fully consider non-muslim-american sentiment and reaction. And as you have pointed out, this completely undermines their bridge building efforts. You realy should do more pieces like this, it is an invaliable addition to the national debate.
You make a number of interesting points but seem to exclude an analysis of the process by which the owners of the site obtained the requisite approvals from the City of New York. There were hearings including the city approval in December 2009 and then a series of hearings and a vote by members of the historical commission denying the building landmark status.
In other words, a private group of citizens bought a building and intend a usage which has been approved by the city.
If the citizens of New York find fault with their elected representatives, whose job it is to make the sort of determinations you claim Rauf failed to make, their recourse is the same as other citizens: vote them out. One risk in a representative democracy, however, is that those representatives may not do what you like.
I would also point out that if you were to go back to the 1960s and see the LA Times Gallup poll on whether Congress should pass a law allowing blacks and whites to eat at the same restaurants, you would find that 77% thought such a law would be a bad thing. The majority is often an ass which is why it’s a very good thing this is not a true democracy.
The owners own the site, they followed the rules and want to construct a community center that includes a prayer space, a mosque. Where were the people exercised over this private use of a private site from 9/11/01 until the building sold? Why didn’t they band together to buy it to prevent a “victory” mosque (Sufis? really?) from being built?
I can tell you my guess. They didn’t care about this “hallowed” ground until a few people told them to be afraid and they whipped up a mob and you are trying to cover the mob reaction with a patina of intellectual ratiocination.
It’s none of your business.
Tom, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Certainly, the project sponsors have followed the rules and currently have a legal right to move forward. Equally the Carmelites at Auschwitz followed the rules and had the legal right to be where they were. Following the rules is a necessary condition of peaceful coexistence; it is not always a sufficient condition. The rules cover some things that may be objectionable, but not everything. Sometimes when others object we can thumb our noses at them; sometimes that’s not the best thing.
I agree that the majority is not always right, and the civil rights movement affords us an apt case in point. When a matter of fundamental principle is truly at stake, then it may be necessary to oppose the majority and damn the torpedos. If black men and women cannot sit at the same lunch counter as white men and women, civil rights—human dignity—is compromised.
I cannot see that any such fundamental principle is at stake near Ground Zero. If Cordoba House winds up a dozen blocks from Ground Zero instead of two, the First Amendment will not topple or even be slightly shaken. Lots of buildings in New York wind up somewhere other than where the builders would like, even after receiving permission to go ahead. Take the Greek Orthodox church, which nobody is even objecting to (and very few people are defending).
It’s beyond silly to say “Where were people before? Why didn’t they band together?” etc. It wasn’t on anyone’s radar until well after the property was sold. I’ve talked to a number of people who have said “The first time I heard about it I couldn’t believe people were serious.” It was just unthinkable. Like the fact that there’s still that big ugly hole at Ground Zero. No one anticipated that nine years ago. Our leaders have defaulted on their trust.
Is there a mob reaction here? Absolutely. The mob always reacts. And it is seldom either wholly right or wholly wrong. There is an ugly side here that should be deplored, and a fundamental insight that should be respected.
You can say if you like that it’s none of my business. I reply that what happens at Ground Zero is every American’s business—and the name Ground Zero itself implies an epicenter of a larger affected area. Falling plane parts and debris form a radius within which I think Americans have a right to claim a moral interest.
Okay, one more example of the strange logic you use to claim a moral interest.
“Falling plane parts and debris form a radius within which I think Americans have a right to claim a moral interest. “
You do remember that the wind was blowing, yes? Partly because of the falling building and that wind blew dust and ashes thereby creating, using your logic, a radius, not to mention a diameter, much larger than that you describe as a zone of moral concern.
Why aren’t you outraged by the mosque 4 blocks away, or the one 6 blocks away or any of the other mosques in New York? You have described a very slippery slope down which you seem content to merrily slide. Your so-called radius of moral interest would have you claiming a mosque shouldn’t be built in New Jersey.
Private property; used by an Imam to build bridges which your own religion would ostensibly favor. Why are you claiming a moral interest where you have none, except what you have only imagined you possess.
When did I say I was “outraged” at all? You seem to be projecting onto me attitudes and opinions of other people you have encountered. It’s a bad habit to have. You proposed earlier that I was “trying to cover the mob reaction with a patina of intellectual ratiocination.” In fact, the most common response I have gotten to my posts so far has been something like “Thank you for such a balanced response, I’ve been so frustrated by the bomb-throwing on both sides.” Perhaps a lot of people who are against the mosque suffer less from the mob mentality than you suppose.
Before establishing perimeters, let’s try establishing some parameters. As it happens, Ground Zero is owned by the Port Authority, but it could have been otherwise. For instance, the terrorists could have chosen to hit the Empire State Building, which is privately owned. Suppose that one way or another it turned out that Ground Zero was privately owned. And suppose that (perhaps after a change of title) the owners wanted to build, on privately owned ground at Ground Zero, a mosque in the shape of the Kaaba. Or a statue of Osama bin Ladin. Presumably they would have the legal right to do so. Does that mean Americans would have no grounds for finding this objectionable? Or what about a mosque or a bin Ladin statue right across the street from Ground Zero, in full view of the memorial? Would you consider that also “none of our business”?
Your dust cloud reductio is clever, but I have Imam Rauf on my side. The site Rauf wants to build on is “iconic” in a way that all of lower Manhattan is not. Buildings in the dust cloud only required clean-up; they were basically the same after as before. The building at Park51 was struck by falling plane parts, its structural integrity was severely compromised, and it will ultimately have to be demolished for the site to be fully usable. 51 Park Way is a “casualty” of 9/11, not entirely unlike the WTC site itself.
FWIW, I live in New Jersey in a neighborhood with a high Muslim population. I have lived next door to Muslims, played with my children at the playground next to Muslims with their children, etc. I have mosques in my backyard. I have no objection to them. If Rauf wanted to build his $100 million Islamic center on the site of his present mosque 12 blocks from Ground Zero, in principle I would have no problem swinging a hammer on the site to help him build it. It’s been nearly two decades since I’ve worked construction, but in principle.
FWIW, the situation at Park51 looks significantly different today than it did a few weeks ago when I wrote this series, and I’m about to post a new blog post largely modifying my stance on Park51. However, I stand by my analysis of the available facts as they stood at the time of this series.
“In fact, the most common response I have gotten to my posts so far has been something like ‘Thank you for such a balanced response, I’ve been so frustrated by the bomb-throwing on both sides.”
I’m just writing to reiterate my prior point, in support of Tom’s “patina” analysis: Yes, your seven or eight pages of commentary are much more reasonable than any other analysis that I’ve seen on the “right.” Nonetheless, to the extent that you come to a black and white conclusion, despite your reasonable, “gray” analysis, the “patina” description fits, to some extent.
Paul S, you still haven’t answered the question I put to you in response to your earlier post.
As for your reiterated claim about my “black and white” conclusion, well, how exactly is it so “black and white”? I haven’t said anyone should shut Cordoba House down, for instance. I have said that (a) there are valid reasons for finding a mosque at the current planned site objectionable (which is how I would see this situation as different from various possible proposed parallels I imagine you might make), and (b) if Rauf wants to build bridges, he should voluntarily relocate to another site. Even among supporters of Corboda House who disagree with me on (a), there is some (reluctant) openness to (b) and even some agreement.
My conclusion is only “black and white” in the sense in which any conclusion or opinion would be black and white, i.e., the building must be built or not, and that being the case, any opinion comes down to thinking that it’s a good idea or not a good idea. At least, I can’t see that by “black and white” you mean anything other than “You think a mosque at Park51 is a bad idea.” Which is no more “black and white” than the converse position, really. As far as I can see, it really just amounts to saying that I have an opinion.
How badly do you think the “patina” label would be compromised if my conclusion were significantly modified on the basis of new facts? Watch for my new blog post (later today, I hope). While it is in principle in continuity with my thinking in this series (I don’t take back anything I’ve said to date) I think it also demonstrates pretty clearly that my approach to the subject is genuinely nuanced well beyond surface appearances, and that you have perhaps misread me. Which happens, you know. People misread each other. Hopefully it’s a learning experience.
Beginning to blog recent developments on Cordoba House plans.
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.