I have listened to many, many arguments about whether an Islamic group should be allowed to build on a site they already own and have used as a school for over two years. The fact that the site is in Lower Manhattan, as was the World Trade Center, is the focus of all the screeching. The most eloquent speech was Mayor Bloomberg’s announcement of the center on August 3. Reacting to building criticism from those trying to make political points by bashing Muslims and calling it a sacrilege to have an Islamic center and mosque in Lower Manhattan (Sarah Palin among them, predictably), Bloomburg said:
“Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure – and there is no neighborhood in this City that is off limits to God’s love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us today can attest.”
I remember when I was in my early 20s, when a Mormon chapel was proposed a few short blocks from our home in Southern California. A local minister, who sat on the city building commission, blocked the building for years. Eventually the building was built, but not before lots of hurt feelings and animosity, all resulting from the religious bigotry of one individual. About the time we left Washington, DC, two years ago, the only truly ugly lot in the neighborhood was razed to make room for a Mormon chapel, but city religious leaders complained. As the newspapers said at the time, the rhetoric is all about height restrictions and traffic, but underneath it all was religious intolerance aimed at Mormons. A similar argument is in full swing in New York right now: the new Islamic center will be built within sight of Ground Zero. It’s a bogus argument. Wall Street is in Lower Manhattan. Half the city and New Jersey across the river is within sight of Ground Zero. It’s really about tolerance.
Such bigotry is not new. Jews have experienced it for centuries. Catholics experienced it in the early years of this country’s founding. But ultimately, freedom of religious belief and thought has won the day.
Let’s not succumb to the same prejudices of our fathers. Muslims have just as much right as anyone else to build in Manhattan. It’s time to show the world that we are what we preach, unlike the cowards who hid behind religion when they crashed planes into the World Trade Center. We are better than they were. Tradition holds that when Catholics in Salt Lake City needed a cathedral more than a century ago, the president of the Mormon Church assigned specific Mormon skilled laborers to help with the construction of the Cathedral of the Madeleine as a demonstration of religious tolerance. If we aspire to be true Americans, we Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and atheists will line up to help with the construction. That is what America is all about.
The main question is not should they be allowed to build the mosque. Most of those who oppose the mosque(and cultural center) understand that they have a right to build it where they have proposed to build it. The real question is should they build it at that location? The majority of Americans oppose having it so close to the sight of an Islamic terrorist attack that killed more than 3000 people. Many lost loved ones in the attack. Many others question where the money will come from. Others site the fact that the organizer of the project will not denounce Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It is not unreasonable to ask that it be moved a few blocks away from what some see as a sacred site. If this project is supposed to promote peace and understanding, it is not going to do it by building it in such an insensative way. If they really want to acheive their stated goals they would be smart to find another location. Many believe that they have other goals and motives. The majority of Americans oppose the proposed location of this mosque. We are not all bigots!
You mentioned the opposition to the building of the LDS Chapel in California by a few (certainly not the majority). Imagine if someone proposed to build it or any Christian church in any of the predominately Moslem nations. Those who proposed it would be jailed or deported for even suggesting such an outrageous thing. In these “moderate” Muslim nations it is against the law to even possess a Bible. Where is their tolerance? And why don’t the liberals denounce these countries for their intolerance. They constantly swallow the camel while gaging on the knat.
The same liberals that support the mosque scream at the idea that a display of the Ten Commandments is a part of our cultural history. They have no tolerance of the majority on so many issues. They use the terms, bigots, racists, homophobs, tea baggers, hate mongers, and zealots to demonize those who try to defend American ideals and values.
Those who oppose the mosque near “ground zero” are just asking for a little understanding.
I question the wisdom of wanting to build in Lower Manhattan out of fear of intolerant people, but that’s another matter. Remember that it was not an Islamic group that attacked us on 9/11 but an Islamist group. There is a difference, and it’s comparable to denying a Baptist group permission to build in Oklahoma City because those who blew up the Federal Building there were Christians. It also isn’t about whether Saudi Arabia allows complete freedom of religion, but about our values. Here in America we do believe in freedom of religious thought and practice and we do not believe that the majority gets it’s way on such matters. Our Constitution was written specifically with safeguards to protect individuals and their religious practices, no matter how many people oppose them. That is what makes this country so great and puts it above countries where such freedoms are not guaranteed.
From the rhetoric I have heard from the opposition to the Islamic center, I have not heard anyone “asking for a little understanding.” Such a request is certainly reasonable. They are asking to have permission denied and the tone is anything but reasonable. One of the speeches at Saturday’s rally there “accused” our president of being a Muslim (which isn’t true and shouldn’t matter anyway.) That is not a call for understanding. It’s bigotry.
This is not a liberal v. American ideals issue. The American ideals at play here are freedom of religion and the safety of the individual from the mob. Neither of those had anything to do with liberal or conservative.
If you haven’t heard the “asking for a little understanding”, argument from the opposition, you really need to expand your sources of news and commentary. That has been the theme of Hannity, Beck, O’Reily and others. It was a viewpoint expressed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe show. I heard that viewpoint expressed by moderate Moslem leaders. Governor Patterson of New York is also expressing this theme by trying to negotiate a different location.
For years I have taught a distance education “Current Events” college course. It has made me a news junkie. I prefer conservative commentators and newscasts but I force myself to watch liberal networks like MSNBC (the Obama network). The thing that angers me the most is that both liberal and conservative stations will not honestly present the oppositions’ viewpoint. The liberals are generally much worse than conservatives.
In my college course I have students write “Opposing Viewpoints” papers. They have to pick a controversial issue and give an honest presentation of both sides of the issue. They are warned that they will get a bad grade if they do not fairly present both sides of the issue. About 1/3rd of my students still present one-sided position papers and get dinged their grades.
It would be nice if newscasts and commentators would try harder to honestly present both sides of the issue and let the people decide which side they are on.
That’s great to assign students to do “Opposing Viewpoints.” It wakes many of them up to the fact that there are opposing viewpoints. As you have seen, they often can’t see that there is viewpoint other than their own.
It would be nice if newscasts gave both sides, but it isn’t going to happen, because none of us can agree on what is balanced. For example, I listen to NPR more than other outlets because they take the time to tell both sides of an issue. But they can’t cover everything and so by choice they are selective about choosing what interests their contributors. I couldn’t stand Radio America and many of the “Radio Free” stations associated with a lot of college campuses and Fox is so vapid, condescending, and equally dishonest I can’t stand it. Hypocracy is so rampant on all sides that it’s sickening. (Rush L. and his “Family Values” point of view is just the beginning.”
It reminds me of the term “Judicial Activism.” In my experience judges are only activists if they rule in a way one doesn’t like. If we agree with them, they are upholding the Constitution. It’s all in perspective.
The opposition comes from people being constantly told that it was Muslim terrorists that made 9-11-01 a horrible day. People spun it to think that it was because they were Muslims, then that’s why it happened. It’s not. The terrorists were hateful and sick men who happened to be Muslims and twisted the beliefs to something it’s not. People need to realize Islam is NOT a horrible and murderous religion. Besides, there are terrorists in all religions who twist their beliefs into horrible things. There are Mormons who bash others. There are Jews who want Muslims gone from Israel. Catholics tortured non-Christians during the Inquisition and forced Christianity onto any country they settled. Look into any religion and you’ll find nutjobs. Unfortunately, Muslims got clumped in with the worst thing to happen to the U.S.
Also, you mentioned, Buck, an LDS building near your childhood home. Knowing that area myself, what building are you referring to?
This is the biggest tempest in a teapot I’ve seen in years. It’s all a moot point, as the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from abridging freedom of religion. Muslims have been meeting in this New York location for two years now, and no one seems to have noticed until a few weeks before mid-term elections.
Many religious organizations don’t report where their money comes from — some don’t even report their assets to their own members. Why should Islam be expected to report its money trail when other religions aren’t? Once you open that door, you open it for all religions.
As for the idea that the “mosque” is being built on a “sacred site”: For one thing, there are several reports that, though this is being referred to as a mosque, almost all of it will actually be open to all people of all faiths. The primary purpose of the building will be to house a cultural center, and is compared online to a YMCA or Jewish Community Center. Whether you believe this or not (and I do believe it), the fact is that the organization which is building it has pledged that the doors will be open to all, regardless of their religion. No one will be checking people at the door for membership to anything except perhaps the health club, not even at the part that is the mosque.
The “sacred site” issue is, frankly, silly. Look online and you’ll see that the following places are even closer to the World Trade Center site than the Islamic center: Staples office supplies, St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church, Church Street Boxing Gym, Payless Shoe Source, the Millennium Hilton hotel, Men’s Wearhouse, Club Remix, and two Marriott hotels, with a third Marriott about 300 feet further. If this site is so sacred, why are there so many other secular and religious organizations that are within that range, but only the Islamic building is under scrutiny? Besides, while a memorial will be built nearby to commemorate those Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and others who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, the primary structures on the site will be dedicated not to a spiritual calling but to replacing the offices lost with newly-built offices housing government and big business. In the U.S., the way we commemorate a tragedy is often by proving that we are survivors, by rebuilding. The last thing most Americans want to do is to stoop to the depths of those who wished us harm. If we show our disrespect to the Constitution and our Founding Fathers by denying some Americans the freedom to pray as they wish, frankly, the old joke will become true: the terrorists will have won.
There are no mute points here. I heard of a church trying to build in that area for 9 years and still has not got approval. I don’t know if that is true, but it wouldn’t suprise me. Negotiations are ongoing to move the site headed by New York’s Democratic governor.
The area is sacred to many who lost loved ones and sensitive to many others. Don’t just call their feelings, right or wrong, as silly. That is very insensitive.
Funding is an issue. Many laws have been passed to keep money from coming to America from countries and groups that sponsor and support terrorism.
Many statements are surfacing that bring into question how moderate the people trying to build this center really are. Truely many of their statements are very offenive to most Americans. Building the center may be more of a victory for radical Islam than anything else.
If moderates really want to promote all of the things they say and win support of the American people, they will move the location of their project.
Bob, the site in question is not the WTC site. I understand the WTC site having sacred value to people. Buckley and I also lost friends in the destruction of the towers. But the Islamic center site is blocks from the WTC site, and my point is that, if the Islamic center location is within sacred grounds, so is Staples and the Millennium Hilton. No one is screaming at them or saying they’re desecrating sacred ground. You have to walk ten minutes and turn several corners to get from the WTC site to the Islamic center site. There are two LDS chapels only about two blocks further. The sacred site, to everyone who has been to or lives in New York, would be the WTC site itself, the gaping hole in the ground, but not the hundreds, possibly thousands, of businesses, churches and residences within three blocks of the World Trade Center.
As for funding, the same rules apply to the Islamic center as would apply if it were twenty blocks uptown, or in Charlotte or in Portland. As long as the funding sources pass legal scrutiny, which is that funding sources are not any organizations hostile to the U.S., as defined by U.S. law, then it would be allowed. There aren’t different rules because this building is three blocks from the World Trade Center.
By your logic — that this center should be moved because some Americans find it offensive — the LDS temples in much of the U.S. and the world would never have been built. I know the temple near Boston met the same opposition, but the Church was able to build anyway, through negotiation with neighbors, appealing to people’s better judgement, and, when necessary, litigation. The same thing is happening in South Florida. Bowing to people’s ill feelings or prejudices is not helpful to anyone involved.
Some Americans? Try about 70% and rising. Are they all bigots? Even Harry Reid got this one right. This number will increase as comments made by Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf come to light. They certainly reveal that if he is a moderate, we are in trouble.
Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf Quotes from 2005
“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.”
“You remember that the U.S. led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations.”
Proxsimity is the issue and the passions arroused by terrorist attack. The Church has changed the design and location of temples because of local passions and a spirit of compromise. I’m sure if Fred Phelps wanted to locate a branch of his Wesboro Baptist Church in a legally zoned piece of property near your house there would be inflamed passions and every effort (legal and illegal) would be made to prevent it.
So, Bob, if a poll revealed that 70% of people said that an LDS temple should not be built in South Florida, you believe the Church shouldn’t build it? If there were over a billion Muslims (which there are) but only 13 million Mormons, you would become Muslim? The majority rules everything? Your arguments don’t make a lick of sense. Perhaps you believe there shouldn’t be a mosque in Lower Manhattan; perhaps 95% of Americans believe there shouldn’t be a mosque in Lower Manhattan. That only proves that those people don’t believe there should be a mosque there, but it doesn’t prove it’s right or legal.
You sound like a typical liberal, saying “your comments don’t make a lick of sense”, “silly”, ” a moot point”. You don’t have an ounce of understanding of us morons. Of course you didn’t respond to the Fred Phelps proposal.
It is ok for the promoter to say that the U.S. is responsible for the death of 500,000 children. We should welcome him to come in because our feelings don’t matter.
Be honest, what if the Church announced that they were going to build a temple in downtown San Francisco? How would the gay community react? We all know how they would react and you would be on the bus to S.F to join the protests which of course would be justified, respectful and dignified.
Hatch law would stop NYC from blocking mosque
Is Orrin Hatch a typical liberal?
I have never done anything to fight against the LDS Church or participated in any march that would stop a temple from being built. I may not agree with everything the Church does, but I do agree with a whole lot more than you apparently think. The few missteps the Church has made are far outweighed by its many good works.
The new temple in South Florida is being built near my parents’ house. My father called me to tell me, excited because he knew Buckley would be happy. And I am happy, too. I believe in our Constitution. All of it.
Did you read the Hatch article? The law you referred to is decades old. How about this quote from Senator Hatch made recently? “The question in this case is whether, given the inflamed passions of the community — including those of many people who lost family members on 9/11 — building the mosque at that location is a good idea.”. He then said that he wasn’t taking a stand. The typical liberal I refer to did just what you do by not answering conserns brought up and misrepresenting or dismissing the views of the opposition.
“The law is decades old”? Are you saying laws decrease in importance as they get older? I don’t think so.
As for the other things you said I haven’t addressed, either they’re irrelevant to the topic we’re discussing or I’ve answered them.
Would you get off the legality issue. That was a given from the beginning. Appropriateness, funding and sponsors are the issues now. When more the truth comes out, the Mosque will not be built in that location.
Time will tell whether the school and house of worship will be built in Lower Manhattan or not, and hopefully cool heads will prevail. Either way, I hope we can stop with the name calling. It clarifies nothing and does not advance any effort at understanding each other. I find the rhetoric over a religious issue to be far from spiritual in nature.
The Fred Phelps question: if he wanted to build in our area I would indeed protest. If 90% of the neighbors wanted him out he would still have the right, as we would have the right to protest. The issue is the same. The courts have held that Phelps can picket the funerals of soldiers killed in action with signs that say, “Your son is burning in Hell because America is easy on faggots” at Arlington National Cemetery, which is indeed sacred ground to us all. The hate that spews from his group is a far cry from the teachings from the mosque, out-of-context quotes aside. (And yes, that includes the 500,000 children quote. Inflamed as it may seem, it is on a par with calling President Obama the Muslim murderer of millions of unborn fetuses, a common picket sign at Tea Party gatherings in front of the Lincoln Memorial—a place that many of us also consider sacred ground.) That pretty much sums up the First Amendment.
An LDS temple in San Francisco? Why on earth would I protest that? I think it would be a great idea and if there is a population to support it, there is no reason not to build one. I imagine that there would be protests because of the Church’s involvement in the passage of Prop. 8 (but surely the Church weighed that possibility before they asked folks to donate), but I wouldn’t be there. I have never protested at a temple and can’t think of why I would. If you think either of us would oppose a temple, you are seriously guilty of misjudging us.