In looking at the issue of Cordoba Center at 51 Park Place in New York, people astutely note that freedom of religion is clashing with freedom of speech. While the group seeking to build the center is assured its religious freedom to do so, critics are equally assured their freedom to criticize their decision to do so. That’s exactly right.
There’s no foul, no oppression, no violation of any freedom when citizens criticize an act, rightly or wrongly. Freedom of Speech practically requires that someone else will be offended. After all, if everyone believed the same things, then such a freedom would not be needed. Offenses to the concept of free speech come only when government acts or is enlisted to act against speech and those who make it.
Freedom of Religion is similar. The right itself and the laws to protect it would not be needed if everyone prayed in the same way to the same god or gods. Again, the right is offended only when government acts or is enlisted to act against or prejudicially in favor of a religion.
No government has acted in any way to violate the rights of the sponsors of Cordoba Center. Instead, government has acted in a way to show no preference of a religion nor animus toward a religion. Nor has government sought to suppress speech against Cordoba Center. There has been no censorship, there has been no favoritism. President Obama correctly and legally supported the rights of the center’s sponsors to build on land for which they held the property rights to build.
President Obama also criticized—obliquely—their decision to build an Islamic center at that particular location. That’s fine. It’s not censorship, it’s not offensive to their religious beliefs. No one is shielded against criticism, only against governmental coercion.
Many Americans believe it was a bad decision to seek to build the Cordoba Center in that particular location, close to 70% of Americans, in fact. Most of the objections seem to me to be wrong-headed, but not malicious. Many seem to believe they have some sort of ownership right to the idea of tragedy of 9/11. Some families of those killed in the attacks on the Twin Towers claim and are granted some sort of moral ownership of the site of their loved ones’ deaths. Some of them are offended by the thought of building an Islamic center near that site. They find it ‘insensitive’ at best. This argument is undercut by the support by some other 9/11 families to have the center built. With both groups holding equal claim to the moral high ground from which to speak, I fail to find any persuasive argument in either direction. Neither side has the higher moral ground.
One side, however, does have a stronger claim to legitimacy, legitimacy based on the logical strength of their argument. The other side’s argument rests on logical fallacy as well as a great deal of incoherent feelings, not based on fact but instead on innuendo and often conspiratorial thinking.
As I said earlier, criticizing the group wanting to build the Cordoba Center at that site is constitutionally protected. What is not protected, what offends the Constitution, is the effort of find some way to force government to stop the center’s construction.
The logical flaws in the arguments against the center are several: Ad Hominem, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Spite, Compostion, the Genetic Fallacy, Poisoning the Well, Personal Attack, the Slippery Slope, and perhaps most pernicious, the Two Wrongs Make a Right argument. Most of the arguments against the center do not confine themselves to just one logical error, they combine many of them. I’ve get to come across a situation where compounded errors result in a correct response.
As I’ve said, I don’t think most people making fallacious arguments are doing it out of spite or in bad faith. I believe they are just not thinking clearly and are letting their emotions rule. There’s certainly a role for emotions in life, but the formulation of public policy is not one of them.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
August:23:2010 - 11:16
“The other side’s argument rests on logical fallacy as well as a great deal of incoherent feelings, not based on fact but instead on innuendo and often conspiratorial thinking.”
Great grief is often incoherent, even irrational. That does not mean it should not be respected, even if doing so seems illogical. Not addressing great grief with sensitivity leads to anger. Is this what the supporters of Cordoba House want?
August:23:2010 - 18:10
The quotidien issue, I believe, is whether the right to have a prayer house is ultimately a right or not.
Thus, statements such as this are irrelevant “Many Americans believe it was a bad decision to seek to build the Cordoba Center in that particular location, close to 70% of Americans, in fact.” because I assume that at least 70% of all Americans think it is a bad decision to be Muslim and much prefer their own Christian religion.
If it is a right, then Muslims have the right to engage in a religious practice that Christians believe is erroneous and perhaps offensive in that Muslims do now worship Jesus Christ as God.
I ultimately do not think that it makes much difference where in this part of New York a mosque is placed; I do believe it to be lamentable to protest a house of prayer that has not been demonstrated to be a place where terrorism is celebrated.
If the idea that all Islam is objectionable because some Muslims acted as terrorists because of their Islamic faith, then surely all of Christianity is objectionable because some act and have acted as terrorists because of their Christian faith.
This church [www.kingidentity.com/cjc.html ] should not be attributed to all Christianity, just as all offshoots of Islam should be attributed to one another.
While I admit that extremist Islamic movements may have more members than extremist Christianity, the principle is the same.
The actions of some cannot be attributed to all.
August:23:2010 - 20:41
The other side’s argument rests on logical fallacy as well as a great deal of incoherent feelings, not based on fact but instead on innuendo and often conspiratorial thinking.
I lost no one on 9/11, I am not American, white, or Christian. I too find the location and naming of the alleged cultural center egregiously offensive. What innuendo and conspiratorial thinking would you attribute to me John?
I also disagree with your thought that Christians were perhaps better off in Cordoba under Islamic than in surrounding regions and therefore Cordoba should not invoke negative reactions. Well, when the Brits ruled India the trains ran on time, the roads were cleaner, women and lower castes gained greater rights, and there was much less corruption. Does not mean the average Indian wants them back or thinks a monument to the greatness of British rule would improve understanding between the two countries.
This editorial in a newspaper from Calcutta summarized it best (in my opinion):
“A mosque overlooking the scene of 9/11 will not reinforce America’s image as a haven of enlightened tolerance; it may set it apart as a country unable to distinguish between right and wrong.”
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100820/jsp/opinion/story_12832261.jsp
Besides, some of us are getting exhausted by this demand that we all understand Islam. Why do I have to do so? I don’t like religion much (ALL religions, I don’t pick and choose) to begin with and I find very little inclination to understand a religion that has yet to figured out how to treat a woman as an equal. Don’t tell me what it was like in 600 AD. I don’t care that Muslim women were better off compared with their contemporaries then. What I care is that countries that KSA and Iran which stand as the guardians of the faith today cannot figure out how to treat a woman better than as half a man. Or why it is repulsive to hand out criminal sentences requiring severing a man’s spine or flogging and stoning a woman to death.
August:23:2010 - 23:25
I think the building of the Cordoba center is incontrovertible in it’s legality…They own the land and can build what they like. In my opinion it comes down to ethics and “being a good neighbor” if you will.
The community center was meant to be a gesture of healing and goodwill to the area. But the fact that the majority of people are not in favor of it and see it instead as painful and insulting I think should be taken into consideration by those who wish to build it. While it seems like it’s heart was in the right place from some of the things I have read, sometimes “best intentions” are not enough.
They are now faced with a “force it through” situation or IMO they could graciously relocate.
Due to the nature of the situation I don’t think I would call it bigoted of people who don’t want it placed there. Certainly there are bigots out there doing their best to kill the project. But in this instance we are not talking about a generic mosque being built in Peoria, Illinois…we are talking about something that ripped the heart of the American people out. I, quite frankly, am stunned that they owners did not have more foresight that MAYBE it would not be received well. If the imam has been all over the world and has been trying to quell interfaith conflict for all these years then he should have had a much better idea of how the waters were flowing.
For me this is similar to all the flak we see from Muslims everytime there is an unflattering cartoon drawn of Mohammed. The uproar is huge. Why? Because they feel insulted/disrespected/hurt. For those drawing the cartoons it is a matter of free speech and certainly those drawing them have the right to do so. Yet over and over we hear that Muslims want to override the freedom of speech to prevent these cartoons. I look at it like this: Freedom of speech is paramount and vitally important and it is certainly within the right of those drawing the cartoons to say exactly what they like. On the other hand, if we live with people of other faiths even though we have the right to say whatever we want about their prophet even if it hurts them, should we exercise that right just because we can? How about the good neighbor policy? Park 51 can be built legally…but just because it is their right, should they?
IF they build it, then I think we need to look at the logisitics a little more. For example, it will have a community center and swimming pool. How will that work? Can women come in in normal sports clothes and work out or play basketball…a t shirt and shorts? or can families use the pool together or will they be prohibited due to Muslim requirements of modesty? If that requirement is indulged without consideration of non Muslims then the center isn’t really for everyone. Perhaps they can put in “women only” times or it can be worked out in some way, but unless all are allowed to swim/workout freely even if it is in a shift then it isn’t really about bridging anything. People will automatically separate themselves into “their” times. About a month ago I went swimming at a huge waterpark. There were many people there and there were Muslim women in burkinis…it all worked out because they were modest but didn’t require me to be. They swam in a coed environment and no one bothered them. No one denied them their modesty and no one denied anyone the right to swim with their family. Everyone was happy.
The article I read said it was supposed to be a generic prayer room rather than a dedicated mosque. That’s all well and good but does that mean anyone can use it? Can it be a mosque on Fridays and on church on Sunday? How will that fly?
On the surface, the idea sounds lovely and sweet about teaching tolerance to people and having interfaith dialogue via sports and community centers, but I think the “HOW will this work” part of the equation needs to be looked at closer. It seems to me what starts out like a good idea due to large religious differences can easily become an exclusively Muslim place rather than a place for building bridges which would defeat it’s stated purpose entirely.
August:23:2010 - 23:27
For another viewpoint on something VERY similar please see the following article. Same situation, different faiths.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/15/world/pope-orders-nuns-out-of-auschwitz.html
August:24:2010 - 01:06
When I saw this The End Of Nations website it occurred to me that this Crossroads Arabia’s commenters really have to see this link! http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Union-The-End-Of-Nations
August:25:2010 - 06:09
It doesn’t really matter what kind of interfaith policies Park51 will have once it’s built. It’s their building and they will provide whatever services they deem fit. Anyone can choose to use those services as long as they follow the stated guidelines and policies. That’s pretty much what any public facility offers. As for the sensibilities of New Yorkers, I think it’s a hollow argument. The law is the law. We have laws, a Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that act as a counterbalance to the emotions of the people. If we let our emotions rule this country, then it we’re in for a world of hurt. These laws protect us from wrong-headed emotional decision-making. What I find offensive is we are so in love with our democratic principles, but we are willing to set aside our freedoms and constitutional protections when they become inconvenient or when those freedoms and constitutional protections are applied to ethnic groups and religions we don’t like. This very issue was visited when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I also take offense to people who complain that they are tired of being told understand Islam. Just who is making these demands to understand Islam? Most Muslims are pretty quiet on the issue and really don’t give a rat’s ass whether anybody understands their religion. They go to work and pay bills just like everyone else. They just don’t want to be hassled in the street. When Western journalists find the time time to interview a sheikh or cleric, and they give their opinion about an event, suddenly people tire of being told to understand Islam. Criminy!
People who watch CNN and Fox News should consider that a couple hundred or a couple thousand Pakistanis shouting for the heads of Danish cartoonists do not represent the 1.5 million Muslims out there who really have never ventured an opinion about the issue to anybody. The uproar against the cartoons was huge only because CNN and Fox made them huge. Terrorists threats by fringe groups and rioting in Pakistan does not make it a huge issue. A collective roar of 1.5 million Muslims, or even Muslims living n the U.S. or the UK, would be huge. But where is the evidence that any of this is such a big deal other than skewed news footage. The Muslims I know were hurt and disappointed, but said nothing and went about their lives.
August:25:2010 - 12:17
” What I find offensive is we are so in love with our democratic principles, but we are willing to set aside our freedoms and constitutional protections when they become inconvenient or when those freedoms and constitutional protections are applied to ethnic groups and religions we don’t like. This very issue was visited when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Kind of like when people publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed but then after receiving death threats (even though it is from a tiny minority) withdraw those comments and allow their freedom of speech to be trampled on. They aren’t acting on emotions though, right?
August:25:2010 - 13:07
“It’s their building and they will provide whatever services they deem fit. Anyone can choose to use those services as long as they follow the stated guidelines and policies. That’s pretty much what any public facility offers. ”
I have to smile a little at this. The enormous Muslim community center a few miles from my home in theory may be a “public facility”, “dedicated to serving all human beings, regardless of faith, color, origin, and creed of the service seeker.” Want to rent the hall for a wedding? “When there is a call for prayer (adhan), everyone is requested to proceed to the Masjid for prayers…The MCC hall will not be available for future rental to any individual or group who will violate any or all of these rules and regulations.” link Why shouldn’t we expect Cordoba House to be just as welcoming?
August:25:2010 - 14:13
“It doesn’t really matter what kind of interfaith policies Park51 will have once it’s built. It’s their building and they will provide whatever services they deem fit. Anyone can choose to use those services as long as they follow the stated guidelines and policies.”
to add to Soloman2 post…it does matter…it matters very much. The reason it matters is because this is supposed to be a place of “healing and goodwill” between Muslims and non. They presented it that way to the approval committee and they presented it that way to the world. It is supposed to be for “everyone” to build bridges. If that is the case then all should be able to use it. In theory that is a great idea, but in practicality I think it leaves something lacking. Meaning, if there is a generic prayer space and someone other than a Muslim group wants to take advantage of that space there can be no restrictions that would prohibit that…no one can be “offended” it is being used as something else Ie: a christian revival for an afternoon. There should be no restrictions on families swimming together. But here is the problem…if they accommodate non Muslim families swimming together, they offend Muslims…if they accommodate Muslim sensibilities then they offend non Muslims. If they provide “times” to accommodate all, then people will naturally go to the time that fits them and there is no “goodwill” or mixing…there is still separation. Will the cooking school be halal? I bet it will as it will offend the Muslims who are in the building if it is not. Due to very divergent needs and practices it will be very difficult to accommodate both Muslims and non…
I think it might be more honest to just say this is a building dedicated to Islam and leave it at that. There is no doubt it will be built…I wish I felt as sure that it would be a place of interfaith mixing as they say it will be. Logistically I just can’t see it happening.
BTW, about a week ago I went on a search for the percentage of Muslims in NYC. From all the demographic numbers I could find it is about 3.5% give or take. (Roman Catholic was #1 with 36%). that is for all of NY not only Manhattan…given the small numbers I have to wonder how pressing is the need for a mosque the financial district anyway? If anyone has those numbers please post them as I would like to see them. I am not positive what I found was accurate.
August:25:2010 - 16:04
Solomon2 and oby:
I think you are correct that this is unlikely to be a deracinated interfaith centre, but I would assert that when religions lose their distinction, they lose something important.
Thus, for a Baptist church, I and all non-Christians are divinely damned by virtue of our non-belief in the salvific vicarious atonement of Jesus.
We should not require that Baptists freely support non-Christian prayer in their houses of worship.
Analogously, no such requirement should be levied upon Muslims.
August:25:2010 - 18:09
Andrew:
If it turns out to indeed be a dedicated mosque then I would agree with you. Although I differ from you in that I don’t think I would burn in hell if I went to a prayer service in a mosque. I personally think God is open minded enough to accept a heartfelt prayer even if it comes from me in a different place. I am not sure the PLACE I say it is as important as the fact that I did give Him praise.
I said what I did because I read this article. Maybe they are wrong…I don’t know, but coming from a Muslim country I found the fact that they said it wasn’t a mosque intriguing and it made me listen as I would think they would be supporting the mosque stance.
From a newspaper from Abu Dhabi: (Perhaps they have it wrong…but it is from the Muslim world…I’m thinking they might try to get it correct considering the subject.)
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100821/WEEKENDER/708209811/1678
August:25:2010 - 20:54
I don’t have the numbers, but I’ve read in NY papers that the next nearest mosque–about five blocks away–is overcrowded. It’s not just a matter of percentage of population, but where those people are located, both for home and work.
August:26:2010 - 03:54
oby:
You state:
“Although I differ from you in that I don’t think I would burn in hell if I went to a prayer service in a mosque.”
I do not understand.
I do not think that you would burn in hell if you went to a prayer service in a mosque.
August:26:2010 - 07:29
Well pout John,
I find many are acting out emotions and irrational fear. Common sense seems to be missing here. All t hat really crosses my mind is “private proerty” a Lockean view that Ihear Tea Party and other s preach all the time.
Personally, I find it sad not to have Islamic Center there. I lived in NYC and it is one of the most diverse places in the US if not world.
I read in the Gulf News the other day that many during the 1960 presidential election where afraid of JFK being elected because he was Catholic. IN 2004, over 40 years later, a catholci running for president barely scarthed the surface in the news. I think we need start practicng more tolerance as it will allo us to heal and move forward.
August:26:2010 - 09:53
Swedish–Well put! Yes JFK running for President was a HUGE interfaith issue. Fears of Protestant USA being run from Rome by the Pope! A Papist in the White House. He made a famous speech on it, which Mitt Romney, a Mormon, cited in his speech on his faith, because…OMG! a Mormon in the Whitehouse? (not FLDS regular Mormon). Joe Lieberman’s Vice-Presidential candidacy was celebrated as the potential to put a Jew in the White House for the first time.
Agreed about more tolerance being needed.
Muslim congressman Keith Ellis (African American) has taken a hit about the Cordoba Mosque too.
August:26:2010 - 22:20
@Andrew…
Sorry for the delay in answering.
You stated:
“Thus, for a Baptist church, I and all non-Christians are divinely damned by virtue of our non-belief in the salvific vicarious atonement of Jesus.”
I was rephrasing your statement using a Mosque for myself as an example since you used a Baptist church for yours. I was trying to say I don’t think you would be damned for being in a Baptist church by God even though you think you would be. Nor do I believe God would damn me for saying a prayer in a Mosque because I am not Muslim. That is what I meant about I personally don’t believe that the PLACE is as important as the fact that one gives God praise. He hears all prayers no matter where they are said.
August:28:2010 - 19:56
oby:
I still do not understand.
I am a Muslim.
You state:
“I was trying to say I don’t think you would be damned for being in a Baptist church by God even though you think you would be.”
I do not think that I would be damned by God for being in a Baptist church.
However, I know that many Baptists believe me to be divinely damned by virtue of our non-belief in the salvific vicarious atonement of Jesus.
Indeed, they have politely informed me of this. They believe that the only prayers heard are those made by Christians to Jesus.
I do not believe myself to be damned.
August:28:2010 - 21:54
Andrew…
sorry I read your meaning backwards. My mistake. As for Baptists they would probably consider me not Christian enough being a Catholic…I don’t agree with the stance of the Baptists. I think God hears all prayers no matter the faith. Sad how faith divides when God wants us to love him and each other.
September:02:2010 - 14:24
The amazing mental gymnastics that Americans go through to prove that they are religiously tolerant…….Wow.
The concept put forth in the US Constitution is NOT…I say again is NOT…..”freedom of religion”. The US Constitution makes NO Guarantee that you can practice religion any ole way you choose to do it!
The US Constitution, as upheld time and again by the Supreme Court spells out the concept that the Over-riding Federal Government system will not IMPOSE a religious structure on the people of the United States of America.
One of the Four Pillars of Faith, the very basis of Islam, is that Islam is one and the same….both a religion and a political system….there can be no other.
Thus….unless, there is some great philosophical revolution WITHIN Islam…….
Islam is a direct threat to the United States of America.
Islam demands that the concepts of the US Constitution be over-ruled …. subbordinated ……….
destroyed if necessary ………by the Law of Islam.
September:02:2010 - 17:00
You’re certainly free to read the US Constitution as you wish. Your reading, however, is contrary to that of the Supreme Court. The First Amendments guarantees both freedom from state-imposed (Neither federal nor, individual state) religion and the ability to follow whatever religion (or none) one chooses, even if you are the sole follower of that religion. It is no longer adequate to simply read the text of an article of the Constitution to understand its full meaning. In the years since its writing, it has been interpreted and re-interpreted by Congress and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Universal Islam is not one of the ‘pillars of Islam’. They are Shahadah (witnessing the faith); Salah (five daily prayers); Zakat (charity); Sawm (fasting during Ramadan); Haj (pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once during one’s lifetime, if manageable).
Islam is not a direct threat to the US, by any means. It is a proselytizing religion, however, seeking to convert others to it. If sufficient numbers of Americans were to become Muslim, they could decide, through constitutional amendment, to declare the country an Islamic state, but that’s not going to happen.