Here’s an interesting post from Volokh Conspiracy, taking a serious look at the various arguments being raised against the construction of 51Park, the erstwhile ‘Cordoba Center’.
Three Issues in the Debate over the “Ground Zero Mosque”
Ilya SominThe ongoing debate over the “Ground Zero Mosque” has generated lots of commentary. But I fear that much of it conflates three separate issues: whether the government should use its power to block the construction of the mosque, whether the construction of any Islamic facility near Ground Zero is objectionable, and whether this particular organization is problematic because of the views of its leader. As I see it, the government should not suppress the mosque, and I see nothing wrong with building an Islamic facility near Ground Zero. But objections based on the dubious record of Cordoba Project leader Feisal Abdul Rauf are not so easily dismissed. There are many weak, foolish, and even bigoted anti-mosque arguments out there. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t any good ones.
…
Somin identifies and discusses three principle arguments:
I. The Role of Government.
II. Objections to the Presence of any Islamic Center.
III. Objections to this Particular Center.
I find his discussion to be generally apt, though I’m not quite sold on his parsings of statements by Imam Rauf. Refreshingly, comments to the post are not (yet) infected by the crazies. Others, for instance, do push back on his interpretation of Rauf’s intentions and speech. Definitely worth reading, comments too.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
August:31:2010 - 10:03
Frankly, I don’t find anything that Feisal Abdul Rauf has said as objectionable. His remarks are a blunt assessment of U.S. foreign policy and reflects the viewpoints not only of many Muslims, but non-Muslims as well.
This insistence among fringe groups and American politicians to denounce Hamas as a terrorist group is silly and accomplishes nothing. I’ve always been troubled by these demands to march in lockstep with U.S. foreign policy on issues that require critical thinking. Are Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists organizations just because the U.S. government says so? Does that mean the Black Panther Party and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)were terrorist groups in their day? Do Irish Catholics view the Irish Republican Army as a terrorist group? Hamas is full of idiots, but it remains — thanks to George Bush and Condoleeza Rice — a democratically elected government body. Hezbollah, and for that matter the Muslim Brotherhood, are part of the political process in Lebanon and Egypt. Certainly, all of these groups I mention engage or had engaged in some form of terrorism. Some more than others. And we can sit around all day and debate the U.S. policies that have promoted such conduct. But just because the U.S. government says their terrorists organizations doesn’t make it so.
If you take the flip side of Rauf’s comments, the highly offensive daily attacks on Muslims by the likes of Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs are much more egregious than anything Rauf has ever said. Yet their ostensibly pro-American views get a free pass, while Rauf, who has kept his mouth shut about Hamas, is branded some kind of threat to humanity.
August:31:2010 - 11:46
I don’t have any particular problems with Rauf’s statements, either, other than he might have been more felicitous in his terms.
I do, however, have a major problem with Hamas: it does engage in terrorist acts. Waters get muddied because it also engages in purely charitable and humanitarian acts. Like the blurring that occurred with Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), a political organization seeks to confound things by pairing up with (or splitting off) a terrorist organization. When one objects that one side of the group engages in terrorism, the other says, “Different group! We only do good things!!” The answer to your question is, ‘Yes, now Americans consider the IRA a terrorist organization.’ They also consider Sinn Féin an enabler. It took too long for this to happen, but it did happen.
The problem is that money donated to the political ‘side’ is utterly fungible: it can be used to offset costs of the other side, simply by shifting accounting columns. After far too long, the US and other governments decided to stop allowing organizations like this to play games. If one side of the organization is involved in terrorism, it is deemed that the entire organization is involved in terrorism. Hamas, as Hezbollah, fit the bill.
I agree that sites like Atlas Shrugged and JihadWatch are egregious offenders and usually off the mark. I agree also that too many people take them too seriously, that they have undue influence right now on American politics and society. But, as they’ve freedom of speech, they cannot nor should not be stopped. They can certainly be criticized for their own extremism, though.
August:31:2010 - 12:39
I think that in service to political correctness the Saudi agenda to Islamisize the United States will prevail. (I hope I’m dead before that happens) With regard to Hamas; it is at its core a terrorist organization with the agenda to kill Jews world wide. Groups like Jihad Watch. SIOA, Atlas Shrugged and others are necessary to expose Islamic duplicity.
August:31:2010 - 14:10
I think that questions of Rauf’s background and oral statements should be separated from 51 Park’s fate, as nothing he says can be held as binding the future of the proposed facility.
“After far too long, the US and other governments decided to stop allowing organizations like this to play games. If one side of the organization is involved in terrorism, it is deemed that the entire organization is involved in terrorism. Hamas, as Hezbollah, fit the bill.”
So the United States is funding anti-Israel propaganda and brainwashing through the United Nations, or directly through USAID instead link.
August:31:2010 - 15:15
Who are we kidding here? I started reading one of the linked articles on John’s 51Park post and stopped at the point where Rauf is funded by the Department of State to do tours. That speaks volumes…
August:31:2010 - 15:35
All comments from new readers go into moderation until I look at them. As I don’t live chained to the blog, that sometimes takes a little time. Sorry you had to wait a few hours.
Your thesis is an interesting one. It’d be convincing if you had some sort of evidence that the Saudis had any interest in ‘Islamisizing the United States’. Seeing duplicity everywhere is not even a step removed from seeing plots and conspiracies everywhere. You’re welcome, however, to provide evidence of what you think to be true.
August:31:2010 - 15:38
Realizing the dual nature of Hamas, the US has a choice of either completely ignoring it, stonewalling everyone that crosses its path, or being realistic in acknowledging that different groups do not share the US assessment and dealing with them despite the fact. Please do not get me started on the UN.
August:31:2010 - 15:39
besides the Russians having taken over my computer please check out this link
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/feds_funding_zero_imam_mideast_trip_OTq9dmoHpxbaKvJbB4VLGM
Here’s the conspiracy Rauf was taken from Area 51 to Park at 51 and to take a drink of Kactuz’s 51.
There are 51 States and only 31 flavors at Baskin Robins? The Department of State and Obama et al. want Rauf and the Mosque at Ground 0. hmmm that is ice cream for thought
August:31:2010 - 16:19
“…the US has a choice of either completely ignoring it, stonewalling everyone that crosses its path, or being realistic in acknowledging that different groups do not share the US assessment and dealing with them despite the fact. Please do not get me started on the UN.”
Would you support John Bolton for president?
August:31:2010 - 16:30
I’d support the confinement of John Bolton to a mental asylum. My arguments about the UN are not his and, I sincerely hope, considerably more sane.
August:31:2010 - 16:57
John-you are infinitely more sane than John Bolton. And probably have a better mustache too, should you wear one.
August:31:2010 - 17:02
Of my male siblings, I’m the only one without facial hair. I hate shaving, but worse is hair on my face.
August:31:2010 - 17:08
I bet your face is as smooth as a baby’s bottom
August:31:2010 - 17:20
John–See even a better choice of facial presentation.
Back to Hamas, the lessons of the Brits in finally negotiating with the political arm of the IRA comes to mind.
Sparky–Ice cream discrimination shall not be tolerated! A new definition of “have” and “have not” states?
August:31:2010 - 18:50
I’d suggest that a new American willingness to draw lines at the time was instrumental in getting peace accords. I happened to be assigned to London at the time and Belfast was certainly within my bailiwick. Got to meet the major players; didn’t care for most of them, on either side.
August:31:2010 - 19:57
“draw lines” as in help Tony Blair to uh reinforce the idea of peace or else?
August:31:2010 - 19:57
John,
You are correct that there is no “evidence that the Saudis had any interest in ‘Islamisizing the United States’. ”
We are not so absurd as to imagine that the USA is likely to become a Muslim majority nation.
Of course, there are religious people who hope for such a conversion and work towards it, but few of us seriously believe in or hope for such a transformation.
It is absurd to even discuss.
August:31:2010 - 21:42
“Got to meet the major players; didn’t care for most of them, on either side.”
You didn’t like George Mitchell?
August:31:2010 - 22:43
I considered Mitchell in the middle, not on any of the three sides. And yes, I liked Mitchell very much. I should partially retract my statement, though. John Hume of the SDLP did an incredible amount of work to bring about the Good Friday Accords/Stormont Accords.
September:01:2010 - 11:35
My modest opinion:
1. There is no role for government in this dispute. It is purely a civil matter about a building and a permit. The law is clear: the community center / mosque can be built. All they need is money and a decision to do it.
2. As to “any Islamic center” I consider them gathering places for people that do not share my values or those of most Americans, Europeans, Canadians, etc. I don’t like them because of the ideology they represent. Having said that, this is America and Muslims have the same rights I do. I respect those rights and I try to make sure that they damn understand my position and respect my rights, even if they don’t like them. Dozens or hundreds of mosques are built every year in America without my permission. Oh well.
3. I find the Park51 center (and mosque within) to be offensive. There is already an older mosque 2 blocks further away. They can use that.
The fact is that this dialogue is very strange. We have an Imam that talks about “building bridges” – but you would think that Muslims would understand that offending tens of millions on non-Muslims is a very strange way to build bridges unless, of course, the Park51 center was never about building bridges.
Oh by the way, it appears that the developer has a criminal record, with convictions for violence, and on top of that he is a slum lord. Even so, as Sol2 says, the guy’s background and very questionable statements have nothing to do with the concept of the “Ground Zero” center – the problem is much larger that that. The issue now is about Islam, what it represents and its place in America and the non-Muslim world.
Note that the best thing that can happen for me is to build the damn thing. It would just prove me right about Islam and Muslims, for the 4051st time. Thank you, Mr. Rauf.
September:04:2010 - 13:09
I just read a comment on an atheist website that has the best statement on this controversy I have heard yet.
Plus, has anyone looked at the Ground Zero site lately? It’s trashed. It’s gross. If this is supposed to be a memorial, a place for people to come to remember, mounds of dirt and scaffolding is not going to do the job. It truly worries me that our politicians and citizens are too busy being worried about a religious group trying to practice hope and love and peace (which IS what Islam teaches), than to memorialize a site they consider oh so sacred. In contrast, Park51 should be a non-issue.
See http://lovedilemmas.blogspot.com/2010/08/10th-post-new-york-mosque-balogna.html