The New Republic

"Charles Krauthammer is right: Ground Zero is sacred ground. It would be morally obscene to allow Muslims to build a center near Ground Zero who had not unequivocally denounced (renounced, would be okay, too) the ideas that gave us the maelstrom of 9/11." This is completely ridiculous for at least two reasons, no three. "Sacred" is not a cognizable term in secular, political debate in America. What is sacred to you is nothing to me, and vice versa. Second, if Ground Zero were "sacred" in the views of most Americans, why have we rebuilt a subway terminal there and why are we in the process of building office buildings on this "sacred" site? Is this how we express our view of the sacred? Much more significant, however, is Gerecht's compete ignorance of American constitutional law. Why am I not surprised that Gerecht considers it completely unnecessary to know what he is talking about so that he doesn't embarrass himself with truly stupid pronuncements? The ideas of people who want to build something, however noxious those ideas may be to everyone else, are precisely the basis that the constitution prohibits for denying them any right or privilege available to everyone else. People in a free country like the United States are not obliged to take loyalty oaths or denounce or renounce anything or subscribe to the moral principles of Reuel Marc Gerecht or any of the rest of the phony piety of the right or of the left for that matter to enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship. We enjoy freedom of conscience in this country, a principle that seems to be of no importance to Gerecht despite all of his pompous self-righteousness. Sacred space? Pfft. The more I hear the intonation of "sacred space" the more likely it seems that the intoner will be nothing more than a barely closeted reactionary bully trying to enforce his reactionary views on all of us and particularly upon those who are not particularly popular at the moment. Screw Reuel Marc Gerecht. After reading him, I think a mosque smack dab on top of Ground Zero is what we need to make the point about the meaning of freedom of speech, religion, and conscience in America. From initially thinking that the mosque was in poor taste, I am coming to believe that it is just what we most need. If it offends Gerecht, so much the better. He could use the instruction.

- roidubouloi

August 11, 2010 at 12:29am

Someone should think up a list of ideas that Gerecht should be obliged to renounce (denounce would be okay) before his is permitted to open his mouth again. At the top of the list would be for him to renounce the idea that we have any business allowing or disallowing the construction of this mosque based on the beliefs of the builders. We need to know whether Gerecht is merely a moderate fascist sympathizer or a hardcore fascist. It would be obscene to allow him to continue to publish until we know that he subscribes to the principles of the United States Constitution. Don'tcha think?

- roidubouloi

August 11, 2010 at 12:45am

Gerecht needs to do his own homework because the media has partisanized into two narratives. Imam Rauf is affiliated with Malaysia's Matathir's Perdana4Peace, financial sponsor of Free Gaza. On July 26, 2010, two days before the ADL statement was posted online, this article http://www.islamicpluralism.org/1594/a-mosque-grows-near-brooklyn was posted, detailing "...the Ground Zero Islamic facility rests on a support network linked to the anti-Jewish Mahathir and the Perdana-supported Gaza raiders, some notable servants of the Iranian clerical dictatorship, and an Egyptian property developer associated with the pro-Hamas chief of the Arab League. ..." Most of the details explore Rauf's closer affiliation with M. Jafar "Amir" Mahallati, who served as ambassador of the Iranian Islamic Republic to the United Nations from 1987 to 1989, and his brother M. Hossein Mahallati; Sharif El-Gamal's partner Nour Mousa, the nephew of Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League; and Kashmiri-born Daisy Khan's uncle, "Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its website to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami. ..." Now I understand why the ADL statement was posted two days later. Yes, one can scream "Guilt-by-association". But, it does look like El-Gamal is the driving force behind Park51, with Rauf as the clerical front. And now we also know Rauf is sponsored by the U.S. State Department's Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau. Why Ground Zero IS sacred space for many: Americans have a history of deep commitment to remembering history, and commemorating historic sites, especially of searing tragedies and military battles. It is historians who are the most opposed to the proposed gambling casino one half mile from Gettysburg Battlefield, where the land was drenched in the blood of 51,000 casualties during the three day battle July 1-3, 1863. Gettysburg is where President Abraham Lincoln gave his most memorable address on November 18, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers National Cemetery. The casino is proposed 2,640 feet away from Gettysburg National Military Park, which includes the Battlefield, National Cemetery, Museum and Visitor Center, and 1,328 monuments, markers and memorials to every brigade and battalion. The battle over the proposed casino continues today. There was much controversy over how to deal with the dead soldiers of the Confederacy. They were seen as invaders. Finally, "The southern dead were removed to cemeteries in North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia between 1871 and 1873." It took more than fifty years of healing before any monument to a Confederate state was allowed. "It was not until 1917 that the first monument from a southern state was dedicated and it was a special one- the Virginia Monument. ... One of the largest monuments in the park is the Eternal Light Peace Memorial, which stands on Oak Hill. It was dedicated in 1938 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and was a cooperative effort between veterans from North and South. ..." http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/mn~mnts.htm The effort by NYC firefighter and 9/11 survivor Timothy Brown to landmark 45 Park Place should not be misunderstood as 'bigotry'. Brown has devoted his time to landmarking other 9/11 damaged sites. I still remember exactly how I felt, in 1992, atop the observation tower overlooking the field where Pickett's Charge led so many Confederate soldiers knowingly to their death, and still try to understand the frame of mind that shaped such irrational devotion to duty. I can still feel the presence of their spirit, how the cool October air at sunset felt filled with the dead soldiers. I have no such problem understanding how so many Americans feel about our history and strong commitment to remembering and commemorating historic sites, especially of searing tragedies and military battles. Perhaps THAT understanding or lack thereof is what divides Americans, and what Mayor Bloomberg and others do not understand when they tell the rest of us to "shut up", in this specific example of "the coercive power of politically correct pieties and the unyielding political assault on all dissenters".

- K2K

August 11, 2010 at 1:33am

You know the "two narratives" comment makes sense (and so does this article). So of course does Roi's assertion about our laws, which I think have to be upheld. Beyond our laws there are our ideals, our faith in openness and tolerance, and those must also be honored. However, those same laws and ideals have something to say about funding. I had originally thought this issue was about sentiment/respect for the victims of 9/11 vs American laws/ideals, but if the sources of funding aren't clear then that does become an issue. I also think there's a point at which blaming America and/or Israel for being victims of terrorism approaches hate speech which isn't in the same category as other speech; furthermore that assumes a political dimension which is beyond "freedom of religion." Therefore, there are many shades of gray here.

- Sophia

August 11, 2010 at 3:10am

"Moderate Islam", as defined by Gerecht, doesn't exist. A sincere "moderate" Muslim is no longer a Muslim. He can call himself a "cultural Muslim" until he finds a more suitable affiliation. That's about it. Roid specializes in abusing good, honorable people because they're never good enough. It's a power trip.

- amidut

August 11, 2010 at 7:45am

I believe that the building of the Mosque is an attempt to attract attacks thereby creating the perception that American-Muslims are the "victims" and require special protection by Local, state, & federal governments. This will insulate them from criticisms much as the accusation of racism stifles criticism of african-americans, and the accusation of facism stifles the criticism of both Americna-Jews and Isreal. Definitely part of a long-term strategy to silence the United States, which currently is the only Western Democracy with any hope of standing up to the expansion of Islam. That being said, woe to the Middle-Eastern despot (or fundamentalist) that steps on the toes of the Chinese.

- e065702

August 11, 2010 at 7:47am

"Roid specializes in abusing good, honorable people because they're never good enough. It's a power trip." Who happen to be political and ideological thugs and fascist aspirants and should be pointed out for who they are. Just like so many enjoy pointing out the ideological extremism of this or that Moslem such as Rauf. I see nothing whatever either good or honorable in the words of Marc Reuel Gerecht. They should appall us. Whether the man cheats on his wife, I don't know or care. There are others here who seem to find such things relevant. I don't. One can be grateful to Gerecht for making clear that this issue is in reality just another one of those persistent right-wing "loyalty oaths" in which the authoritarians of the right, often including Martin Peretz, demand that someone or other, the president usually but not exclusively, denounce someone or something in order to demonstrate his true belief in the right-wing canon of warmed over fascist tropes. Inevitably, when the demand is resisted -- praise to Michael Bloomberg -- it only gets more shrill and the list of American liberties that must be thrust aside in the service of the loyalty oath gets longer. With Gerecht, we see the naked demand that the builders of this mosque profess the proper ideas, according to Marc Reuel Gerecht, in order to be "allowed" to build here. Whether Rauf is a moderate Moslem, a fanatic Moslem, or something else entirely, his ideas, however, noxious, have no bearing on whether he can or should be "allowed." The parking, the zoning, the height, to some limited degree the funding might all be legitimate bases for disapproving the project. The religion, identity, thoughts, and expressions of the builders are not. Nothing ever changes. Reactionary nuts are forever noisily proclaiming their devotion to American freedoms by inventing new ways to trample on them. They don't really give a fig for freedom. It is merely the rhetorical cloak for their true, perpetual vocation, the exercise of state power in the service of "interests" that invariably turn out to be the interests of the wealthiest and most powerful in society. As for the overwrought comparisons to Gettysburg, we did not build a subway station on the Gettysburg battlefield, nor did we build office towers upon it. Even if one were inclined to accept the imposition upon public debate of religious ideas of "sacredness" that I find inappropriate, it is preposterous to claim that a place upon which we are building office towers is all "sacred" if the word has any meaning at all. We might have turned the WTC site into a national park. We didn't. There were plenty of proposals to do so and they were rejected in favor of preservation of the footprints of the towers and the construction of a memorial. As well, none of the area around the site has been subjected to special zoning in deference to its history, and there are limits to what we could legitimately exclude. We could, for example, simply exclude casinos (if they were otherwise allowed in New York) simply on the grounds of proximity to a site of public importance. There is no constitutional right to operate a gaming establishment. We could exclude towers (that's rather a joke in this context considering the site is surrounded by towers), eating establishments, a whole range of things if we wanted to do it in general. But we could not exclude Moslem towers, Moslem eating establishments, or Moslem casinos, or even towers, eating establishments, or casinos operated by people whose ideas we detest, while allowing others. That is what freedom of religion, expression, and conscience means. These are not merely our laws, they are supposed to be our fundamental law, the very reason for which our revolution was fought. We could likely exclude places of large public gathering, EXCEPT that we could not do so in a manner that discriminates against places of religious gathering. Thus, in a location that includes many immense towers that draw literally thousands of people to them, we would be unable to exclude a building because what the people who come there plan to do when they get there is pray or even discuss radical ideas that most people detest. It doesn't matter how sacred some people's secular religion deems the spot or some undetermined curtilage around it. That is an idea you are free to hold. You are not free to demand that others bend the knee to it. As for the funding, there is no general exclusion of foreign ownership of real estate here, quite to the contrary. And there is no general obligation to disclose one's funding for projects. Hence any special demand placed on a Moslem project for such disclosure would be unconstitutional. There is no doubt some law that would prevent terrorists from making investments here. If there is a reasonable basis for investigating this project for illegal connection to terrorists, then it should be investigated. If the basis for the investigation is the proximity to so-called "sacred space," even an investigation would be an unconstitutional abuse of power.

- roidubouloi

August 11, 2010 at 10:26am

There are some important details that have been omitted from a great deal of the reporting on the Cordoba project (which has suddenly been renamed, now that the public has caught on to the "Cordoba" reference), namely: among the supporters and backers for the project are the presidents and founders of pro-Palestinian organizations; Imam Feisal himself has blamed America for the events of 9/11; he has also refused to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah; and the fundraising seems to be going on largely in countries like Kuwait (which funded his father's mosque uptown) and Malaysia - not, as promised, largely from US sources. More on this in my article at Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/07/ground-zero-mosque-islam-opinions-columnists-abigail-esman.html?partner=relatedstoriesbox

- Abigail1

August 11, 2010 at 11:43am

There are some important details that have been omitted from a great deal of the reporting on the Cordoba project (which has suddenly been renamed, now that the public has caught on to the "Cordoba" reference), namely: among the supporters and backers for the project are the presidents and founders of pro-Palestinian organizations; Imam Feisal himself has blamed America for the events of 9/11; he has also refused to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah; and the fundraising seems to be going on largely in countries like Kuwait (which funded his father's mosque uptown) and Malaysia - not, as promised, largely from US sources. More on this in my article at Forbes.com (which it seems I'm not able to give the link to here, but anyway....)

- Abigail1

August 11, 2010 at 12:08pm

I don't believe being pro-Palestinian is an indictable offense here, although some might like it to be. But the Cordoba Center question is simply this: does the constitutional validation of the right to build a house of worship on private property, which is indisputable, mean the end of debate, case closed, or not? Can there still be, after conceding the constitutional legitimacy, a political discussion, which would involve the rationality, appropriateness, or cost/benefit evaluation (in any terms) of a particular project in a particular place?

- ironyroad

August 11, 2010 at 12:27pm

I think the answer is yes, irony, but not because the site is "sacred" or because what is proposed is a mosque. If a local community of Moslems were proposing a mosque somewhere Ground Zero for use of a local congregation and people started to object because it was a mosque, I think it would be necessary to point out the bigotry and intolerance. This is a project with a clearly political ambition that extends beyond worship, and I don't see any problem with commenting on that ambition, wondering what it is, and taking issue with it. We get to argue about people's political claims, even when they are somewhat obscure and embedded in a religious context. We can discuss and argue about their religious claims too. Those are not out-of-bounds in this country. But, in my opinion, the point is whatever statement is being made, not the right to build the building. And calls somehow to interfere with the building for ideological reasons should be rejected, as Bloomberg has. To put it another way, if the same group of people were putting up the same project mid-town, we would be perfectly justified in asking who they are and what they stand for and expressing our opinion about their ideas, including that we don't like them and their ideas. But some care needs to be taken. Such a subject invariably attracts bigots and gives them cover for the expression of their bigotry. Those who think this is so important that they must comment on the ideas of the builders have to accept that others can then comment on their comments and that may include accusations of bigotry because of the context. The debate is not somehow acceptable only on one side. Withal, the discussion of rationality, appropriateness, cost/benefit has absolutely no bearing on the right to build this particular project in this particular place except to the limited extent that the issues raised are cognizable under the building and zoning codes and are of general applicability. We simply do not get to say that this project can be prohibited or interfered with because we do not like the ideas of the builders, whether they are religious ideas, ideology, or just plain incoherent and vicious. The Nazi party has the right to build its headquarters next to a synagogue. People have the right to say that is obnoxious. The fact that it IS obnoxious has no bearing on their right to build it. See, Skokie, IL.

- roidubouloi

August 11, 2010 at 12:58pm

In the first place, the idea of a "Ground Zero mosque" for a building built a few blocks away is absurd. It isn't on the site (like the Greek Orthodox Church) and isn't even across the street. From Park Place you cannot even see Ground Zero and the building will also not be visible from the site. In New York City where blocks are narrow and congested with buildings, the proposed center would hardly stand out. Feisal has been leading a congregation in Wall Street which is about as close and there is currently a Muslim prayer meeting in the Park Place building where the center is proposed. Second, the proposal is more a Muslim YMCA which includes prayer space than a mosque in the sense that we know it. Calling it a "Ground Zero Mosque" is more inflammatory than useful. As to moderation, your suggestions form a good starting point, but the equivalent standard would exclude a lot of Christians and Jews. Suggesting that all acts of violence in disputed territories of Israel must be condemned to qualify as "moderate" could be seen as hypocritical from a people who routinely hurt civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq (or Hiroshima). The stance of moderation should be described, but should we require pacifism?

- LawrenceGulotta

August 11, 2010 at 1:51pm

Abigail1 I'd really like to see your link. Did you try the captcha thing? Funding: foreign funding is one thing, funding with links to or supportive of organizations the US deems terrorists is something else. Philosophy: Roid is correct, even if the philosophy taught is distasteful to us, the law defends it. OK, Roid mentions Skokie. That is perhaps somewhat similar. And, in that case the provocation by the Nazis was deliberate. A lot of Holocaust survivors lived there at the time and the idea of having a march in Skokie was meant to inflict pain. The law was clear on the issue but it doesn't make the intent of the Nazis any less disgusting and in the event the march was eventually held someplace else. Now, I think it's a stretch to claim Imam Rauf is attempting to hurt people especially given Goldberg's writing on the topic, the fact that these Muslims have been praying in the neighborhood for decades, etc. Regardless this piece on the Skokie situation discusses some issues similar to what we're confronting with the Cordoba House project: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/17/arts/tv-skokie-nazis-march-in-illinois.html

- Sophia

August 11, 2010 at 3:13pm

Thank you lawrence for your usual clarity of thought. I will confess that, with the welter of accusations, I am unclear on whether this is a facility meant to serve the local Moslem community or the work of some external organization (not that it matters at all for legal purposes, it doesn't). If this is a local Moslem YMCA, then all of the criticism really is outrageous, even if there are donations from abroad. If it is part of the political agenda of some larger organization, we can certainly inquire into and criticize its agenda although the insistence that they should not be permitted to build if we do not like their agenda is wildly out of line and pointless inflammatory. Right-wing demagogues who know perfectly well that the government cannot possibly interfere with the project on ideological/religious grounds pretend that it can in order to make it appear that local government and their own domestic political opponents are indifferent to Islamism. They should come see the troops of NYC cops who turn out in regular phalanxes on anti-terrorist drills. And thank you Sophia for calling to our attention that the actual intentions of the builders should affect our thinking about what they are doing and saying and that foreign funding is legitimate if it is not coming from illegal, terrorist organizations.

- roidubouloi

August 11, 2010 at 3:43pm

This reminds me of the furor when Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church bought the New Yorker Hotel in 1994. So controversial because, in the NYT review of an episode of "Frontline" on January 21, 1992, "The Resurrection of Reverend Moon," "... a picture of a theocratic powerhouse that is pouring foreign fortunes into conservative causes in the United States...." The Cordoba House now Park51 project plan keeps changing, day by day since August 2, based on interviews with the two of the three principals, Daisy Khan and Sharif El-Gamal while Imam Rauf is unavailable in Malaysia. El-Gamal, on August 4 and in a different interview on August 6, made it clear that Imam Rauf will NO LONGER be the Imam of the prayer space, which will NOT be for Imam Rauf's congregation twelve blocks north of Park Place, but perhaps now accomodate a different congregation on William Street, two blocks north of Park Place, and also maybe the Senegalese street merchants who have had Friday prayers at 45 Park Place for about one year under a temporary permit, but hopefully Wall Street workers will join the street peddlers who work out shopping carts. Last night, a spokesman for CAIR told PBS that 45 Park Place has been used for many years as a mosque. The 'amenities' of the proposal also keep changing. On August 2, Dasy Khan told the WSJ they would add a 9/11 memorial, but also have prayer space for 2,000. By August 6, Park51 had added a catering hall and bookstores to the STILL UNDEFINED PLAN. You can follow the phases at Park51.org where they state: still in phase 1. No one has clarified if NON-Muslims will be allowed full access to all facilities, e.g., Will it be a co-ed swimming pool and gym?, except for the prayer space. That is an intra-Islam dispute because Sunni and Shi'a do not even start Ramadan on the same day. Will the Ahmadi and Ismaila and Alawite sects be welcome to pray? Meanwhile, the real estate junkies of NYC are looking at the money trail to try to find out how El-Gamal went from waiting tables to multi-million dollar deals in a few years. Today's NYT front page feature on Park51 focussed on Daisy, and her messaging mistakes while the rest of the media questions Imam Rauf's Department of State sponsored outreach junket to Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, coming up soon, after he leaves Malaysia.

- K2K

August 11, 2010 at 5:27pm

Thought for today from realclearpolitics: "A long dispute means that both parties are wrong." -Voltaire Sophia: while she has a new column dated August 10, here is Abigail's column from July 7, 2010, concluding with "...The upshot of it all, then, has been that this project, aimed at creating unity, has fomented indignation, fury and suspicion, forging a split between communities where previously there was none." http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/07/ground-zero-mosque-islam-opinions-columnists-abigail-esman.html

- K2K

August 11, 2010 at 5:41pm

Gerecht has a good "American definition of a “moderate Muslim", that could be useful for the "journalists" using that term, in any context. Instead of tacking on "moderate Muslim" just because someone else says so, or, in Jeffrey Goldberg's case, because he thought Imam Rauf was a thoughtful, reasonable person, based on one conversation. Reminds me of how so many have described the con man or grifter...

- K2K

August 11, 2010 at 5:49pm

The Forbes piece linked by K2K turned my stomach a few times. All the standard, obnoxious right-wing tropes in one place. God these people are nauseating. Here's a snippet: "Not to mention that $100 million cost. $100 million? To build a tribute to peace and tolerance, they need $100 million? Couldn't that money be better spent, say, aiding Haiti?" Haiti has become the go-to guy for the right-wing. Conditions are not good in Gaza? Yeah, but what about Haiti? Aid goes to Gaza? Yeah, but what about Haiti? Someone wants to spend their own money building a center for culture, recreation, and prayer for Moslems? Yeah, but what about Haiti? The unctuous right is now burning with desire to spend everyone else's money on Haiti in preference to whatever else the right doesn't want someone to spend money doing.

- roidubouloi

August 11, 2010 at 6:47pm

roid: everyone nauseates you. we get it. Sophia asked for the link, and I found that one for Sophia. Abigail is a columnist for Forbes. No one makes you read "these people". YOUR pounding disrespect for the sacred ground argument is characteristic of why the Democrats are going to get whupped on Nov. 2. I'll be back once I recover from following the story (hyper-partisan coverage: bigotry versus sacred ground) about the other story (who are these people) about the other story (NY politics) about the other story (ADL statement as NYC code for Israel issues) about the Mosque at Ground Zero.

- K2K

August 11, 2010 at 7:51pm

Though roid uses more colorful rhetoric than I would use, he is on the money on this issue. K2K, throughout these threads you have articulated all kinds of reasons for opposing the mosque that, if based in fact, would be legitimate. But that misses the point: To the extent the opposition to the mosque (i.e., the belief that the government should block the building of the complex) is based on the fact that it is a mosque or is associated with Islam, it is illegitimate under our Constitution and the values that animate it. If you oppose the mosque for all of those legitimate reasons, fine. But you need to meet the issue that is being raised by this controversy, namely, whether we can rightly expect NYC to block the mosque on the ground that it is a mosque. Frankly, I do not see how anyone who understands the First Amendment could answer that question in the affirmative. The "sacred ground" argument deserves to be disrespected, first, because, as roid points out, Ground Zero has not been treated as sacred ground in any other context, and, second, because building a mosque near Ground Zero could only be an act of disrespect for that "sacred ground" if it where true that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Islam rather than by extremist fanatics.

- NR143296

August 11, 2010 at 8:45pm

No, K2K, if the Democrats take a beating this November, it will be because of catastrophic unemployment that the malignant Republicans have done whatever they can to keep as high as possible. I pity the people who are suffering and those whose situation will only grow more desperate with Republican victory. But, from a cynical, strategic point of view, a Republican win of one or both chambers in November will a) ensure Obama's re-election in two years and b) likely result in the Republicans being literally crushed in that election cycle because they are either forced to eat very bit of their rhetoric in the past two years or watch the economy go into a double-dip recession/depression that will scare the bejeezus out of everyone. Odds are, they will go for the latter because they are insane and really believe that if they repeat nonsense often enough, the world will oblige them by conforming. See, e.g., global warming. The problem for the Republicans is that their "policies" if you want to call them that are pure fantasy, both in economics and in foreign affairs. Whenever their policies are implemented, disaster ensues. Right now, they get to enforce their economic policies by obstruction in the Senate without having to take credit for the outcome. One more round of Republicanism in which they actually are credited with the destruction they wreak and it will be 1932 all over again. We will be rid of them for another 50 years. It is pathetic, truly, that we must endure Republican depredations for the American public finally to say enough is enough. But that is what it takes, because a large segment of the public is always gulled by bathetic appeals to xenophobia, jingoism, and "sacred ground" rather than to rational self-interest -- until, that is, things get desperate.

- roidubouloi

August 11, 2010 at 9:18pm

"YOUR pounding disrespect for the sacred ground argument is characteristic of why the Democrats are going to get whupped on Nov. 2. " So what if the Democrats get whupped in November, k2k? Was it the same reason that got Republicans whupped two Novembers ago? Please tell. Once again, here you are, throwing an irrational punch while complaining of a jab (Chinese saying, I think). Get a grip, dude. You write too well for such irrationality.

- scrubby

August 11, 2010 at 10:21pm

| NR143296 "as roid points out, Ground Zero has not been treated as sacred ground in any other context," YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING! or living in Hollywood California if you believe what roid invents to fit whatever propaganda technique he is playing with these days when he writes about the history of Ground Zero. From the beginning, my opposition has been solely on the architectural 'vision'. But, unlike the leftwing liberals who disdain the little people for their grief, some of us try to understand why so many people feel and think the way they do about a trophy building on the site chosen specifically because it was severely damaged on 9/11. Since August 4, it is no longer clear who the mosque will serve, or who the Imam will be. If Rauf is so committed to interfaith understanding and healing, what has he been doing all these years to further those goals? So, now I see it as a big con game that has provoked so much anger that whatever vision Rauf originally had has already failed. Has he ever said one word about the persecution of indigenous Coptic Christians in Egypt? Has he ever done anything to help the struggling Bangladeshi Muslims in the North Bronx? The extremes of both parties are destroying America under one-party rule, and driving pragmatic centrists out. Time to restore a bit of a check on the unbalanced politicians in Albany and Washington DC. The disdain from the liberal minority who happen to be in power is fuelling so much anger that I am going to vote GOP just as a protest.

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 12:46am

Who are you kidding, K2K? You are going to vote Republican because you are a Republican. This business of insisting all the liberals and blah, blah, blah have driven you off and we will pay for it is baloney. Besides, who cares? Your Republican vote is worthless in New York. Vote for Lazio, knock yourself out. The history of Ground Zero is that sacred has nothing to do with it. It is a commercial space and, under a lot of pressure, a small piece of it has been reserved as a memorial. The rest is going to be offices, eateries, consumer shopping, the usual American urban jumble. As it was, so it will be. If you know some alternate history, you are living in an alternate universe.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 1:58am

K2K- Ad hominem arguments are the first sign that one cannot defend their position on the merits. What basis is there for me to credit what you say more more than what roid says? In any event, I am not necessarily relying on what roid says -- I am agreeing with him. But since you think you have more credibility than he does, go ahead and explain how it is that Ground Zero has been treated as though it were sacred ground. I recognize that you have said that your opposition is based on architectural or other non-religious grounds. I take that at face value. But it is irrelevant because, as you well know, the primary thrust of the opposition -- the reason that we are having this discussion at all -- is that the project is Muslim, and the terrorists who attacked lower Manhattan professed to be Muslim. For that basis of opposition to be valid, it would have to be true that the attackers were in fact representative of Islam and that Islam itself, including American Muslims, is at war with the United States. You refer to those who want to uphold the Constitution as the "leftwing liberals who disdain the little people for their grief." So fidelity to the Constitution is "leftwing"? And who here has "disdain[ed] the little people for their grief"? Nobody. But if grief leads someone to blame the wrong people, i.e., to indict an entire religion, are we to acquiesce in that misdirection and cast the Constitution aside? That's like saying it's OK to convict the wrong person of a murder if it will assuage the grief of the victim's family. As to the following: "If Rauf is so committed to interfaith understanding and healing, what has he been doing all these years to further those goals? So, now I see it as a big con game that has provoked so much anger that whatever vision Rauf originally had has already failed. Has he ever said one word about the persecution of indigenous Coptic Christians in Egypt? Has he ever done anything to help the struggling Bangladeshi Muslims in the North Bronx?" With all respect K2K, that passage makes me wonder whether your protestations regarding the "architectural vision" are a pretext for anti-Muslim bias. Unless you are saying that the same kinds of questions should be asked of anyone that sought to develop that property, it smacks of religious bias. Your last passage is completely off point: "The extremes of both parties are destroying America under one-party rule, and driving pragmatic centrists out. Time to restore a bit of a check on the unbalanced politicians in Albany and Washington DC. The disdain from the liberal minority who happen to be in power is fuelling so much anger that I am going to vote GOP just as a protest." But I'll bite. How have Obama and the "liberal minority" been "extreme"? Everything Obama and the Democrats have done has been a compromise to satisfy the "center," and has in fact royally pissed off the "liberal minority." Meanwhile, the Republicans have the sole agenda of opposing Obama's initiatives, no matter what they are. That is not only extreme, it is despicable. To the extent there is anger at Obama, it is mostly fueled by Republican distortions, e.g., that an increase in the tax rate from 36% to 39% for personal income in excess of $250,000 constitutes "socialism" and a change of America as we know it. Unfortunately, a lot of people fall for that kind of demagoguery. Do you?

- NR143296

August 12, 2010 at 2:26am

"You write too well for such irrationality." My bad for that one. Right wing nuts can write well and still be as irrational as hell. k2k is a good example. So, too, is Charles Krauthammer.

- scrubby

August 12, 2010 at 5:28am

The constitutional issue has been locked down, on this thread and others, and almost nobody apart from a few trolls keep reintroducing it. A Muslim community exercising its faith freely cannot be discriminated against on the basis of its religious identity. A mosque on private property with zoning laws observered? Case closed. Anywhere in these 50 states. That leaves the political question -- in the specific context of NYC and Ground-Zero adjacent territory, does it seem like a good idea, is there -- given the circumstances, the opposition, etc -- a potential for cancelling out the purported goals of interfaith communication and healing, rather than achieving them? Even where the right to do something is copper-fastened, is it the right thing to do? If I were the Cordoba Center people, I'd be considering this. I mean, there's something strange about a project that might end up reaching its goal by essentially saying "We're about healing and interfaith communication and we're not giving in! -- we are going to damn well build here and start healing and communicating just as soon as we're good and ready!!"

- ironyroad

August 12, 2010 at 12:32pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_September_11_Memorial_%26_Museum has photo of the the memorial design "which calls for a forest of trees with two square pools in the center, where the Twin Towers once stood.", and takes up most of the footprint of the original WTC site. You can follow the links to the other buildings planned, only one of which, 1 Freedom Tower, will actually have office space. All of the controversy since 9/11/2001 is well documented elsewhere. NR143296: if you think my concern for the North Bronx Islamic Center in my neighborhood, a congregation desperately seeking funds to move out of a basement on Bainbridge Avenue to escape an abusive landlord, is "a pretext for anti-Muslim bias", then you deserve no response from me on any subject. Every time a liberal in TNR talks down to me, I become more disgusted with the intolerance of the left than the stupidity of the right. Further to my lingering questions: What has Imam Rauf done to date to further his vision of inter-faith understanding?; Where is his public support for the Christian minorities in Egypt, or the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan?; Why does he need his trophy building at 45 Park Place to do so?; and Why can he not do all this from the established ICC at 97th Street?: "[NY] Gov. Paterson this morning called out the developers of a mosque near Ground Zero for so quickly rejecting his idea that they move the proposed Islamic center - possibly to state-owned land, reports [NY Daily News] Glenn Blain: “How much more foresighted would it be if you were promoting cultural and ethnic understanding if you don’t wait until you build the building to do it and do it right now?” Paterson asked WOR’s John Gambling. The governor said he believes people around Ground Zero have been “badgered” for nearly 10 years - first by the attacks and then later by health concerns, traffic congestion and security issues - and that his proposal was an attempt to alleviate that frustration. “What I’m hearing from the opponents is fear and anxiety and a reaction to nearly a decade of being badgered,” Paterson said. “And I think if that’s case, I would hope that whatever spirituality exists would compel the developers to sit down and have this conversation.” Paterson insisted his was not an offer to give away state land or promote a religion. “I am not mixing church and state,” he said. “I’m not putting a religious institution on state property. I wanted to have a discussion about how we might jointly go and look for an area that would serve the community, the downtown area they are interested in helping at the same time alleviate the tension from people who are concerned about the area around Ground Zero.” http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/gov-paterson-calls-out-mosque.html I would vote for Paterson again. I worked for him when he was NY Senate Minority leader, and he is a thoughtful man.

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 1:01pm

12:32pm EDT | ironyroad : Well stated on all counts. 2:26am EDT | NR143296: Roid is the King of ad hominem attacks, but only in his comments on Martin Peretz's posts in The Spine. Most of us DO appreciate that roid, since July 2010, stopped calling so many of us nasty names, although roid's personal vendetta against Peretz remains intact. It is a sign of roid's evolution that, in his mind, that I have evolved into a "Republican" from a "skittering cockroach" unable to comprehend a single written word of roid, who continues to be quite expert in "The Big Lie" propaganda technique.

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 1:30pm

in the news today, from the WSJ: "...the National September 11 Memorial Museum is taking shape and has made significant progress. Members of the media took a tour of the cavernous, 120,000-square-foot museum site on Tuesday. The museum opening is slated for Sept. 11, 2012. Museum officials expect it to become one of the city's most popular tourist destinations, drawing as many as seven million visitors a year. The museum will be located beneath an eight-acre memorial plaza, which will open next Sept 11. The entire project will cost about $610 million. ... In contrast with museums where viewing the building exterior is part of the experience, the memorial museum will be underground and unseen from the surface, said Steven M. Davis, the museum's architect and partner of Davis Brody Bond LLP. "The exhibits are the icon. It's the inverse of a traditional museum in those respects," Mr. Davis said. Artifacts will be used to personalize the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11. Wedding rings, the base of the antenna that topped the north tower, and elevator motors from the towers will be among the exhibits, said Alice Greenwald, director of the memorial museum, a nonprofit organization that worked with the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. on the site's design and construction plan. "Every artifact is evidence of the destruction," Ms. Greenwald said. Museum officials haven't decided if there will be an admission fee. ...Visitors will begin the museum experience by descending seven stories beneath the surface into what was once the core of the World Trade Center. From a platform, they will see the preserved portion of the original World Trade Center slurry wall, part of the original building construction to prevent flooding from the Hudson River and which held during 9/11. The so-called Last Column from the twin towers, which is covered in tributes from family members of victims and first responders, will also be on display in the museum's West Hall near the slurry wall. The unidentified remains of 9/11 victims will be kept in a private area off-limits to museum visitors. ...There also will be a memorial exhibition that will feature thousands of photographs and multi-media information of victims killed on 9/11 and during the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. A small portion of the museum—less than 2%—will also discuss the hijackers and planners involved in the attack, Ms. Greenwald said. ..." written by Joseph Avila for the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704164904575421601125593116.html?mod=djemNYRealEstate_t?mod=djemNYRealEstate_t&reflink=djemWLB

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 1:49pm

And I appreciate that, since July 2010, the jackal pack has for the most part learned to behave and refrain from its own perfervid name-calling (with occasional little slips). The tenor of the discussion is much improved as a result. I told you that tit-for-tat always works eventually. Sometimes it just takes a while.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 1:54pm

"I mean, there's something strange about a project that might end up reaching its goal by essentially saying "We're about healing and interfaith communication and we're not giving in! -- we are going to damn well build here and start healing and communicating just as soon as we're good and ready!!"" It's tough love. Or a certain type of irrationality arising from some sort of perception of victimhood. I'm reminded of a scene in Jane Austen's Persuasion, after the accident at Lyme when everyone agrees that capable Anne should remain to look after the invalid, thus arousing the jealousy of her sister who then decided to make trouble based on her "right" as a closer relative to injured girl to minister to her: "Captain Wentworth now hurried off to get every thing ready on his part, and to be soon followed by the two ladies. When the plan was made known to Mary, however, there was an end of all peace in it. She was so wretched, and so vehement, complained so much of injustice in being expected to go away, instead of Anne: Anne, who was nothing to Louisa, while she was her sister, and had the best right to stay in Henrietta's stead! Why was not she to be as useful as Anne? And to go home without Charles, too, without her husband! No, it was too unkind! And, in short, she said more than her husband could long withstand; and as none of the others could oppose when he gave way, there was no help for it: the change of Mary for Anne was inevitable. " Anne had never submitted more reluctantly to the jealous and ill-judging claims of Mary; but so it must be, and they set off for the town..."

- noga1

August 12, 2010 at 4:22pm

"And I appreciate that, since July 2010, the jackal pack has for the most part learned to behave and refrain from its own perfervid name-calling (with occasional little slips). The tenor of the discussion is much improved as a result. I told you that tit-for-tat always works eventually. Sometimes it just takes a while." It also might be because you were away from the boards for a couple of weeks and we had time to recharge our patience batteries. Or perhaps we either learned to ignore your little attempts to provoke or we indulge you like we would indulge a fractious child.

- noga1

August 12, 2010 at 4:25pm

Whatever works.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 4:33pm

1:54pm EDT | roidubouloi "I told you that tit-for-tat always works eventually." Only in your ideological dreams. Noga is too kind. In The Spine, roid has gone back to his Tit-For-Tat PLUS Propaganda-Flavor-of-the-Moment oratory. I am returning to 100% ignoring such malevolent and useless provocation. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 7:20pm

Don't be ridiculous, K2K. You are as you have always been. You get frustrated, you resort to ad hominem, and then, if anyone so much as takes note, your little drama of self-pity and soi-disant victimhood begins. The difference is that now I mostly ignore your petty insults and move on. You therefore need to invent something to justify your meltdowns.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 10:51pm

K2K says: "if you think my concern for the North Bronx Islamic Center in my neighborhood, a congregation desperately seeking funds to move out of a basement on Bainbridge Avenue to escape an abusive landlord, is "a pretext for anti-Muslim bias", then you deserve no response from me on any subject." But I didn't say that, did I? You asked: "If Rauf is so committed to interfaith understanding and healing, what has he been doing all these years to further those goals? So, now I see it as a big con game that has provoked so much anger that whatever vision Rauf originally had has already failed. Has he ever said one word about the persecution of indigenous Coptic Christians in Egypt? Has he ever done anything to help the struggling Bangladeshi Muslims in the North Bronx?" I responded: "With all respect K2K, that passage makes me wonder whether your protestations regarding the "architectural vision" are a pretext for anti-Muslim bias. Unless you are saying that the same kinds of questions should be asked of anyone that sought to develop that property, it smacks of religious bias." I would expect your retort to be: "I would ask the same kinds of questions of anyone who sought to develop that property, regarldless of their religious affiliation." Instead, you became indignant and twisted my words. Which simply confirms my speculation.

- NR143296

August 13, 2010 at 8:17am

Irony says: "The constitutional issue has been locked down, on this thread and others, and almost nobody apart from a few trolls keep reintroducing it. A Muslim community exercising its faith freely cannot be discriminated against on the basis of its religious identity. A mosque on private property with zoning laws observered? Case closed. Anywhere in these 50 states." The case is not closed as long as people continue to suggest that the political considerations trump the Constitution. The right of the Litttle Rock nine to attend the previously all white school was "copper-fastened," right? But was it the right thing to do, given the social conflict (including potential violence) it was bound to cause?

- NR143296

August 13, 2010 at 8:27am

Excellent point, 143296 (would you choose a screen name so that we can remember you and not get confused with the various other NRs here?) The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not there at random. They are protected because we place the highest value upon them. Their exercise can be interfered with by private action that may be legal, but tends to make them difficult. We should be cautious about engaging in behavior of that kind. On the other hand, protected speech and religious observance are not immune from criticism (those Mohamed cartoons again). It can be a fine line. We can be sure that if somewhere in America people were protesting the construction of a synagogue -- which would be perfectly legal, both the construction and the protest -- other people (certainly the ADL) would be denouncing the protests for bigotry. I agree that there is basis for criticism of this mosque in this place that is not mere bigotry, but recognizing the importance of the countervailing values of free exercise and of religion and religious tolerance, the "right" thing is to exercise considerable restraint in the expression of criticism. It is very easy to slide over into bigotry. Suggestions that public officials ought to prevent this project do just that. Saying that the project is in poor taste, insensitive, or injures the justified feelings of victims of 9/11 need not be out of bounds.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 9:12am

Excellent point, 143296 (would you choose a screen name so that we can remember you and not get confused with the various other NRs here?) The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not there at random. They are protected because we place the highest value upon them. Their exercise can be interfered with by private action that may be legal, but tends to make them difficult. We should be cautious about engaging in behavior of that kind. On the other hand, protected speech and religious observance are not immune from criticism (those Mohamed cartoons again). It can be a fine line. We can be sure that if somewhere in America people were protesting the construction of a synagogue -- which would be perfectly legal, both the construction and the protest -- other people (certainly the ADL) would be denouncing the protests for bigotry. I agree that there is basis for criticism of this mosque in this place that is not mere bigotry, but recognizing the importance of the countervailing values of free exercise and of religion and religious tolerance, the "right" thing is to exercise considerable restraint in the expression of criticism. It is very easy to slide over into bigotry. Suggestions that public officials ought to prevent this project do just that. Saying that the project is in poor taste, insensitive, or injures the justified feelings of victims of 9/11 need not be out of bounds.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 9:12am

What no one seems to object to is how this $100million Park51 trophy building is very UN-Islamic. One of the Five Pillars of Islam is "Zakāt (Arabic: زكاة‎ ) or "alms giving", the giving of a small percentage of one's possessions (surplus wealth) to charity, the welfare contribution to poor and deprived Muslims. It is the duty of an Islamic community not just to collect zakat but to distribute it fairly as well. As a mandatory requirement of Islamic faith, every year 2.5% of one's wealth is given away to the poor. " (from wiki). It is NOT true Islam to spend $100million for a 13-15-story glass tower for a swimming pool/basketball court/gym/500 seat theatre/cafe/catering hall/cooking school/bookstores/classrooms/art galleries/office for the ever-travelling ImamRauf/ AND prayer space for 2,000 people from what is not a local congregation or maybe it is but that will surely be worked out at a later date - well, to spend $100million on all that is offensive when dozens of neighborhood Muslim congregations in New York City are struggling financially to fund a secure place for worship. $100million would fund the all of those current needs AND all the other fitness and social amenities in any number of locations in the Bronx or Brooklyn, where most Muslims live. The 08 12 2010 Wall Street Journal Arts section reported that museum officials of the 120,000-square-foot National September 11 Memorial Museum under construction BENEATH the eight-acre memorial plaza "expect it to become one of the city's most popular tourist destinations, drawing as many as seven million visitors a year." No wonder Imam Rauf/DaisyKhan/Sharif El-Gamal/Oz Sultan/crisis public relations agency/and-entourage want a trophy location so close to SEVEN MILLION VISITORS PER YEAR. Great way to make some money off the tourists.

- K2K

August 13, 2010 at 10:37am

Are you a Moslem, K2K? If not, perhaps it is not for you to decide what is and is not Islamic. Are Catholic churches filled with priceless art that could be sold to feed the hungry Christian? And if their real goal at this site were to make money, unlikely as that seems, so what? That is what Americans do in connection with just about everything. You show me some national treasure and there are sure to be lots of people trying to make a buck from it. If seven million people visit the memorial, you can count on businesses springing up all over the vicinity to make money from them, and I doubt we will hear from Sarah Palin or the rest of the anti-Moslem crowd objecting. There is no reason at all to object to Moslems doing what everyone else in this country does -- at or on its "sacred sites" of course. What we have here is not a case of sacredness, but a case of sanctimony.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 11:38am

NR143, I don't quite understand your point, but I think you slightly misread my "case closed" point. Essentially, we appear to agree. Regarding Little Rock, it's an interesting example of courageously asserting rights in dangerous circumstances, but I don't see that it's a good parallel as Muslims in NYC have not been the victims of state-organized and enforced segregation and deprivation of civil rights. As has been recently revealed, there's an actual functioning mosque near Ground Zero that predates the WTC.

- ironyroad

August 13, 2010 at 12:49pm

The Five Pillars of Islam (Arabic: أركان الإسلام) is the term given to the five duties incumbent on every Muslim. These duties are Shahada (profession of faith), Salah (prayers), Sawm (fasting), Zakat (giving of alms, specifically during Ramadan) and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca, home of the Masjid al-Haram (The Sacred Mosque), the most famous Islamic mosque). These five practices are essential to Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam

- K2K

August 13, 2010 at 10:52pm

Roid- My screen name used to be dhurtado. That got screwed up in some kind of changeover, and I've been too lazy to figure out how to restore it. I'll see what I can do. Meanwhile, perhaps I should just sign my posts. Irony- The point I am making is that the argument that the Cordoba House should waive its constitutional rights in order to avoid giving offense seems the same in principle as the argument that the Little Rock nine should have stayed in their all black schools in order to avoid giving offense. Dhurtado

- NR143296

August 13, 2010 at 11:47pm

Thanks, D.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 11:53pm

Ok, I got that, but the point I am making is that it's a misleading parallel as the situation of Cordoba Center project in NYC is very unlike that of the Little Rock nine in the South in 1957, as I noted above. Constitutional absolutism shouldn't be the default posture IMO. For example, there are clear Second Amendment rights in the U.S., recently validated by the Supreme Court -- but would the NRA be making the right decision if they proceeded to demand that submachine guns be specifically permitted for open-carry throughout the country? My problem is that you seem to believe that those with constitutional rights are always on the side of unambiguous virtue. That isn't the case, at least from my view, as racists have freedom of speech and the NRA has a lot of constitutional heft behind it now -- so if the Cordoba people are genuinely interested in interfaith communication and healing, then they might want to think about the difference between what your rights are and what the right decision is, especially as that decision might have some effect on the kind of communication and healing they plan to do. If the Little Rock nine had given in to intimidation, that would have given strength to southern reaction and potentially held back desegregation. New York Muslims are not subject to Jim Crow and a segregated social system.

- ironyroad

August 14, 2010 at 1:27am

08/14/2010 - 1:27am EDT | ironyroad "if the Cordoba people are genuinely interested in interfaith communication and healing, then they might want to think about the difference between what your rights are and what the right decision is, especially as that decision might have some effect on the kind of communication and healing they plan to do. " worth repeating. Irony's point is also ironic: the Constitutional purists in THIS Cordoba House debate sound like SCOTUS Antonin Scalia. ironyroad sounds like TNR's version of SCOTUS Stephen Breyer.

- K2K

August 14, 2010 at 11:00am

The frustrated constitutional lawyer in ironyroad wriggles and twists in the darkness.

- ironyroad

August 14, 2010 at 11:36am

11:36am EDT | ironyroad "The frustrated constitutional lawyer in ironyroad wriggles and twists in the darkness." That sounds like the opening of a script for a Russell Crowe movie based on a Scott Turow novel, with script adaptation by Aaron Sorkin. Ironyroad can insert his choice of female defendant (Selma Hayek as the Sufi Imam?) and alcoholic beverage to accompany the "darkness", while Bruce Willis discovers the secret tunnel from the mosque to the Federal Reserve Bank's underground gold vault :)

- K2K

August 14, 2010 at 11:50am

"Constitutional absolutism shouldn't be the default posture IMO" The discussion on this subject seems to follow a certain false divide: the holier-than-thou constitutionalists versus the ignorant and unwashed masses whose feelings are naturally base and stimulated by raging hormones rather than clear thinking. Yet every single poster here has declared his or her adherence to the constitutionality of the project while voicing their concerns about the wisdom and utility of such a project. So I'm wondering what's really going on here. There was an old Star Trek episode in which the enterprise blunders into a centuries long war between "Khoms" and "Yang". For the Yang, the word "freedom" is a worship word and they don't really know what it means. They think it's something that confers privileges or something like that. It turns out that they are descendants of Yankies fighting Communists and that they have a holy scripture: A tattered scroll of the US constitution which they can't even read. They have kept it as their core document by oral tradition which perverted the original meaning of the document which they revere. BTW, the way I see it, Shylock is a constitutional absolutist. He lacks the necessary knowledge and sensibility to fully understand the situation he has created for himself. And eventually his insistence on these legal absolutes works against him. I fear that the Cordova Initiators do not quite realize the severity of their own misjudgment of the politics of this situation.

- noga1

August 14, 2010 at 12:19pm

When I wrote the above comment I had not yet listened to the interview with Fareed Zakaria on Charlie Rose http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11162#frame_top But having watched it I realized how well his formulations supported my description above, that the discussion on this subject seems to follow a certain false divide: the holier-than-thou constitutionalists versus the ignorant and unwashed masses whose feelings are naturally base and stimulated by raging hormones rather than clear thinking. Zakaria intones: "But American democracy is not just about mob rule, it is not just about the tyranny of the majority...." It is clear that he views the protesters to the megamosque project as mob rule and tyranny of the majority, against which saintly democrats like himself and Mike Bloomberg are pitted as the only true defenders of the constitution.

- noga1

August 14, 2010 at 12:59pm

thanks noga, for both comments, and enduring post-ADL Zakaria. The original protest was about a building that is one of the damaged survivors of 9/11. As I wrote this comment, I realized THIS 1853 building survived , and shows how far the damage extended beyond the WTC site even before the Twin Towers collapsed. If not for the still undefined prayer space as mosque, the developers would have faced the real fight: over the map of NYC history. Choosing 45 Park Place was deliberate. The NYT article from December 9, 2009 (URL at end) that quotes Imam Rauf is what started the protests from many, not all, 9/11 families and survivors, a local protest that then got politicized and partisanized. And now the debate has veered off into Islam, and bigotry, and the Constitution versus the uneducated mobs. When I read how Mayor Bloomberg met "...Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who would run the center, led a prayer service at Gracie Mansion in 2009 and exchanged warm words with Mr. Bloomberg; his wife, Daisy Khan, had sat next to Mr. Bloomberg’s girlfriend, Diana L. Taylor, during a dinner that followed. ..." in the 08 12 2010 NYT, I started to think this is a social climbing Sufi couple - so very Manhattan - who, for whatever reasons, are putting their "vision" ahead of the interests of many, many NYC constituencies. From the start of my awareness of the details - an awareness triggered by the strange firestorm against Abe Foxman and the ADL - it sounded like other NYC mega-developments: the new Yankee Stadium, Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, Bloomberg's West Side football stadium - where political connections and what Bloomberg wants over-ride the local community. When the Community Board 1 vote is cited in the media, it is always reported as 29-1. NOT 29-1 with TEN abstentions. All CB members are appointed volunteers, and the number of abstentions reminded me of how the Community Board who wanted to get involved in the new Yankee Stadium project got FIRED by Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion, currently Obama's WH Director for Urban Policy. When he fired the CB members who wanted to be part of the dialog, that served as a warning to CBs across the city to 'DON'T Mess with Mike'. All of the commissioners of the Landmarks Preservation Commission are Bloomberg appointments. LPC votes are often politicized. "...In mid-July, Mr. Bloomberg made a quiet trip to the site, a forlorn former clothing store two blocks from City Hall. He saw no features that he considered worthy of landmark designation. “It’s pretty hard to argue it should be preserved the way it is,” he said. ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/nyregion/13bloomberg.html?_r=1&pagewan... (you can read the 667 comments attached to that article about Mayor Bloomberg's personalized view of the site - which is a lot of comments for a local news article) That really annoyed me - he is not an expert in architectural history. Did he put pressure on the LPC? I was thinking today of the history of 45-47 Park Place, and how nice if it could have been turned into a special museum that teaches the layers of New York City history in one spot. Old growth forest maybe 100 feet from the original shoreline in 1609, using the Manahatta Project imaging. Farmland during the New Amsterdam colony. Someone built a house there once the streets were laid out in the early 1700s. Why was the original name Robinson Street? What did Robinson do to lose his street name to Park Place? Was that when the town common was changed into a park with the building of a new city hall? Was that 18th century house onburned down in the Great Fire of 1835 that destroyed virtually every downtown building The current building was built in 1853 as the downtown docks expanded up the Hudson River to accomodate the age of steam and the cotton trade that was the wealth generator of that era. NYC tried to secede from the Union because of the importance of the cotton trade. "...45-47 Park Place was built for Paul Spofford and Thomas Tileston, shipping-industry pioneers who “refused to navigate their ships under foreign flag” to evade the blockade of Southern ports during the Civil War. Its other tenants, the suit continues, included a fancy-foods importer, the eventual pharmaceutical giant Merck and a developer of innovative manufacturing methods for the ceramics industry. ...the building “stands as an iconic symbol to an uninterrupted linkage of the rise of American capitalism with our current quest to preserve our freedom and democracy.” The decline in NYC in the 1960s and 1970s that prompted the building of the WTC to revitalize the rapidly de-industrializing economy. The 1980s in-migration of artists seeking the loft spaces of the early 20th century neighbors in Tribeca while the 19th century buildings went into discount retail. And then "Sept. 11, 2001, when landing gear from a hijacked passenger jet crashed through its roof, of a Burlington Coat Factory store" http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/in-battle-over-mosque-a-def... But, I am one of those historic preservation nuts who thinks 45-47 Park Place would serve all New Yorkers and the millions of tourists better as a Layers-of-New York City- History museum. Just one of many constituencies that Mayor Bloomberg has gone out of his way to alienate since his election in 2001. At least Mayor Bloomberg has not started selling street re-naming rights to the highest bidders. So many neighborhood street names are about the history. The streets were laid out in Pelham Parkway after the chestnut blight killed the forest after 1905. The same chestnut blight that killed 50 million chestnut trees from Maine to Virginia by 1954 - THAT Ground Zero was the adjacent Bronx Zoo, developed on the former estate of Pierre Lorillard). The street names are mostly 18th and 19th century mayors of NYC. My current neighborhood was the site of the last part of the Battle for New York in 1776. Most of the streets were laid out in the early 19th century, branching out from Gun Hill Road, and are named after generals of the Revolutionary War. The history of NYC is also about rebuilding in a frenzy of booms and busts. It does not mean we have to erase the history of a site, 45-47 Park Place that is part of the birthplace of New York City, and almost four hundred years of NYC history. A building that is also one of the damaged survivors of 9/11. I still want to know how a building from 1853 was built so that a torpedo-sized chunk of airplane ONLY crashed through the roof and two floors, and not through to the basement. It must have amazing old growth chestnut crossbeams. Are the historic preservation advocates now also muzzled by the charge of bigotry? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

- K2K

August 14, 2010 at 10:30pm

Having now read the lawsuit petition filed against the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, it would seem the 9-0 vote on August 3 was "arbitrary and capricious" in several ways. Perhaps someone from the Federal Heritage Emergency National Task Force gave Obama a call this morning. HEMTF represents thirty Federal Agencies and national service organizations still actively engaged in 9/11 preservation of artifacts and human remains.

- K2K

August 15, 2010 at 12:09am

If Park51 turns into a symbol of inter-faith dialogue and tolerance, will it then be a target of the wrath of conservative Muslim clerics? On the difficulty of interfaith dialogue WITHIN Islam: "Saudi Sitcom Row Tests Tolerance Toward Christians" By REUTERS Published: August 15, 2010 Filed at 10:18 a.m. ET "RIYADH (Reuters) - A popular Saudi holiday sitcom has drawn the ire of conservative clerics over an episode portraying Arab Christians in a positive light after the kingdom sought to sell itself as a leader of dialogue between faiths. "Tash Ma Tash," which has aired during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan for 17 years, is no stranger to controversy and its episodes have grown bolder over the years, tackling issues from morals police and polygamy to the heavy influence of religion on education in the deeply conservative society. U.S. ally Saudi Arabia is ruled by an absolute monarchy in coordination with clerics from the austere Wahhabi school of Islam, who oversee the judiciary and education and run a police service that enforces strict Islamic-behavior guidelines. A two-part "Uncle Boutros" episode of the sitcom showed the two main Saudi characters, both Muslims, being advised by their dying father to visit the brother of their deceased Lebanese mother, about whom they know next to nothing. After a tearful reunion, the pair discover their mother's relatives were Christians and Uncle Boutros was a priest. Despite their initial shock, the brothers slowly come to respect their uncle's Christianity, although they try to convert him to Islam and give him a Koran. The duo are pleased when their uncle hands them a box of jewelry that had belonged to their mother and which he had held for them for years. They also respect their uncle's charitable deeds toward a Lebanese Muslim neighbor. But some Saudi clerics were not impressed. "A Muslim is allowed to praise only the one true religion -- Islam," said Eissa al-Ghaith, a judge at the Justice Ministry, in remarks carried by al-Madina newspaper on Sunday. Independent Islamic scholar Abdulwahab al-Salhi said the "indecent lot of 'Tash Ma Tash' ... used drama to destroy Muslims' stable religious principles by portraying Christians as believers and not apostates." On the program's Internet forum, some participants were more sympathetic. "I don't see the harm in portraying a priest as being honest... You find many faiths in Arab countries. The Christian can be found next to the Muslim; the Shi'ite neighbors the Sunni," said one participant, writing under the name Khayal al-Omr, responding to an angry comment. "And what's wrong with the characters? You used to find them funny ... and now that it talked about religions they became stupid and revolting," she added. The rulers of the world's top oil exporting country have wrestled with whether to moderate Wahhabism since the September 11 attacks in 2001 on U.S. targets, carried out by mostly Saudi nationals, and the emergence of al Qaeda militancy against the Saudi government in 2003. " (Editing by REUTERS reporters Cynthia Johnston and Michael Roddy) http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/15/arts/entertainment-us-religion-saudi-christians.html?hp

- K2K

August 15, 2010 at 12:17pm

"If Park51 turns into a symbol of inter-faith dialogue and tolerance, will it then be a target of the wrath of conservative Muslim clerics?" It might. So what? In America, conservative Muslim clerics have the right to express their opinions too. And you have the right to deplore their opinions. We don't interfere with people's freedom of expression, we contest their ideas. At least Thomas Jefferson thought so.

- roidubouloi

August 15, 2010 at 5:40pm

Why location, specifically 45 Park Place, is the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/12/08/nyregion/MOSQUE_SS_6.html "Parts of a landing gear from one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11 broke through the roof and two floors. The Burlington Coat Factory had not yet opened, and employees were having breakfast in the basement. No one there was injured." Photo: Kukiko Mitani [I do not understand why reporters and bloggers never mention this fact about 45 Park Place. THIS is why Rauf wanted the building, and why 9/11 firefighter and survivor Timothy Brown had taken up the stalled landmarking case from 1989. ] Seeing this photo, and the satellite photo taken on 9/23/2001 posted at wiki (URL below)is what made me start seeing 45 Park Place as a 9/11 survivor and part of Ground Zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_Site_9-23-01_with_C... People should at least stop making fun of the location.

- K2K

August 16, 2010 at 5:41pm