SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home American Values and the Ground Zero Mosque

FOREIGN POLICY AUGUST 13, 2010

American Values and the Ground Zero Mosque

BY TODD GITLIN

The case of the “Ground Zero Mosque”—that is, for those who’ve been on Mars for the last few weeks, the Islamic Cordoba House that is to include a mosque, along with an auditorium, a swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, and restaurants, though it is not to be built at Ground Zero, but rather, two blocks away—continues to prove highly teachable, as the academy likes to describe topics amenable to Socratic or other instructive dispute. But the dispute hasn’t yet finished granting its gifts. Critics of the Islamic center haven’t taken their own premises seriously enough, and the defense of the mosque has stopped too soon. Stare into the cauldron of the dispute and you see American values boiling.

Opponents of Cordoba House, from Sarah Palin to Abraham Foxman’s Anti-Defamation League, believe that what ought to prevail are the emotions of survivors and others: some survivors and some others. Sensitivity rules. Former Governor Palin declared, in a tweet that went around the world, that the determining force is pain that “stabs hearts” “throughout the heartland,” pain that is “too raw, too real.” Mr. Foxman’s words were more modulated: “[U]ltimately, this was not a question of rights, but a question of what is right." But he too went on to specify an emotion-based conception of “right” when he went on to say that the anguish of the families of those murdered on September 11, 2001, “entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted." For Mr. Foxman, emotion is also the anteroom to morality.

One way or the other, Mr. Foxman and former Governor Palin would seem to agree that the rights of survivors—family members—are self-evident. Anyone who cannot feel for them forfeits a human impulse. For their losses, there can be no recompense. But just what are their rights, and where are their limits? In a democratic society in which feelings do not automatically line up around a single magnetic pole, questions immediately arise: Which hearts? Which heartland? Which survivors get to decide? How many widows are worth how many cousins? Does the pain of those of us who lived near the Twin Towers and inhaled the stench of the burned flesh and the smoldering ruins for weeks, but (or therefore) conclude that a nearby monument to civilized discourse about religion makes a great deal of sense, avail nothing? Are the courts to judge the respective realness or authenticity of pains? Elected officials? Congress? In this brave new world order, feelings would be enforced by the might of the law. This way lies the sort of touchy-feely madness that, not too long ago, conservatives considered political correctness run wild.

But beyond the question of whose feelings count looms a principle that needs stating: Private feelings do not convey public rights. It’s in keeping with the spirit of an age hostile to public values that some survivors—and some who share their view of propriety—can be considered to have the last word. If some survivors of Timothy McVeigh’s victims wish to erect a sculpture next to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City depicting McVeigh strapped on a gurney receiving a lethal injection—perhaps next to the two pints of mint chocolate-chip ice cream that made up his last meal on earth—would that be their right? (I have not been to law school, so perhaps I may be excused if I say that this is, indeed, a self-answering question.) Or should we suppose that a poll (or focus-group? focus-assembly?) of survivors is to prevail on the question? Questions of principle remain.

To permit the feelings of some survivors, however deep, however inconsolable, to trump all other considerations is to view the massacre of September 11 as their private affair. But it was not that. It was perpetrated against the body of America—indeed, the world, since the victims were citizens of many countries. (At that, scores of them were Muslims, a number greater than the number of hijackers—not that this matters in principle.) Al Qaeda considered them fair game not because of any wickedness that might adhere to their own persons but because they happened to occupy certain sites on the American earth, and because, in their view, the destruction of these sites would serve their purposes in the diabolical theater that terrorism amounts to. George W. Bush was right about this on September 13, 2001: They hate our values. In other words: Nothing personal. The proper reply is: Osama bin Laden has his views of what public life is for, and we have ours. His stem from a vicious interpretation of Islam. Ours are rooted in the American Constitution.

On the Constitution and the Law

The Constitution aside, nothing relieves the custodians of Cordoba House of their responsibility not to apologize for Mohammad Atta and his collaborators in depravity on the hijacked jets. That is a moral matter. It would be an equally moral matter were the proposed monument to be called Jerusalem House or Nazareth House. Of course, the enemies of the Sufi Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf have a perfect right to their opinions of him, or the views of anyone of his donors. (We shall see in a moment that their opinions would improve if they read Rauf’s work.) If a victim’s family member, or anyone else, doesn’t approve—or vehemently loathes—any text posted in the Cordoba Center, or any sermon delivered there, it would be their perfect right to object to it. Americans have the right to do that—or, for that matter, to object to the objectors. But, in the matter of religious speech, there is no right of prior restraint. Not only is this a matter of Constitutional law, it is a matter of statutory law. For the First Amendment to mean anything, it must be the case that the freedom of religion sanctioned there entails the right to build a building that has religious purposes, regardless of the religion involved. A decade ago, when, evidently, it was thought in Washington that the language of the Bill of Rights was too vague (“Congress shall make no law….”) to stop campaigns to restrict the building of temples that offended somebody, Congress, in its wisdom, passed a law that adds some pertinent specifics in the form of a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Actof 2000, which declares without whisper of ambiguity: “No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.” (I must add that I draw this information from a columnby Melissa Rogers, director of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., and published in a journal not known for softness on terrorism, The Baptist Standard. The text of the law is here.)

 

A Theological Excursus

But even those, like Reuel Marc Gerecht, who wish Imam Rauf to swear a sort of loyalty oath affirming that he is sufficiently “moderate” (and to keep his answers short), do not allege that he wishes to enshrine Al Qaeda. But, although his views are beside both the constitutional and statutory point, they are a legitimate subject of inquiry. At least, they have come to interest me.

Readers who do not find such matters interesting are excused until the following subhead.

Some accuse the Imam of having made certain shallow or unwise pronouncements in the days after September 11. Now, there are a couple of quotes the Imam made then that strike me as sloppy. The roll is long of people, some quite distinguished, who failed to express themselves well, or even decently, in those horrible days. But to rake through their interview remarks plucking out rotten cherries, without even going to the trouble of reading the extended works in which they have stated their own views, when they were answering their own questions in their own time and not the questions of reporters caught on tape, is not serious.

I claim no scholarly credentials bearing on Islam, nor have I crossed his path (though see Jeffrey Goldberg, below), nor do I have access to intelligence files on him. But I do thank Mr. Gerecht for having spurred me to borrow from the Columbia University library both of Imam Rauf’s books that they own—appropriate, I must say, if for no other reason than that Imam Rauf holds a college degree from the university where I am honored to work. 

These are sophisticated and subtle works, and I cannot claim to have studied them for long. Islam: A Search for Meaning, published in 1996, begins with the sort of problem that you would expect to strike a physics major. How can the Qur’an be said to be “self-consistent”? More generally, how can orthodox Islam, and the Sufism which is his particular tack—Sufism that “continually talks about tearing the veils that separate us from God”—be said to be “part and parcel of a homogeneous, self-consistent great whole”? The Qur’an, Rauf argues, demands of believers that they “accept all its statements as true,” which, in turn, requires them to “seek the perspective from which such verses can be self-consistently understood.” To fit all interpretations into a self-consistent whole is, he writes, “a formidable intellectual endeavor.”

He does not claim to have completed it. He is, after all, a self-designated “Muslim layman,” not at all averse to the sort of analogies that philosophy students learn to shoot down (to use another analogy). More than once, he has recourse to what might be called the vernacular of his adopted nation, as in a comment that the “state of spiritual embarrassment” that followed his participation in the haj “is part of the spiritual growth process. It is primarily a correction, much like [sic] the stock or real estate markets.” His familiarity with the American idiom would please the Cato Institute. Rauf’s second book, Islam: A Sacred Law: What Every Muslim Should Know about The Shari’ah (2000), was written to clarify practical problems—medical treatment, banking, food, and so on—for Muslims. The crucial distinction, which may or may not be sustainable, is between “the spirit of the Shari’ah,” which is God-given, and its letter, which are matters of human custom. The letter evolves, as it did from Moses to Muhammad, for example. “[A] careful reading of the spirit and letter of Islamic law, and its Qur’anic and Hadith bases …directs the impulse of the Muslim community towards the elimination of slavery and the recognition of women’s rights.”

Mr. Gerecht believes that only “someone who unqualifiedly renounces the applicability of the Sharia, the Holy Law, in American society” is entitled to a certificate as a “moderate Muslim American.” He challenges Imam Rauf to declare where he stands on the “traditional Muslim understanding of orthodoxy as orthopraxy (it’s not what you believe in your heart—that is between you and God—but how you act, i.e., apply the Sharia, in the public square that matters).” He will be happy to know that Rauf devoted pages 101-104 ten years ago—I daresay long before he imagined he might need to trim his sails to repel accusations that he fronts for mass murderers—to precisely an idea of Shari’ah that considers intention to be of the essence in judging the lawfulness of an act. The final chapter before his appendices is called “Can the Shari’ah Evolve?” to which his answer is the sort of “yes” that all but the most fundamentalist adherents of any religion at all would defend. The Imam follows an intricate and adroit line of reasoning. He is thoughtful and at times—at least for a nonbeliever—tortured. From a strictly secular point of view, he makes impermissible moves. In short, he recommends the kind of reasoning that, in another context, would be called Talmudic, in the manner of every serious theological work I’ve ever consulted.

In the last five pages of Islam: A Search for Meaning, he quotes Goethe and Jesus, by the way. These pages belong to a chapter called “Love.” In brief, on the strength of the available evidence, a fair-minded reader would have to agree with Jeffrey Goldberg that Rauf “represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country”; and, with Time magazine’s world editor, Bobby Ghosh, that “Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan are actually the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of Al Qaeda and its adherents—ironically, just the kind of ‘peaceful Muslims’ whom Sarah Palin, in her now infamous tweet, asked to ‘refudiate’ the mosque.”

 

Against the Ministry of Correct Religion

But enough about Imam Rauf. Mr. Gerecht wishes to put someone in charge of vetting religious sites in America (or, perhaps, just in the “sacred ground” of Lower Manhattan; it’s not clear how far the boundaries stretch). The New York landmarks commission will not suffice, for it voted last week, 9-0, to reject concocted landmark status for the undistinguished building that will have to be knocked down to build the Islamic center. Mayor Bloomberg would seem to be a duly constituted authority, but he’s declared himself clearly: “If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it, and we shouldn’t be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can’t,” he said, responding to Newt Gingrich, who had declared, “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.” Why mosques ought to be permissible twelve blocks from Ground Zero, where Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf currently preaches, the former speaker of the House did not specify. Nor did he seem to be aware that Muslims mark Ramadan, prayer rugs and all, within the walls of the Pentagon itself (courtesy of Justin Elliott at Salon.) True, only 184 Americans died in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. But is nothing sacred?If Joe McCarthy were alive, he’d be subpoenaing generals already.

Of course, if money from the same sources who fund Al Qaeda comes into the hands of Imam Rauf (and, for the reason Mr. Goldberg writes, this would seem on the face of it highly unlikely), there are ample laws against money-laundering, and buildings full of intelligence officials devoted to smoking out the illicit transfer of moneys that have passed through the hands of evil men. It is the public duty of American governments to enforce the Constitution. It is not their public duty to prohibit constitutionally protected activity on the ground that bad people might donate to it.

Just so, it is not their duty to construct a mosque-free zone around the World Trade Center site because some Americans oppose putting it there; or, in the argument of Dan Senor, because Islamists will “celebrate” it “as a Muslim monument erected on the site of a great Muslim ‘military’ victory—a milestone on the path to the further spread of Islam throughout the world.”

Wall Street Journal columnist and former Bush speechwriter William McGurnagrees that the controversy should impel the Imam to relocate. On this line of argument, the ferocity of his enemies ought to trump his intentions, however noble. Whenever controversy erupts, the angry get an automatic veto. This is Tea Party logic—of the Mad Hatter variety.

But I do not want to conclude on that note. As Imam Aruf would say, peaceable intentions should count in behalf of these men—as also for Governor David Paterson, who, at the eleventh hour, came through on August 10 with an offer of state-owned property (odd on constitutional grounds, if no others) if only the developers would hark to the project’s opponents and relocate Cordoba House farther away. The impulse toward reconciliation is decent, but toward reaching that happy outcome, not everything is permitted. The America that offers the world an ideal of religious coexistence does not benefit when a cultural center is officially bribed to move out of bounds.

To depart the realm of legal and theological considerations: Thus does Cordoba House, like a biochemical stain, continue to reveal vast and hitherto obscured reaches of our American life.

Todd Gitlin is a professor of journalism and sociology and chair of the Ph.D. program in communications at Columbia. His next book, The Chosen Peoples: America, Israel, and the Ordeals of Divine Election (written with Liel Leibovitz), will be out in September.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 66 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

66 comments

Three points of omission by Todd Gitlin: 1) Why 45 Park Place is so sensitive "...out of a baby-blue sky suddenly stained with smoke, a plane’s landing-gear assembly the size of a World War II torpedo crashed through the roof and down through two empty selling floors of the Burlington Coat Factory. The Sept. 11, 2001, attack killed 2,752 people downtown and doomed the five-story building at 45 Park Place, two blocks north of the World Trade Center, keeping it abandoned for eight years. ... The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July [2009]. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all 2) 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). In Pakistan, the headlines today question why only Turkey, Kuwait, and the UAE of all the Islamic nations have donated money for flood relief as of the first day of Ramadan. Pakistan's headlines ask where is Saudi Arabia and Iran? Pakistan asks: Where is Zakat from the other Islamic nations while Pakistan is drowning, and millions are so hungry that local Imams are waiving the Ramadan dawn-to-dusk fast? It is NOT true Islam to spend 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/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. I read today in the Wall Street Journal Arts section 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-Mala/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. 3) 45 Park Place is NOT an "undistinguished building", and has applied for landmark status several times since 1989. The 2010 application included the damage on 9/11 as an additional point in the multi-layered history of that bit of old New Amsterdam. 23 Park Place was given landmark status in March, 2007. 45 Park Place has it's own temporal and architectural history, not dissimilar to the criteria for 23 Park Place except that the architect of 23 Park Place, Samuel Adams Warner, later designed some truly distinguished major buildings. 23 Park Place was rejected twice, in 1989 and 1990, before being granted landmark status in 2007. 45 Park Place has a much better balanced facade design than 23 Park Place. This never-ending controversy is ill-served by now trying to defend the travelling Imam Rauf. Sharif El-Gamal stated in an interview with Altmuslim.org on July 24 that Imam Rauf will NOT be the Imam of the prayer space. The truly curious can read it here: http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/n/3866 "In the wake of growing public debate, we ask Sharif El-Gamal, the CEO of Soho Properties and the developer of Park51, some hard questions about the plans to develop a Muslim-run community center in lower Manhattan." By Aziz Poonawalla & Shahed Amanullah, July 24, 2010

- K2K

August 13, 2010 at 1:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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 on the Gettysburg Battlefield. 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". My thanks to Abraham Foxman of the ADL for trying to make the post-nationalists understand how most Americans feel about the still-missing 1,000 victims of 9/11 who were vaporized into dust in the fireball, and whose dust may indeed be part of 45 Park Place. As to Governor Paterson's offer to help mediate, I am sure he also understands the temper and grief of the majority. But, I would think he also wants to avoid all the inevitable lawsuits over the Con Edison sale of half the site, one of the facts in this case that the developers of Park51/Cordoba House failed to disclose. The New York Post revealed that fact on August 6.

- K2K

August 13, 2010 at 2:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice try, K2K, but last I checked there was no Constitutional right to gamble in casinos, so that is by its nature a different issue than freedom of religion. Gitlin reports here that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Actof 2000 states, “No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.” That law by itself means that any argument based on this being a mosque as opposed to some other denomination's place of worship violates the law. Period. Do you propose that this law be repealed, or that ", except for Islam" be appended to every statement like the above? Make your case, and explain why the Constitution allows that. Do you propose that this law is unconstitutional and must be struck down? Make your case. Otherwise, the argument is just noise. The real question here is whether Americans actually hold the values we claim to hold, or only do so when they give us the answer we want.

- JEFF FREY

August 13, 2010 at 2:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JeffFrey, Palin wasn't asking the government to make building the mosque illegal. She asked the muslims building it NOT to build it. I think the word she used was "refudiate" Others have tried to get it declared a landmark so that it cannot be touched. Neither of these requests are unreasonable, and they are very much aligned with the values we claim to hold. Is there a republican leader that is asking for a special law against mosques that you are aware of? What is wrong with trying to get someone to change their mind or trying to get zoning changed on land? Let me guess, when people try to get a piece of land re-zoned that Walmart wants to buy, you are very happy and believe it to be part of the democratic process? And when a town mayor goes on TV and tells everyone he doesn't want walmart coming to his town, you are again really pleased to see the democratic process alive and well? But this is somehow different, eh? PS. If there is someone that wants to make it illegal by passing a law that singles it out, then they are wrong.

- seattleeng

August 13, 2010 at 4:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But this is somehow different, eh?" Of course it is something different, because the objections are based on the religious identity of the builders and prospective users and what people infer about their attitudes toward 9/11 or what the presence of a mosque makes them feel. Both the identity of the builders and what they think and may or may not be expressing about 9/11 enjoy constitutional protection. There is no constitutional protection for cheap merchandise. Nor, as the author points out, any constitutional protection of anyone's feelings from speech that offends them. Either you understand and agree with the American values embodied in the Constitution or you don't. There are those who think our country is about those values and there are those who thing it is about the flag.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 5:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What is wrong with . . . trying to get zoning changed on land?" Nothing or everything. Changing the zoning because of the religious beliefs of the builders or their presumed or actual attitudes and ideas about 9/11 or anything else would be flatly unconstitutional. The zoning laws may not be used to accomplish what is otherwise prohibited. And Federal courts are generally pretty alert to the realities of what is going on in such cases, unwilling to be gulled by claims that religion or speech have nothing to do with the zoning changes when it is quite notorious that they do. The burden of showing the existence of a legitimate purpose in this case would be extraordinarily high. "Spot zoning" in particular is highly suspect even when there are no religion or speech issues.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 6:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The real issue at stake is not the mosque per say. It is the fear of Zardoz as rationalized by law and instituted by ' Follow your bliss ', relativism. Believe it or not, law is not sacrosanct. That is also an unarticulated piece of this conversation.

- jacko

August 13, 2010 at 6:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "Of course it is something different, because the objections are based on the religious identity of the builders and prospective users and what people infer about their attitudes toward 9/11 or what the presence of a mosque makes them feel." But the law doesn't prevent you from disliking a building because it is being put up by walmart or being put up by a church. Take a part of your town that you like--quirky, full of character, frequented by artists, filled with non-coporate coffee shops. Now imagine the catholic church decides they want a super luxurious training center of some type. And the weight and might of catholic church is going to be put behind it. And it will be big, and bright, gold leaf, marble statues out front, the works .Gaudy by some counts, near to God by others. But totally out of character for the neighborhood. Are you saying that nobody has the right to try and change the zoning to prevent the church from being built? Of course they do. Again, challenging zoning is about as American as you can get. We'd all be horrified if Palin wanted a law against this. But she doesn't. She asked the builders to reconisder because of the sensitivity--Mayor Bloomberg has made the same request. And others have tried to change the zoning. All pretty rational responses to me on both sides.

- seattleeng

August 13, 2010 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Based on the interviews with two of the prinicipals, Daisy Khan, and Sharif El-Gamal, it is still unclear whether the prayer space intended for Park51 makes it a mosque. But, the prayer space is the sole reason other objections are being dismissed by the Todd Gitlins of this debate. I find it odd that Todd Gitlin would go to so much trouble to defend Imam Rauf when El-Gamal has already stated that Imam Rauf will NOT be the Imam for the prayer space. Based on Rauf's dual-residency in Malaysia and extensive travel schedule, it is no longer clear that he is the Imam of his congregation twelve blocks north of Park Place, which is no longer being said to be moving to Park Place. Todd Gitlin read two of Imam Rauf's books: "Islam: A Search for Meaning" (1996) and "Islam: A Sacred Law: What Every Muslim Should Know about The Shari’ah (2000) because they were conveniently in Columbia's library. But NOT Rauf's book that is controversial: "What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America" published 2005 and in Malaysia as "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11." This essay is not worthy of a professor of journalism and sociology who also so totally misrepresents the Landmark-worthiness of 45 Park Place. Everyone in NYC knows that the building owner is the fiercest opponent of landmarking, which explains why 45 Park Place under the previous owners failed since 1989 where 23 Park Place finally succeeded.

- K2K

August 13, 2010 at 11:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: NYC kept Wal-Mart from building in the South Bronx, and anywhere else in the five boroughs, through a coalition of unions opposed to Wal-Mart's anti-union position, and Manhattan retail-snobs. Zoning was not the issue. Maybe Wal-Mart should have included an in-store church, next to the in-store pharmacy :)

- K2K

August 13, 2010 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattle, any citizen has the right to lobby for whatever they want. That does not mean that the government has the authority under the Constitution to give them what they want. In a case where people suddenly discovered new zoning interests when a disfavored religious group decided to build an otherwise perfectly legal structure compatible with existing zoning, the government would have a heavy burden of demonstrating that there was a compelling interest justifying the zoning changes. You can be sure that it would be subject to strict scrutiny by a court. And zoning to exclude houses of worship rather than structures of a particular size or capacity would likely fail. Spot zoning of the site of interest, rather than a much broader exclusion that would affect a lot more people, would also likely fail. In the case of this mosque and this location, a dense area populated with office towers, the chance that density related zoning could be invoked to exclude this project truly is zero. It is possible that height or architectural restrictions might be effective along that block, but it is unlikely that those would be such as could exclude the project. They would affect its design. And evidence that the design requirements had been crafted with the purpose of excluding the project would likely cause any such restrictions to be thrown out. Hard as it is for you to accept, the objections to this project have nothing to do with anything other than 1) it is a project meant to serve the religious, cultural, and recreational needs of Moslems and 2) people impute to the builders various motives and attitudes toward 9/11. Neither one of those is a constitutionally cognizable basis for excluding this project. No one has suggested any other plausible basis -- other than the "ideas" involved -- for excluding the project. The chances that zoning could be exploited to that purpose are just about nil. As for landmark status, the Landmark Commission has already voted 9-0 that the building does not deserve landmark status. K2K has his own views. The responsible authority overwhelming disagreed. The chance that that finding could be reversed politically given the constitutional issues is also just about nil.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, seattle, the attempt to designate the building as a landmark failed with a 9-0 vote of the landmarks commission, so that is a dead issue. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with asking for that designation, but given that the building obviously did not qualify, adopting that classification just to keep Muslims from building a new building would still have been suspect under the law. K2K now suggests that the "Ground Zero Mosque" can be rejected because maybe it isn't really a mosque, and thus doesn't qualify for constitutional protection under freedom of religion. Can't have it both ways. If it has no essential religious content, then what are you complaining about? Otherwise, roidubouloi has pretty much covered it.

- JEFF FREY

August 13, 2010 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm curious, K2K--have you read the 2005 book you mention above? If so, what don't you like about it? (And by the way, I wonder if you're seriously suggesting, with your "conveniently," that the Columbia library *deliberately* kept it off the shelves. That doesn't sound like the sort of thing a left-wing secular university would do.) Not that your, or my, tastes--or the number of days per year that Rauf is to preside there--should be dispositive when it comes to the legitimacy of the Cordoba House, mosque, prayer room, or variations thereof. Still, to call something controversial seems to me a reason to read it, not to flee it, or its author.

- toddgitlin

August 13, 2010 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Ground Zero debate illustrates the point that, while Muslims expect to be granted every conceivable right in full, they do not take the same view of what they must give in return to their host cultures. The Danish cartoon debate showed that anything which might offend a Muslim’s religion (which covers an infinitude since Islam makes no distinction between politics and religion) is not a proper part of free speech. No matter how many Imams demand the death penalty for gays, there is no public condemnation by moderate Muslims. No public protests are ever made about the scandal of honour killing. The Muslim whistle-blower who outed the Toronto terrorists is now an outcast in own community. The bogey of Islamophobia is always raised to make any criticism of Islam (even of its fundamentalist segment) racist. The refusal to accommodate host cultures around the world defines Islamists, whether moderate or radical. Moderates avoid overt violence because they think is easier to wait several decades for us to surrender. It is no wonder that a violent minority festers within the religion. That violent minority is fully aware that a mosque near Ground Zero is an insult to be exploited by extremists. Remember that Muslims around the world celebrated when the towers came down. Until this mindset changes, we are fully justified in holding back our approval on such matters.

- lance00002001

August 13, 2010 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We can withhold our "approval," we just cannot withheld any necessary building permits or customary cooperation of government.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lance00002001, your "they" is precisely the problem that disables you from entering this debate honestly. How can you presume to say that Muslims are all of one mind? You slide from "Muslims" to "Islamists" without seeming to notice that you've performed a logical bait-and-switch.

- toddgitlin

August 13, 2010 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lance, there IS a mosque near Ground Zero, four blocks away. It's been there since 1970 and thus predates the World Trade Center.

- ironyroad

August 13, 2010 at 7:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"there IS a mosque near Ground Zero, four blocks away. " Then how can anyone make the claim that bigotry is responsible for the resentment against the Cordova House initiative? Or that the megamosque is needed because it will instruct New Yorkers about the values of tolerance? Is there any history of any attack against that mosque after 9/11?

- noga1

August 13, 2010 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes "We can withhold our "approval," we just cannot withheld any necessary building permits or customary cooperation of government." Yes, agree. But I don't know of any prominent figures on the right that are saying we should withhold building permits for no reason other that we don't like it. It has all been requests to go someplace else. Even Bloomberg made that request.

- seattleeng

August 13, 2010 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, what prominent figures on the right are really trying to do is to stoke more unthinking anger that they think will work to their short-term political advantage. I think they know enough to know that there is no legal basis for stopping this project (well, maybe Palin doesn't know enough to know that). They just see an opportunity to exploit fear and prejudice for their own advantage. I'm glad to see that Obama came out with a strong and unequivocal statement in favor of America values.

- JEFF FREY

August 13, 2010 at 9:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re: theological excursion. Sufi (sufism) now considers itself Islamic, although the mystical teachings and practices precede Islam. However, Sufism is considered a heresy in Saudi Arabia (don't know about other Arabic countries) and practicing, teaching, or even talking about it is punishable by death. So a Sufi imam building a mosque is a direct challenge to fundamentalist Islam, and a bold statement about U.S. freedom of religion. This would be in line with a Quaker congregation building a meeting house immediately outside the Pentagon. Sufism is pacifist, and until recently practiced radical equality of men and women, allowing women to be teachers (their highest religious rank). Things change constantly, and I don't know if the Cordoba Mosque (or Park51) has any women teachers, but historically they did up until the 1990s.

- SisTeddy

August 13, 2010 at 9:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1:35pm EDT | toddgitlin "I'm curious, K2K--have you read the 2005 book you mention above?" K2K: No. My studies of Islam were in 2004-5, but reading anything by a former physicist is of no interest. Rauf's 2005 book is what has the right-wing commentariat in a tizzy. I thought you should read the only book Rauf wrote AFTER 9/11 if you are staking your professional reputation in his defense. [toddgitlin]: "I wonder if you're seriously suggesting, with your "conveniently," that the Columbia library *deliberately* kept it off the shelves. That doesn't sound like the sort of thing a left-wing secular university would do." K2K: You know as well as I do that university libraries have criteria for aquisition decisions. I would guess one of the following: 1) the book could be accessed through an inter-library loan progam if Columbia particpates in any; 2) there were budget and/or shelving contraints; 3) the publisher did not promote the book to academic libraries; and/or 4) they did not think Rauf's 2005 book had any particular merit to the study of Islam, which is more likely if NO Columbia professor requested the acquisition. toddgitlin: "to call something controversial seems to me a reason to read it, not to flee it, or its author." K2K: My interest in the multiple layers of the 45 Park Place/Cordoba House/Park51 controversy comes from 1) my longstanding passion for New York City history and architecture. Some are Yankees fans. I am a architectural history fan. I enjoy following the many disputes over buildings and proposed developments in NYC these past 32 years, having learned to stay on the sidelines as an observer. 2) My main concern with Imam Rauf has been his affiliation with Malaysia's Matathir's Perdana4Peace, which is current. Rauf may be as committed to peace as Dennis Kucinich, a laudable stance. I would personally prefer that NYC NOT have yet another preacher who believes in the "global Zionist conspiracy" of the Protocols as Matathir does in Malaysia. NYC has enough preachers who believe and preach that proven lie, and poisoning neighborly relations. 3) I have never opposed the concept of Rauf's project, but another hobby is following how the media covers one story. The deep partisanization of the mostly angry debate is why I object when anyone with a known professional reputation publishes an essay that deliberately OR casually omits or distorts elements of a very complex story. toddgitlin wrote in his essay "The New York landmarks commission will not suffice, for it voted last week, 9-0, to reject concocted landmark status for the undistinguished building that will have to be knocked down to build the Islamic center. " K2K: I have read the Landmark application from 2007 for 23 Park Place, and the sections available 9to me) from Timothy Brown's 2010 application for 45 Park Place. Studied both facades, with a trained eye. Refreshed my research for that sector of downtown Manhattan, including viewing 45 Park Place as it looked in 1609 at the Manahatta project, so I could be sure of where the coastline was when 45 Park Place was built. Mayor Bloomberg appoints all of the commissioners of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. It is well known amongst us NYC architecture junkies that the process can be, and is, politicized. 45 Park Place is an excellent example of the mid-nineteenth century double store-and-loft buildings built to accomodate the migration of docks up the Hudson River to accomodate steamers by the 1850's. Without access to more files, I would still question the vote as ignoring precedence in the landmarking of similar buildings in lower Tribeca. The story of this week should not be about Imam Rauf and whether he is a moderate or how one defines a moderate. Perhaps the story of the week should be how the media has once again failed to practice responsible journalism. Rauf bought 45 Park Place because it was severely damaged on 9/11. That fact is consistantly ignored by those in the media who point out that 45 Park Place is two blocks or 600 feet from the Ground Zero site of the original WTC. When I tell people about the damage, they always change how they see the location of 45 Park Place, and tend to see it as part of Ground Zero. If Rauf was solely building a mosque, for his congregation and/or the transient workers in the area who want a prayer space, who knows how this story would have emerged. Cordoba House was renamed to Park51 after the June 6, 2010 protest, and the list of amenities has changed daily (based solely on published interviews with Daisy Khan and Sharif El-Gamal). I am increasingly skeptical that this is a project that is using an undefined mosque component to get approvals for something still undefined, or, as they claim at Park51.org "in Phase 1 planning". I await the controversy over the final architectural design, if it ever gets that far. I await the opinion of Ada Louise Huxtable. But, the bridges and healing of the original vision will be near impossible to restore. Maybe Park51 will consider my suggestion to them that they create a bazaari to bring the foods and artistry of crafts from Dar-es-Islam to New York City.

- K2K

August 13, 2010 at 10:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff Frey: "Seattle, what prominent figures on the right are really trying to do is to stoke more unthinking anger that they think will work to their short-term political advantage. I think they know enough to know that there is no legal basis for stopping this project (well, maybe Palin doesn't know enough to know that). They just see an opportunity to exploit fear and prejudice for their own advantage." Or, they might just be vocal about something they believe strongly. And that's the problem with those like you crying wolf all the time: When the right does actually try to scare people, you've so watered down the accusation that it's meaningless. Save it for something that matters.

- seattleeng

August 13, 2010 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"When the right does actually try to scare people . . . " Puh-leese. The rhetoric of the right consists of little else.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like what, seattle? "Smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud"? Did that attempt to scare people matter? Actually, I found your comment abut crying wolf pretty funny, given the hysterics employed by some of the opponents of this project.

- JEFF FREY

August 14, 2010 at 1:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff Frey: Like what, seattle? "Smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud"? Did that attempt to scare people matter? Oh boy. Here we go. Do you think these quotes below were spoken to instill calm? And remember, these opinions are all spoken absent any influence from Bush. Ted Kennedy in 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Tom Daschle in 1998: ""Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." " Sandy Berger in 1998: ""(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"" Madeline Albright in 1998: "Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face" Clinton in 1998, while signing off on regime change in Iraq: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal" But Jeff, please, give them a pass. It makes you look really intelligent, fair and balanced. And let me know if you want me to list 100 more of these choice quotes. They are everywhere. It takes seconds to cut and paste.

- seattleeng

August 14, 2010 at 2:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gittlin: "Mr. Gerecht wishes to put someone in charge of vetting religious sites in America..." Gerecht did not propose to put anybody in charge. He proposed a standard for judging the actions and intentions of the Triumphal Mosque promoters. I daresay that Gerecht has had much more direct contact with Islamic culture than Gittlin and most of the writers on this blog. Gittlin needs to look at the overall historical record of Islam, not just the few scraps he likes or that justify some optimistic liberal reading. He should show more curiosity about the provenance of this Mosque. Obama, by unnecessarily wading into this controversy last night at the White House Ramadan dinner, has further inflamed it and further endangered the Democratic Party economic agenda. The Republicans now have a new exciting cultural wedge issue. Once again, affluent upper-middle-class liberals, would rather feel good about a symbolic issue than address more important problems that affect millions of suffering people.

- amidut

August 14, 2010 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So your president has pronounced on the mega mosque last night: "In a speech at a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan, he said: "As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country. "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable." ___________ Last week I watched two interview on Charlie Rose, one with Martin Amis and the other with Christopher Hitchens. Charlie asked them what they thought about the president. Martin said something like: "I love Obama. Whenever someone criticizes him I feel like it is one of my family being criticized. " and theat he liked the idea of an author being installed as president in the White House. Charlie beamed with pleasure at this reply, not realizing perhaps that it was not really an endorsement of Obama. Hitchens as usual was much more direct. After paying the president some compliment about being an intellectual, he said something like this: He sees the problems in the world as a misunderstanding between cultures and religions, not as totalitarian systems versus freedom and liberality of the West. That makes him a very weak leader. It was a good succinct way of summing up the essence of Obama's thinking. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11163

- noga1

August 14, 2010 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Gerecht did not propose to put anybody in charge. He proposed a standard for judging the actions and intentions of the Triumphal Mosque promoters." amidut "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." Gerecht Actually, Gerecht is proposing exactly what amidut says he is not proposing. Which is why he is a demagogue and crypto-fascist bully. Demagogue because I assume he is intelligent enough to know that what he demands is constitutionally impossible. Crypto-fascist bully because he clearly wants people to have to make declarations about their "ideas" before being able to exercise the rights of citizens. This piece of scum would have been right at home in the Soviet Union. That's the marvelous thing. There really is no difference between the fascists of the left and of the right, between the Islamist totalitarians and Reuel Marc Gerecht other than their means, their opportunities, and their particular interests. If Gerecht were the product of a Moslem culture and society, he would be an Islamist.

- roidubouloi

August 14, 2010 at 10:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

08/13/2010 - 7:13pm EDT | ironyroad " there IS a mosque near Ground Zero, four blocks away. It's been there since 1970 and thus predates the World Trade Center." Better late than never, the NYT Anne Barnard reports on both Tribeca mosques, buried on page A15 of the Metro section today. "Calling to Allah, From Lower Manhattan" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion/14mosque.html?_r=1&hp "...Masjid Manhattan, on Warren Street, four blocks from ground zero, was founded in 1970. Masjid al-Farah, formerly on Mercer Street, moved to its present location on West Broadway, about 12 blocks from ground zero, in 1985. Both mosques — essentially one-room operations — routinely turn people away for lack of space. " Imam Rauf is described as " a longtime prayer leader at Masjid al-Farah" but Sheikha Fariha al-Jerrahi is described as Masjid al-Farah's female leader. The mosque on Warren Street is described as conservative. As of last week, there has been some confusion in the "media" due to Park51's Oz Sultan's Tweets as to whether the prayer space destined for 45 Park Place will now be for the Warren Street congregation, but not for Imam Rauf's West Broadway Masjid al-Farah. or both. Unfortunate this clarification will get lost in the opinion wars. And, it still does not help the opinion wars the consistent omission of WHY 45 Park Place is so sensitive "...out of a baby-blue sky suddenly stained with smoke, a plane’s landing-gear assembly the size of a World War II torpedo crashed through the roof and down through two empty selling floors of the Burlington Coat Factory. The Sept. 11, 2001, attack killed 2,752 people downtown and doomed the five-story building at 45 Park Place, two blocks north of the World Trade Center, keeping it abandoned for eight years. ... The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July [2009]. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1&pagewanted... Rauf bought 45 Park Place because it was severely damaged on 9/11. That fact is consistantly ignored by those in the media who point out that 45 Park Place is two blocks or 600 feet from the Ground Zero site of the original WTC. When I tell people about the damage, they always change how they see the location of 45 Park Place: they start seeing 45 Park Place as PART of Ground Zero. When one narrative consistently deletes this fact, the mental map of the sacred ground narrative is consistently dismissed as bigotry. The vision for Park51/Cordoba House has failed (so far) because the media and blogosphere has failed.

- K2K

August 14, 2010 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

08/14/2010 - 9:23am EDT | amidut "Obama, by unnecessarily wading into this controversy last night at the White House Ramadan dinner," has curiously NOT had the Whitehouse.gov homepage note the Ramadan break-fast dinner, nor are his ACTUAL WORDS posted with "Speeches & Remarks" or anywhere else. Which is a mistake. Last night, I read both the WashPo and the AP news stories of Obama's GZM remarks. I did not bother bookmarking them, but the WashPo story included Obama's remarks acknowledging the opposition in a very thoughtful way. The AP had eliminated that same quote. Obama should post his complete comment at whitehouse.gov, just in case there is still a responsible journalist seeking a primary source. Is there no real journalist left in America? Or is the media only interested in flaming the partisan fires?

- K2K

August 14, 2010 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

President Obama's statement on Friday, August 13, 2010: "Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure." What else could Obama say? Maybe he should have said it separately from the White House Iftar dinner for breaking the fast of Ramadan, but at least he tried to balance the competing narratives. [only Jennifer Rubin at Commentary (linked from realclearpolitics today) quotes the entire statement? That is where I found it - a refreshing break from the selective quoting of so many professional journalists]

- K2K

August 14, 2010 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

what I posted at 12:06 pm may not beObama's entire statement, as the NY Daily News reports other quotes. They also have an interesting instant poll: "Obama and Park51: Should President Obama have weighed in on Ground Zero mosque controversy? 1) Yes, his presidential point of view is important 53% so far. 2) No, it's a local matter, as he said himself. 10% so far 3) I don't know, but this fight needs to be settled 37% so far http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/08/14/2010-08-14_tolerance_a_founding_us_principle.html

- K2K

August 14, 2010 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes "There really is no difference between the fascists of the left and of the right, between the Islamist totalitarians and Reuel Marc Gerecht other than their means, their opportunities, and their particular interests. If Gerecht were the product of a Moslem culture and society, he would be an Islamist." Roid, this keen observation in two tight sentences has justified my 3 year subscription price. Not about Gerecht in particular, but about people in general. Few can recognize when they are looking in the mirror. It's easy for us to always label the other guy as the extremist, but fail to realize we are just as rigid, just as set in our ways, just as as crazed for "the cause" as the scariest folks out there. We don't agree on some things, but you are spot on here.

- seattleeng

August 14, 2010 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2 notes: "What else could Obama say?" Obama took the easy way out. He didn't differentiate himself from Palin wrt to the law. Palin will also agree with Obama's statement. So will Krauthamer, Limbaugh and everyone else. What Obama said isnt' the least bit controversial. What Obama should have addressed is whether or not he thought it was a appropriate to build it there. That is the controversial bit. It's funny, because all agree that a few miles away would be OK. And I think even the most ardent pro-mosque supporter would hesitate to say it's a "good thing" to buy the ground zero land, and erect a massive monument with a golden crescent shooting beams of light miles into the sky like the Luxor in Vegas. Shame Obama couldn't find the stones to take a stand on the appropriateness question.

- seattleeng

August 14, 2010 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

""There really is no difference between the fascists of the left and of the right, between the Islamist totalitarians and Reuel Marc Gerecht other than their means, their opportunities, and their particular interests" "There really is no difference ... other than their means, their opportunities, and their particular intere "the means", so cleverly sneaked into the statement, one item in a list of terms. Yet "the means" is all it is about, isn't it? Reminds me of Timothy Garton Ash describing Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an Enlightenment fundamentalist, no different than Islamic fundamentalists except that instead of terrorism and bombs she uses her pen. Vive La Petite Difference...

- noga1

August 14, 2010 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, seattle, I'll bite (see below, although an extended argument about these would be tangential). Your examples just don't rise up to the level of claiming that Saddam might have nuclear weapons, had the capability to attack the United States, and we needed to invade Iraq preemptively in order to eliminate this grave threat to our security. Oh, yeah, and the VP kept claiming without evidence that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks, and this false claim was repeated frequently enough that many people came to believe it. Crying wolf, or legitimate use of scare tactics? But back to the mosque. How much pandering to fear and prejudice do politicians have to do before it is not OK? Evidently, you don't think that threshold has been exceeded in the case of the mosque, because you say I am "crying wolf" and the right could really amp up the scare tactics if it wanted to . How do you define the normal and acceptable level of fear-mongering, or ho much fear-mongering is too much? Kennedy: was about half right. Statement would have been true in past tense, probably was true for "seeking". Wrong about "developing". Overall, played too much to fears. Daschle: Saddam did use chemical weapons against his own people, and may have been the only current leader to have done so (but not the only one ever, so perhaps exaggerated). Berger: was wrong, although Saddam might have wanted to do that, absent international sanctions. Albright: Named Iraq as one example of a "rogue state", and says that there are risks posed by such rogue states. Probably an objectively true statement, and not really exaggerating scariness. Clinton: goes on too long (characteristically). Partly right, partly wrong. Some scare tactics used. Although signing off on regime change (your words, I'm talking you at your word on context), you might note that the specific action he proposes is to maintain and toughen sanctions, which is not the same as invading.

- JEFF FREY

August 14, 2010 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Obama had, as president, the responsibility to lay out both the constitutional position and the political argument that seeking a new kind of segregation for American Muslims is wrong. He also, however, showed that he understood the opposition to this particular project and didn't demonize it. There's a limit to what the office can do.

- ironyroad

August 14, 2010 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff, please cite 5 instances where Cheney or Bush said Sadaam was responsible for 9/11. I know of one instance where Cheney overstepped, but then he backtracked. But outside of that, Bush et al were clear not to implicate Sadaam for the 9/11. Now, Bush et al did believe there were ties between AQ and Iraq. But those ties were established during Clinton's time and in fact Clinton acted on those in bombing the aspirin factory (see http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp). You are splitting hairs between the quotes you commented on above. Taken as a whole, the purpose of all those quotes from dems was to convince people that 1) Iraq was dangerous, and 2) That Iraq was gettign stronger, and 3) Iraq might do somethign someday that coudl really hurt us. Some would call that prudence, some would call that fear mongering. My point was both sides played a significant role in turning Iraq into a boogeyman. If after analyzing those quotes you reject that, then there's not much more to discuss--I'll consider you an irrational fool given the number of quotes. And if you are on the fence, just say the word, and I'll paste another 100 quotes just like those. It really takes no effort. Back to the mosque, I just dont' see the fear mongering. I see the pleas/demands for sensitivity. But no fear mongering. Please cite a few examples from senior republicans. If the KKK wanted to build a clubhouse at the location that MLK was shot in TN, would opposition to that be considered fear mongering in your book? Of course not.

- seattleeng

August 14, 2010 at 6:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, now, Obama has clarfied Friday's remarks on the mosque. He said today "“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” So now we know that Obama agrees with Sarah Palin on the law, and Kerry Prejean on gay marriage. Yes indeed, a man with spine and conviction.

- seattleeng

August 14, 2010 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or, Obama justifiably restricted his comments in the White House to the constitional aspect as well as the general principle (which should be shared by everyone, including Palin) that Muslims are as entitled to practice their religion as any other Americans. He also took careful note of the motives for opposition to the Cordoba project in that particular location. He specifically -- as I wrote elsewhere today -- limited himself to what a president can do without adding to a volatile mix. Today's statement underlines the foregoing, and doesn't backtrack in any way that I can see (I'd appreciate it if anyone has evidence to the contrary, other than prejudice). People are allowed to elaborate and clarify, you know -- it's not a sign of weakness.

- ironyroad

August 14, 2010 at 8:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, "responsible for" is your wording, not mine. Nice try. As for claims of linkage between Saddam and 9/11, if Bush ever made that claim I don't recall it. But Cheney surely did, and right-wing media surrogates helped reinforce this false message. Here's a reference to one of the many times, from a 2003 news article: "President Bush distanced himself on Wednesday from comments by Vice President Dick Cheney that left the impression he saw a possible link between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks." If you really want to find more examples, just Google search on "Cheney + Saddam + 9/11". As for the impact of this on public opinion, a number of polls have shown that a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was linked to 9/11, and a 2006 Zogby poll of US soldiers who served in Iraq found that 85% responded that the US mission in Iraq was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks." I do agree with you that both sides played a role in building a boogeyman in Iraq, but it's really not true that both sides played an equal role. I would have to say that if the KKK wanted to build a clubhouse on private property, there's really not much we can do about it. Frankly, I don't think there is any place that a clubhouse for a hate group like the KKK would not be offensive. But do you honestly think that the KKK is a fair analogy in this case? I don't.

- JEFF FREY

August 14, 2010 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, maybe Bush himself did claim such a link. The text below is from a September 2003 AP news story, note paragraph 4. Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country. Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved. The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two. President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however. Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country. The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.

- JEFF FREY

August 14, 2010 at 8:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff, I google'd what you requested and the first hit that came up was a CNN article with the headline that read "Cheney: No link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11" dated Jun 1 2009. A 2004 article on MSNBC about 5 down quotes Cheney in 2004 as saying "We've never been able to prove that there was a connection there on 9/11" Both are consistent with my memory. What you are confusing is that Cheney has stated there was a linke between AQ and Iraq, but not between Iraq and 9/11. And as the link I sent showed, Clinton believed there was a link between Iraq and AQ. But those are two separate things. So, please, save me the googling and find the text of of Cheney or Bush stating that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. You won't find it, except for one misspeak by Cheney that he corrected. Nobody that was in the know believes that to be true. You are aware that a huge percentage of voters can't name the VP. I'm not sure why you look to them for reliable information. Your poll cite is meaningless. No, I don't think KKK is equivalent to group that wants to build mosque. But I'm trying to see where your boundaries are. Thankfully you are consistent there.

- seattleeng

August 14, 2010 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Choosing 45 Park Place was deliberate. The NYT article from December 9, 2009 that quotes Imam Rauf (see 08/13/2010 - 1:43am EDT) is what started the protests from many, not all, 9/11 families and survivors, a local protest that then got politicized and partisanized. 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 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 muzzled by the charge of bigotry?

- K2K

August 14, 2010 at 9:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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. download from http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/in-battle-over-mosque-a-defender-of-architecture/ 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. The original protest was about a building that is one of the damaged survivors of 9/11. 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. "...Christopher Moore, a member of the [Landmarks Preservation] commission, said the vote was not a matter of religion, though he argued that the building could not be divorced from the memory of the Sept. 11 attacks. “It is not directly on ground zero, but it is a part of ground zero,” Mr. Moore said. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/mosque-near-ground-zero-clears-key-hurdle/

- K2K

August 15, 2010 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's just say, seattle, that the poll results show that their desired message got across. Follow the google trail to find more if you like. It is quite clear what Cheney meant when he tried to link Saddam with al Qaeda.

- JEFF FREY

August 15, 2010 at 3:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff, so surely you have searched. And as predicted, you came up empty. You can't find text of the republicans saying a link exists between Iraq and 9/11. In spite of google being there for your research. I know this because it's not like to finish a debate with a single sentence. But I can find lots of text of dems SAYING that republicans SAID a link exists. And I can find lots of text of the left SAYING the right took us to war with IRaq over 9/11. And with all the noise, it's no wonder voters were confused. But again, a scary % of voters don't even know who Biden is. Think about this: You are asserting that without a republican uttering a peep that somehow they planted this idea in everyone's head. It would be the most brilliant misinformation campaign of all times if that were true. Or maybe it wasn't a brilliant misinformation campaign, the right never said it, the left leaders latched onto that meme to appease their anti-war base and cover their ass for their own believe that Iraq had WMD--a belief that they widely held even before Bush took office. Hold our leaders equally accountable Jeff. When you don't, it makes you look like an ideologue.

- seattleeng

August 15, 2010 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Remember the Westboro Baptist Church, the anti-gay, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, anti-everything group that has picketed many funerals of gay people, including heroic soliders? I guess they were exercising their Constitutional right of free speech, as well as freedom of religion.... In response to Westboro protests at Indiana funerals, a bill was introduced in the Indiana General Assembly that would make it a felony to protest within 500 feet of a funeral. The bill provides penalties of up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine for those found to be in violation of the law. Shortly before this bill was signed members of the church had threatened to protest in Kokomo, Indiana, at a funeral service that was being held for a soldier who was killed in Iraq. On January 11, 2006 the bill unanimously. So, if a nasty, bigoted, cruel but "quasi-Christian" church is exercising its Constitutional rights in an insensitive way toward gay citizens, it's ok to stop them. But if Muslims exercise their religious rights in an insensitive way toward Americans of all religions, it's NOT ok to stop them? What am I missing here? I feel that choosing this particular location is "dancing on the grave" of the 3000 Sept 11 victims, thumbing their nose at our nation to send a message to extremist Muslims worldwide. But if you won't grant that theory, at least accept the idea that it is insensitive. But no law will be passed to respect the emotional vulnerabilities of Sept 11 victims, as in Indiana to protect the sensitivities of families who lost gay relatives. Our country is rather hypocritical about that, wouldn't you say? PS) I am glad the families of gays were protected at these funerals. I just want the same for the families of those who died on that terrible day in 2001, some of whom attended my own church.

- wisemom

August 15, 2010 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, mom, I am not at all sure that the Indiana bill would pass constitutional muster, although it might under fairly ordinary notions about nuisance. In any case, there is a difference between separating people with competing agendas who are actually present and preventing people from demonstrating at a particular site because it has special important to someone. I don't have any question that a blanket prohibition against protest at a particular place, rather than at a particular place and time where it intrudes upon others, would fail as unconstitutional. I don't think your analogy works.

- roidubouloi

August 15, 2010 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The more that I hear about this controversy, the more inclined I am to agree with Mayor Bloomberg of New York. New York City has a proud tradition, going back to its days as the center of a Dutch colony, of religious tolerance and respect for the cultural diversity of its residents that is more than simply wise or admirable -- it is a tradition that has influenced who we are today as a nation. Most of the time, we take this tradition for granted, as if it never required any sacrifices or work to maintain. That is not the nature of this great tradition. The xenophobia of the right wing is linked to another American tradition - one of nativism, intolerance and bigotry that is not as often spoken of with pride. This is the dark side -- where we run in hard times when fear and anger overcome our better angels, at times when our greatness as a nation, and the idealism that is at the heart of that greatness, is obscured by the smallness of our vision. We were attacked on 9/11/01. In a few weeks, it will have been 9 years. One wonders how much longer the fearmongers will be given so much attention and support. How much longer will the right wingers be able to play upon our ignorance and our anger? When will we realize that the greatest threat to our liberty is not Islam but those who would subvert our ideals and our rights in a misguided effort to limit the practice of that religion? The ugliness of the dark side extends to other civil rights issues in our society. We must find a way to control immigration without trampling on the rights of our Hispanic neighbors. We must support strong families without denying the rights of gay couples to marry. We must fight terrorism without treating Muslim Americans as the enemy. It seems so simple, but it requires some self-restraint and a deep commitment to the fragile values and ideals that underpin all of our rights - not only those of some minority, but of every one of us. If we love our rights, we must be willing to stretch a little to maintain them. It is time to stretch out and embrace our best traditions. Neil

- purcellneil

August 16, 2010 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article by two moderate Muslims contends that the construction of the mosque near Ground Zero is a deliberate provocation. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html#ixzz0wcZNOGAS Liberals are doing Muslims no favor by by exempting them from elementary standards of decency and respect for others.

- bulbman1066

August 16, 2010 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me rephrase that last sentence to make it clearer. Liberals are doing Muslims no favor by not demanding that they adhere to the same standards of decency and respect for others that are expected of the rest of us.

- bulbman1066

August 16, 2010 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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 the 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_Cordoba_House_location.jpg People should at least stop making fun of the location.

- K2K

August 16, 2010 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find references to this building as a "survivor" and the notion that it is sacred because landing gear came through the roof completely absurd, on a par with medieval worship of the purported relics of saints.

- roidubouloi

August 16, 2010 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two New York Cities of Mayor Bloomberg on Tolerance story from July 1, 2010: "Bloomberg To Synagogues - Adjust Your Service Times To Accomidate Markowitz Concerts" "NEW YORK (CBS) ― There was anger in Brooklyn on Thursday over Mayor Michael Bloomberg's solution to the community's fight against free concerts at a local park. The mayor has suggested two synagogues adjust worship services to accommodate the events. Bloomberg probably thought he was displaying the Wisdom of Solomon. "Maybe they could adjust their services slightly earlier. We just have to start being a little more tolerant of each other," Bloomberg said. But members of two Brighton Beach synagogues -- Temple Beth Abraham and Sea Breeze Jewish Center – were furious at the suggestion from our Jewish mayor that they deviate from Jewish practice and start evening services before sundown. "I'm flabbergasted that a man of such stature, a philanthropist, supposedly a caring man can ask us to take our religion and practically just dish it out. I mean get rid of it," said Sea Breeze president Mendy Sontag. "He should be ashamed of himself. He's supposedly Jewish, too?" "The mayor belongs to a very prestigious synagogue called Temple Emanuel in Manhattan. Would they change their schedule to accomodate a concert? I doubt it very much," added Al Turk, vice president of Temple Beth Abraham. Turk was already upset about plans to turn Asser Levy Park across the street from the synagogue into a big concert space for 8,000 people. "What really gets me mad and angry is that the politicians are doing each other favors and violating New York City law by doing an end run," Turk said. Saying the new concert space will disrupt services and create traffic and noise headaches, the residents sued the city to invoke the 500-foot law: No concerts 500 feet from any house of worship. "'Disrespect' is a mild word. I am completely disillusioned with our politicians who can so callously tread upon our beliefs," Turk said. Mayor Bloomberg did an end run around the community. They sued, but before the judge ruled the mayor broke the indoor world record for legislative achievement. He got the City Council to introduce a bill and pass it in five days. The bill circumvents the 500-foot rule. " http://awalkintheparknyc.blogspot.com/2010/07/bloomberg-to-synagogues-adjust-your.html

- K2K

August 16, 2010 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The unspoken issue is that the Muslim world has not profoundly and clearly accepted responsibility for 9/11 and other unspeakable acts performed in their name and internalized the shame of it. I have just come back from Berlin. And while nothing can bring back the dead or undo the deviltry of a once great nation, the evil of terror, and of human beings acting as devils, or condoning others who have done so is frankly acknowledged. There is no exception clause for backward people in accepting responsibility for atrocity committed, supported or secretly enjoyed.

- homeros

August 16, 2010 at 9:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I find references to this building as a 'survivor' and the notion that it is sacred because landing gear came through the roof completely absurd, on a par with medieval worship of the purported relics of saints." If that's the case, roi, then why would a public body keep an actual copy of the Declaration of Independence? Why should one try to bring back the remains of soldiers who died in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why did the presence of the carbonized peas in the metal lunchbox of the schoolgirl who died in Hiroshima provoke such hostility from USAAF veterans toward the ill-fated "Enola Gay" exhibition at the Smithsonian back in the day? The "survivor" term is silly, I agree, as is the general tendency to declare everything "sacred," but I think one ignores at one's peril the sense that places and objects have meanings rooted in both public and private memory, and that these meanings are part of our political culture too. Retention of memory is simply a human facility, in all societies, and we don't all remember the same thing (hello fetishizers of the Confederacy!!). For me the landing gear is, for example, one of the actual proofs that refute the insane stories of the 9-11 conspiracy merchants, including those popular in the Muslim/Arab world. A very useful thing, in fact, able to support truth and veracity, and thus not at all like the bones of a medieval saint.

- ironyroad

August 16, 2010 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Umm, we are talking about the spot where the landing gear fell, I believe. The hole in the building has long since been repaired. So, what exactly does the continued existence of this building prove? And just how many degrees of separation from meaningful objects shall we consider here? The buildings that "bore witness" to the "survivor" surviving the landing gear that fell from the plane that destroyed the World Trade Center? 'chad gadya. And tell me, just what meaning rooted in public and private memory do you have about the Burlington Coat Factory before a Moslem group decided to build there? After 9/11, there was a movement to turn Ground Zero into a cemetery. It was not the decision made, largely because of the damage it would have done to life in NYC. Those of us who lived downtown (I had a place on N. Moore Street at the time) did not want to live in a mausoleum. Nor has there been any interest in turning the vicinity into a historical district because of 9/11. The claims of memory can only go just so far, and it is late in the day to discover new such claims because Moslems appear on the scene. ______________ "Why did the presence of the carbonized peas in the metal lunchbox of the schoolgirl who died in Hiroshima provoke such hostility from USAAF veterans toward the ill-fated "Enola Gay" exhibition at the Smithsonian back in the day?" Perhaps because they provoked us to think about the human lives on the ground of Hiroshima and that seemed to them to cast doubt on the legitimacy of what was done. Personally, I don't have a problem with the use of the atomic bomb to end the war. I think I would have done what Truman did. And I don't need to render myself oblivious to the realities of what occurred to hold that view.

- roidubouloi

August 17, 2010 at 5:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't have a meaning rooted in public and private memory for the Burlington Coat Factory, roi. But others may have. However, the battlefield at Gettysburg (which was as harmless as the Burlington Coat Factory before July 1863) no longer has bodies strewn over it, and the ground has been pretty much cleared of spent ammunition and shards of cannonballs. So what does the continued existence of this expanse of fields mean now? Nothing? In re the carbonized lunch -- yes, exactly. These items and locations have the power to capture and focus our thoughts and feelings, often in ways we are familiar with, but sometimes in ways we don't always like.

- ironyroad

August 17, 2010 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wisemom, I started out thinking that building a mosque at Ground Zero was, as you suggest, an insensitive and unwise move on the part of the Muslim community. Although the 9/11 attack was not an attack by all, or even a large part, of the world's Muslims, the death and destruction that occurred that day was generated in the name of Allah by Muslims who considered themselves holy warriors and martyrs. Perhaps, some day, it will be possible for a mosque at Ground Zero not to be a provocation to those of us for whom the place evokes sharp feelings of grief and anger. That day has not yet come. So I understand the position of those who argue that it may be the right of Muslims to build the mosque, but it is not right that they do so. On the other hand, as I reflected further, I find that that argument is weaker than it seemed to me at first. The mosque, for one thing, will not actually be at Ground Zero. It will be a couple of blocks away. How far away would the mosque have to go, to do the right thing and avoid provoking the feelings of visitors to Ground Zero? It also seems clear to me that we have permitted a great many insults to the Bill of Rights in the name of enhanced security -- illegal electronic surveillance, invasive airport screening and searches, detention without charges, rendition and physical abuse of prisoners -- and that we might want to exercise some restraint in this case. This, after all, is not about our security. Do we really want to trample on the First Amendment because our feelings might be hurt? If we push our Muslim neighbors to build their mosque somewhere else - again, I ask how many blocks away is far enough - we are setting a precedent that erodes the rights all of us wish to enjoy without threat of overt and insistent public pressure. I think this boils down to respecting our constitutional rights, but I also see this as involving something else - our noble and sensible aspirations to be a nation in which neighbors of diverse backgrounds and beliefs live in complete harmony, in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. We have many Muslim neighbors and fellow citizens. A small number of militant Muslims attacked us on 9/11. Let's not conflate the two, which is exactly what is being done in this debate. If we do this, we magnify the damage that was done on 9/11, and give bin Laden more than he could ever have hoped to have accomplished. It is easy to respond from our anger and our grief, but it is not our best response. Neil

- purcellneil

August 17, 2010 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, the Gettysburg battlefield is a national monument. Every place where the soldiers of Gettysburg walked, camped, bled, died is not. There were plenty of proposals to turn Ground Zero into a monument and they were rejected, long before Park51 entered the picture. While some may have wished to do so, there has been no move to landmark entire square blocks around Ground Zero. There can never be an objective measure of just what memory and sentiment can embrace as meaningful, but this is not the decision of 9/11 families. It is a communal decision to set something aside as a monument. In this case, the communal decision was made years ago in the aftermath of 9/11 and surely did not include the Burlington Coat Factory. It is much too late now that Moslems want to build there to decide that this building is of superlative importance. I rather doubt that a proposal eight years ago that the Burlington Coat Factory be singled out for landmarking because the landing gear fell there would have been thought anything other than ridiculous, because the same logic would have led in fact to the landmarking of a very large area.

- roidubouloi

August 17, 2010 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think we're arguing principle and context here in somewhat mutally obscuring ways. It doesn't seem to me that the size has much to do with it. The United 93 memorial in PA covers a slice of the countryside that the plane came down in -- who's to say that it doesn't leave out something? We have to assume the people who marked out the real estate did their jobs. Not unlike Gettysburg. My point is that national monuments are not "natural." Their borders are drawn and defined. This may indeed be a process that ultimately leaves the Park Place building pretty much an empty factory and a proposed Islamic center that may not be built for decades as Con Ed needs to stay in there. But it's not medieval relic worship in the dismissive sense that you mean -- it's community thinking about the meaning of historical/traumatic events for a particular place.

- ironyroad

August 17, 2010 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The two men who built 45 Park Place in 1858 were Paul Spofford and Thomas Tileston. They pioneered the steam-powered shipping that was the great economic driver of New York City before the Civil War, a contribution that is the heart of the landmark petition started in 1989. copied from Googlebooks: “Portrait gallery of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New-York” ... By George Wilson, New York Chamber of Commerce 1890, pp 192-195: PAUL SPOFFORD. Paul Spofford was born in New Rowley, (now Georgetown,) Massachusetts, February 18th, 1792. He was sixth in descent from John Spofford, who, with others, came with the Rev. Ezektel Rogers from England to this country in 1638. After spending a few years in a country store, he embarked in business in Haverhill, Mass. There he made the acquaintance of Thomas Tileston, then editor of the Merrimack Intelligencer. Much of the business there was what may be termed a barter trade. At times the articles taken, such as shoes, hats, &c, suitable for the South, would accumulate, and it was very desirable to find a ready outlet. Mr. Spofford and his friend, Mr. Tileston, decided to establish a commission house for that purpose, and in the spring of 1818 came to New-York and formed a partnership under the firm name of Spofford & Tileston. They soon became large shippers of domestic manufactures to various ports in the Gulf States, the West Indies and to South America. This profitable trade induced the firm to establish and maintain for many years regular lines of sailing vessels to the ports with which they had business relations. Meanwhile Spain had laid a heavy duty on our manufactures, so that the goods formerly shipped to Cuba could no longer be sent thither, but the firm had become well established as importers of coffee and sugar. In 1838 England began to construct and run ocean steamships. American packet ships at that period had attained a world-wide celebrity for beauty of construction, speed and safety. Her success led our citizens to emulate in part her example; but as United States steamers were of light build, while the English vessels were constructed expressly for the service and were heavily subsidized, navigation of the ocean by steam, from these and other causes, made no progress in this country. Spofford & Tileston, who had contributed to the building up of our mercantile marine, saw that the era of the sailing vessel was passing away, and that steam power would in the near future control the navigation of the ocean. After thoroughly convincing themselves that staunch, well-equipped and adequate steamships could be built in this country, they contracted with William H. Brown and Stillman, Allen & Co. for the construction of the steamship "Southerner," which made her first trip in 1846, and proved a success, weathering with perfect ease and safety some of the most terrific gales. A few months later the firm built the "Northerner," an equally fine vessel. This enterprise stimulated others to establish ocean steamship lines, and Collins, Livingston, VanDerbilt, Law and others soon placed fine steamships on the ocean. Spofford & Tileston also became the owners of a line of Liverpool packets, and their ships, the "Sheridan," "Roscius," "Garrick" and the "Siddons," are still remembered by some of our older merchants for their grace and beauty of proportion. But larger vessels were required, and the firm, therefore, substituted for those named, the "Webster," "Orient," "Calhoun," "Henry Clay" and others, which were then the largest of any engaged in the Liverpool trade. The firm also were among the first to fit up and despatch ships to California during the excitement there consequent upon the discovery of gold. At the outbreak of the Civil war the firm of Spofford & Tileston were among the largest sufferers by the blockade of the Southern ports, and by the interruption of our commerce with the West Indies. Their heavy losses, however, did not cause them to waver in their duty to their country. At once they arrayed themselves on the side of the Union, and to the end of the conflict their faith remained unshaken as to the result. They spurned all temptation to put any of their vessels under a foreign flag, but, on the contrary, armed their Havana steamships, and obtained commissions in the United States Navy for their captains, and trusted to the skill and prudence of the commanders of their other vessels. Fortunately, with the exception of the steamship "Nashville," all escaped capture. Although neither Mr. Spofford nor his partner: ever held political office, yet both often came into contact with and were greatly esteemed by the most prominent statesmen of the day. In 1864 Mr. Tilestok died, and though this loss of a partner and life-long friend was a severe blow to Mr. Spofford, he nevertheless bore the strain well, and continued actively in the business until his own death took place, through paralysis, on October 28th, 1869. Mr. Spofford was connected with various enterprises. For years he was Treasurer and one of the Council of the New-York University, and a director in the Erie, Harlem and other railroads, and in several banks, fire and marine insurance companies. He and his partner, Mr. Tileston, a sketch of whom immediately follows, were elected members of the Chamber of Commerce on October 1st, 1833, and their membership continued until death. Through a long business career the relations between these partners were the most cordial and happy, and the firm of Spofford & Tileston will always be associated with the development of the commerce of the nation. THOMAS TILESTON. Thomas Tileston, the business partner of the above named Paul Spofford. was born in Boston, Mass., August 13th, 1793. At the age of thirteen he obtained a situation in the printing establishment of Greenough & Stebbins, of that City, the salary being thirty dollars a year and board. As an apprentice he was diligent, studious and observing, and he soon became not only a competent type-setter, but a proof reader, employing his spare time in literary work, which brought him, pecuniarily at least, some success. Too close application, however, weakened his eyesight, and for some months he was unable to pursue his labors. About this period the junior partner in the publishing house of Greenougii & Stebbins was changed, and Greenough & Burrill, the new firm, removed their business to Haverhill. Soon afterwards Mr. Tileston bought out the interest of Mr. Greenough, and the business was continued by Burrill & Tileston, the latter assuming the editorship of the Merrimack Intelligencer, of which the firm were the proprietors. At the age of twenty-one he was selected by his old employers to superintend the printing of an American edition of King James' Translation of the Bible, and this edition displays evidence of painstaking care and great ability. In 1815 he took entire charge of the publishing and printing business of the firm named. But the most important part of Mr. Tileston's career was yet to come. Prior to the war of 1812 Massachusetts was a commercial but not a manufacturing State. She bought liberally of English goods, and readily found a market for her surplus breadstuffs and fish. The State was opposed to a protective tariff, while South Carolina earnestly contended for it. The war of 1812 caused great changes, by which Massachusetts lost her market, her surplus capital was driven out of employment, and she became a manufacturing State. Haverhill became a manufacturing centre, and the merchants there having decided to establish a permanent agency iu New-York, proposed to Mr. Tileston, in conjunction with Mr. SpofForu, who resided in the same town, to proceed to NewYork to receive consignments. This proposal was accepted, and thus the firm of Spofford & Tileston was formed in this City, in the year 1818, and its career is detailed at some length in the previous sketch of Mr. Spofford. In 1840 Mr. Tileston was elected President of the Phenix Bank, and continuedin that office until his death. Hismind was evenly balanced, his industry knew no tiring, and his sagacity, skill and promptness gave him many advantages in mercantile transactions. Mr. Tileston died suddenly, in this City, on February 29th, 1864, in the seventy-first year of his age. His forty-six years of active business life called for and deserved the following tribute which the Chamber of Commerce paid to his memory at a meeting held March 3d, a few days after his death: During the last twenty years his influence in this Chamber and elsewhere has been constantly extended to those charitable and public movements and measures which have made our City justly celebrated. Resolved, That in his decease the mercantile community has lost an estimable member, the young merchant a valued friend, and the City of New-York one of the active supporters of its commercial greatness. Resolved, That in our varied forms of intercourse with the lamented deceased, we can all bear testimony to his industry, energy, sagacity and ability; to the skill and courage with which he foresaw or adopted and entered into wellconsidered and productive plans of enterprise and improvement ; to the promptitude, punctuality and fidelity with which he pursued such plans and performed his engagements, and to his liberal public spirit. Resolved, That after a long intimacy with him, we express with gratitude our appreciation of his virtues as a citizen and friend, his probity of character and his genial, social qualities."

- K2K

August 19, 2010 at 2:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

[Journalism 101, for Todd Gitlin: amateur hour in the annals of Manhattan real estate - the REAL story missed by the journalistas and ideologue bloggers?] "N.Y. mosque a long shot to be built" Maggie Haberman and Ben Smith - Aug. 18, 2010 06:30 PM POLITICO.COM "...The families Cordoba engaged in advance appear to have been members of "9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows," a left-leaning, anti-war segment that has tense relations with other, larger family organizations. The Cordoba Initiative's entire political outreach, meanwhile, appears to have been a call to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer earlier this year, who suggested they visit Community Board 1 merely to measure support. The step was unnecessary – they can build on the site as of right – and was, in retrospect, a mistake. The hearing gave the impression nationally that there was some kind of government approval required, when in fact it wasn't the case. ..." http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/18/20100818new-york-mosque-a-ling-shot-politico.html [The Scam-and-Spin-Swimming-Pool using a 'mosque' to deflect any criticism, and, perhaps, an unintentional act of political terrorism???]

- K2K

August 21, 2010 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Gitlin's reading of Imam Rauf's work is very selective and highly misleading. In order to paint Rauf as an undeniable moderate, here is what Gitlin conveniently omits: 1) In a 60 Minutes interview that aired on September 30, 2001, Rauf said that the 9/11 attacks were part of a larger Islamic “reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we [the U.S.] espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.” He went on to say that "US policies were an accessory to the crime" and "in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” According to Gitlin, these comments are merely "sloppy" and Rauf was just one of those who "failed to express themselves well" after September 11. 2) Speaking publicly, Rauf is not a fan of Al Qaeda. As for Hammas, widely accepted as a terrorist organization, Rauf decidedly refuses to condemn their anti-peace, pro-violence ideology and methods. Please explain to me the difference between Al-Qaeda and Hammas when it comes to Islamist ideology and barbaric tactics? And please explain how one can be a moderate while deliberately refusing to condemn the barbarism of Hamas? 2) In a telling remark, according to Rauf, the one Jewish state in the world is a regretable mistake. Life would have been much better had Israel not been reborn on its ancient homeland and Jews lived as they did before in the Middle East under Muslim rule ("What's Right With Islam and What's Right With America," HarperOne, 2005). On the other hand, Rauf has no problem with the creation of Palestine, which would create a 22nd Arab/Muslim state. Apparantly, when it comes to self-determination, Jews must be excluded and should live a dhimmis (inferior subjects of Islam). These views and rhetoric do not represent America and are not the moderate Islam Americans have been pining for. When the totality of Raufs views and statements are considered (something Gitlin fails to do), Rauf's purported allegiance to American values become justifiably suspect. If we're to have a frank discussion on the topic, lets examine all the facts.

- davidb

August 30, 2010 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close