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 New York Mosque, Hamburg Mosque, Lleida Mosque

THE SPINE AUGUST 11, 2010

New York Mosque, Hamburg Mosque, Lleida Mosque

BY MARTIN PERETZ

The announcement Monday by Hamburg police that they had closed down the mosque where Mohamed Atta and some of his comrades had prayed and schemed reminds us that the other-worldly activity of worship is not all that may be done in a Muslim house of prayer. The decade-long inquiry into the Hamburg mosque shows just how scrupulous Western police can be when they are faced with mayhem by religious fanatics.

In Catalonia, the mayor of Lleida reopened the mosque he had closed but warned that intolerance would not be allowed in the city.

One of the issues with the Ground Zero mosque is no one other than its officials knows who will pay for it. Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg also thinks this information is protected by the First Amendment. Do you really think that, for example, a Wahabi cleric should be established as New York’s—or America’s—premier preacher, whatever his views on women, sex, marriage, other Muslim sects, Christians and Jews, civil society et al?

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 110 comments

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

110 comments

My goodness, another choice piece. We have guilt by association - bad things happened at mosques in Hamburg and Lleida, and now they want to build one in New York! All mosques are alike, right? Then we have the portentous statement implying bad things for which he has no evidence; " no one other than its officials knows who will pay for it". And he concludes with a dire-sounding but utterly incoherent rhetorical question: "Do you really think that, for example, a Wahabi cleric should be established as New York’s—or America’s—premier preacher . . " Excuse me? Wahabi cleric? America's premier preacher? What in the world is he talking about? Could he possibly mean Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Sufi who was sent by the Bush administration State Department to speak in the Middle East to improve relations with the US? I'm sorry, but this is embarrassing to watch. Tnr.com has several of the best writers on politics in the US today . . . and also Mr. Peretz.

- K_Wilson

August 11, 2010 at 5:52pm

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

So what if Peretz asks a hypothetical what if question? He names no one because no one has been named. K-Wilson makes the leap to Imam Rauf. According to Sharif El-Gamal, the developer of Park51, Imam Rauf will NOT necessarily be the Imam of the mosque - as yet to be named - to be located inside the still-being-defined Park51. 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 ... QUESTION: "What are Imam Feisal's specific roles and responsibilities in the project? If he is not in a leadership/executive position, then who is really "in charge" and making the decisions?" ANSWER: "Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf is as an interfaith leader and a visionary in this project. He has served the lower Manhattan community faithfully for over 27 years. He is supported by political and religious leaders across New York City for his commitment to moderation and tolerance and his years of work in bringing people together. Park51 is an independent project led by Muslim Americans. This project will be separate from The Cordoba Initiative and ASMA. The next step is forming a non-profit and applying for tax-exempt status. Imam Feisal and I are serving as the project managers until then. This non-profit will be run by an Executive Director, yet to be selected, support staff, and a 23-member Board of Directors. Imam Feisal will be one of the Directors, and will oversee the Cordoba House, which will direct the interfaith programming within Park51. We have not yet selected the other members of the Board of Directors, but we will be picking people very carefully, based on their record of leadership, relevant experience and positive contribution to New York City and the country. The board will not be limited by religion. The mosque will be run by a separate non-profit whose Board of Directors will reflect a broad range of experience. While the mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn’t been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity and rhetoric." [Thought for today: "A long dispute means that both parties are wrong." -Voltaire] [THIS dispute is sucking the oxygen out of life - K2K]

- K2K

August 11, 2010 at 6:35pm

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

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". One wonders what Marty thinks the First Amendment is about. The long eminent lineage of his TNR predecessors must be spinning in their graves like pinwheels.

- JackR

August 11, 2010 at 6:39pm

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

K_Wilson: "bad things happened at mosques in Hamburg and Lleida, and now they want to build one in New York! All mosques are alike, right?" No, not all mosques are alike. However, many of them as this example shows subscribe to antisemitism, jihadism and terror mongering. Is that forbidden to point out? Is that "racist"? How many mosques have you visited lately that you can say with certainty that this is not in fact true? Has common sense completely abandoned America? Has the First Amendment become a suicide pact?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

August 11, 2010 at 6:56pm

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

JackR ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". One wonders what Marty thinks the First Amendment is about. The long eminent lineage of his TNR predecessors must be spinning in their graves like pinwheels." So what would you do about places of worship, like the Mosque in New Jersey where the mastermind of the first attack on the World Trade Center preached? This example could be multiplied in this country. Who was it that said that the Constitution is not a “suicide pact?” We are in new territory, here, constitutionally speaking. What I wouldn’t want is another amendment to the constitution dealing with this issue which, given the conservative climate in the country, would make things worse. However, unless we apply common sense and stop pretending that nothing is happening we may get just that. I am amazed that some people, in the name of free speech, are attacking other people’s right to speak about difficult and unpopular issues. Marty isn’t the problem, he is just bringing up issues which seem to be seem to be unpopular but should be discussed.

- jdyer

August 11, 2010 at 7:14pm

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

Good questions, makover. Didn't see your post as I was composing my reply to JackR.

- jdyer

August 11, 2010 at 7:15pm

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

jackson: "I am amazed that some people, in the name of free speech, are attacking other people’s right to speak about difficult and unpopular issues. Marty isn’t the problem, he is just bringing up issues which seem to be unpopular but should be discussed." 100% Agreed! “A long dispute means that both parties are wrong.” -Voltaire I'll be back once I recover from following the story (hyper-partisan coverage: bigotry versus sacred ground) about the other story (who are these people) about the other story (NY politics) about the other story (ADL statement as NYC code for Israel issues) about the Mosque at Ground Zero. or when the photos of Imam Rauf kissing Malaysia's Matathir on the lips show up...

- K2K

August 11, 2010 at 7:58pm

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

"[Daisy Khan:] "I’ve invited her [wafa sultan] to several of my conferences, because I try to reach out to people like that, but she has always refused to come." [Wafa Sultan:] Although, I did write an article in May of this year exposing Daisy’s husband, Imam Rauf, I have never received a single communication from her and she has never invited me to any of her conferences. It’s very disturbing that Daisy would lie about having invited me to discuss what is written plainly in the Koran. If she can be so overtly deceptive in front of hundreds of people in the audience about such a trivial matter as an invitation to a conference, surely her credibility is damaged by such a performance, and her integrity has been severely compromised. She lies about offering an invitation to me and misrepresents Islam when addressing audiences about interfaith unity." http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/daisy%E2%80%99s-con-ground-zero-mosque-imam%E2%80%99s-wife-tells-whopper-about-me/

- noga1

August 11, 2010 at 8:02pm

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

Just to note, the Lleida mosque was closed for... exceeding its capacity according to municipal fire codes. Subversive, that. However, Peretz has a habit of submitting articles in foreign languages on The Spine that don't actually support his claims or intimations, in the belief that readers will be too lazy to check to see what they actually say. That is, of course, because he is a liar.

- SMacEachern2

August 11, 2010 at 8:45pm

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

This report paints yet another different picture than smac's preferred version: "A new mosque is under construction on the outskirts of the town but work had been stalled because of a lack of financing during the economic crisis. "The municipality has no obligation to provide places of worship," Mr Ros said in response to complaints from the town's Muslim population over the closure. "Those that wish can pray at home, as I do," he added. The move follows a recent ban on women wearing the burka or niqab in municipal building in the Catalan town. In June Lleida was the first town council in Spain to introduce a ban, which has since been adopted by half a dozen other councils, including Barcelona, the capital of the region. Abdelwahab Houzi, the local imam, said the mosque closure had added to the Muslim community's sense of "persecution" by authorities. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/7906970/Spanish-mayor-closes-too-popular-mosque.html

- noga1

August 11, 2010 at 9:04pm

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

Muslims in Catalunia: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1424/spain-burqa-ban-muslim-immigration

- noga1

August 11, 2010 at 9:08pm

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

We're not in new constitutional territory here at all. The first amendment is the first amendment. If the Mosque becomes a haven for terrorist activities, then you shut it down -NOT because of religion, but because of terrorist activities. It's no different than drug laws preventing Indians from smoking peyote or laws requiring Jehovah Witnesses to provide medical care to their children. And in case you haven't notice, fundamentalist Christian churches, with their perverted biblical interpretations, have preached racism and misogyny for years. After all, this blog's hero, W, began his campaign at Bob "no interracial relations allowed" Jones University. So spare me the tears. I am against this mosque - but out of respect to the victims of 9-11.

- OscarPeck

August 11, 2010 at 10:06pm

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

Mayor Bloomberg's attachment to First Amendment principles is admirable, but it won't placate (it may actually embolden) those who hope eventually to succeed where the Times Square bomber failed. (Neither will it necessarily enhance Bloomberg's prospects as a plausible liberal Republican alternative to Palin and Co. Sorry for imputing motives.) In any case, having taken a stand on principle, Bloomberg now has the cred to order up (if he hasn’t already done so) the most searching investigation of the Cordoba Initiative and its sources of funding, without the inevitable accusations of Islamophobia. New facts are bound to emerge, in light of which groundbreaking for the Mosque, whether at Ground Zero or in Riverdale, may turn out to be a non-event, like the surrender of part of the Port of New York to Dubai. The issue of religious freedom is a red herring, cynically exploited in some quarters by people who view American religious tolerance with contempt. The question of whether it is appropriate to build the Mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero carries great symbolic weight, but again seems to skirt the crucial issue, which is how much current global realities may force us to compromise with our ideals. 9/11 and subsequent events should have taught us that individuals living quiet and productive lives in Western communities, and ostensibly accepting our values, can morph seemingly overnight into fierce soldiers of God. Triumphalist elements within the Ummah are apparently betting that such sleepers, aided by widespread wishful thinking in the host societies, can pull off a second Reconquista, restoring Islam to its medieval glory. We don't know -- we may never know -- who is in back of the Cordoba Initiative, or whether 47 Park will be pure mosque or all-purpose community center, but about one thing we should be clear: it’s not going to be another 92nd St. Y.

- lfeinber@email.unc.edu

August 11, 2010 at 10:13pm

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

jdyer - I have no interest in shutting down anyone's free speech -- I'm just doing my own. OscarPeck (above) had a good response to your concern in the distinction between religion and terrorist activities. Of course criminal behavior should be prosecuted, just not before it occurs.

- JackR

August 11, 2010 at 10:28pm

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

As Israeli humorist Ephraim Kishon once said about Israel but it could apply to America easily: "It is a county where everybody has the right to speak his mind, but there is no law forcing anybody to listen."

- noga1

August 11, 2010 at 11:06pm

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

K2K- Peretz' hypothetical question is objectionable because it is, as K_Wilson notes, incoherent. Just how is it that the lower Manhattan mosque could result in an Islamicist cleric becoming New York's or America's premier preacher? What does that even mean? I find it amusing that you invoke Voltaire's statement that “A long dispute means that both parties are wrong.” You have probably been the most prolific poster in the various threads on this topic. Nothing compels you to participate in prolonging the discussion. That said, Voltaire's statement is merely a vacuous quip. A long dispute could mean that people are entrenched in their views, or it could mean people are truly interested in reaching some resolution or compromise. I think there is a little bit of both going on in these threads You agree with Jackson that "some people, in the name of free speech, are attacking other people’s right to speak about difficult and unpopular issues. Marty isn’t the problem, he is just bringing up issues which seem to be unpopular but should be discussed." As others here have responded, no one here is attacking anyone's right to speak. They are critizing the content of the speech. That is precisely how the marketplace of ideas is supposed to work. Frankly, when speakers accuse their critics of trying to suppress their speech, I suspect it is because they are losing the argument on the merits. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was probably the most famous invoker of the idea that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. He said that in a DISSENTING opinion in a case in which the Court struck down a Chicago ordinance that banned speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance." Note that Justice Jackson's view did not carry the day. Even so, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment does not necessarily protect speech that is intended and likely to incite violence. But even then, such speech can be proscribed only in very narrow circumstances. Nothing like that has been shown to be the case here. To argue that extending First Amendment protection to the lower Manhattan mosque is a suicide pact is truly hysterical.

- NR143296

August 11, 2010 at 11:33pm

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

Very apropos Noga. And it could be added that the right to speak one's mind does not entail the right not to be criticized.

- NR143296

August 11, 2010 at 11:36pm

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

noga: I thought the most interesting disclosure made by Wafa Sultan was the refusal of Imam Rauf, and almost all the other Muslim clerics, to sign the petition to protect Muslims who leave the faith from death theats. ljach: good points - red herring has been in my thoughts as the storylines develop. As to Peretz's hypothetical question, perhaps he was thinking of the first imam of the Islamic Cultural Center at 97th St and Third Avenue "...Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, said in an interview that "only the Jews" were capable of the September 11 attacks and "if it became known to the American people, they would have done to Jews what Hitler did."[NYT][WSJ] He also stated that as "Allah described it," Jews "disseminate corruption in the land" and are responsible for the spread of "heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs."[MEMRI] The interview took place on October 4, 2001, a week after Gemeaha suddenly resigned as imam at the Islamic Center and returned to his home in Egypt..." citations linked at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Cultural_Center_of_New_York Imam Rauf's leadership vision for Cordoba House can still be read at the Park51 website - no one knows who the Imam of the 'prayer space' will now be. Since Rauf spends so much time in Malaysia, I wonder what he thinks about the "global Zionist conspiracy". My apologies for using TNR to help me keep track of all the different narratives and storylines, and to try to understand all perspectives, of this incredibly complex, and unnecessarily partisanized controversy where there is almost no debate between anyone. I guess Sarah Palin could say the sky is blue and anyone who agreed would be tarred and feathered by more than half the media.

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 1:15am

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

Marty isn't the problem. He's just an asshole who says ridiculous things. This is a good example. Too stupid to bother picking apart. Instead, let's just hear again from someone worthy of our admiration who thought deeply and wrote beautifully about the freedom of ideas, including repellent ones: "to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them" Thomas Jefferson

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 2:15am

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

As a Jew, a conservative, and as someone who worked 2 blocks from the WTC (OBM), I have no problem with a mosque being opened there, or anywhere else. Where's the cries of xenophobia from the liberals? This is not Al-Qaeda coming to set up shop on Broadway, this is a group of (ostensibly) well-meaning mulsims who want a house of worship in that area. Do they not allow churches (or mosques for that matter) to be built in Israel due to centuries of crusades and pogroms in the name of their lord? Shouldn't one presume that this particular mosque and its leaders will be on their very best behavior given the circumstances? I understand that they want to make it a cultural center to actually heal wounds that were caused by members of their faith.

- streaming

August 12, 2010 at 5:48am

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

noga1: Yes... the mosque was closed because it was - as the headline in that Telegraph article notes - 'too popular'. There is nothing there in any of those articles about subversive activities - or even 'intolerance' in Peretz's words - taking place there. As I said, in addition to being an anti-Muslim bigot, Martin Peretz is a liar - and a liar without even the imagination to vary the tactics with which he lies.

- SMacEachern2

August 12, 2010 at 7:51am

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

"I understand that they want to make it a cultural center to actually heal wounds that were caused by members of their faith." We can see the healing all around us, beginning with these discussions on TNR. It would be a much more honest tactic to stop denying the problems this mega mosque presents or to try to paint it in colours of tolerance and harmony. Roi, who can never resist a chance to fight windmills in the total conviction that he is fighting evil Republicans, got sidetracked from his initial position which had been the most persuasive: that even though he doesn't trust the "Moslems" and would rather they did not plant their mosque at that location, he insists that they have perfect right protected by law to do so. Here is how he put it on another thread: "...the point is not at all that Moslem society is to be admired. I don't admire it or pretty much anything about it that I can think of other than their science in the middle ages. But the proper response is not to emulate it. ...If the Cordoba Center is ultimately perceived as a big "fuck you" from the Moslem community to the rest of New York, and to the victims of 9/11, that surely is not going to do the Moslem community any good. What will it gain thereby at our expense? How will we have been set back in our struggle against Islamist terror? The worst that can be said, if one admits that Moslems have a right to build a mosque in New York, to worship there, and to say whatever they want there that does not rise to the level of sedition, is that it is in bad taste and insensitive. I'm inclined to think that it is a bit of both." Unless Roi himself had been converted to the view that the Cordova Initiative is indeed a sincere attempt to teach Americans the value of tolerance, then he should be a little more circumspect in the way he characterizes those who are vocally sceptical as racists, fascists and thugs.

- noga1

August 12, 2010 at 8:12am

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

Picking up from K2K's point about how much there is to follow on this issue: Roi- you may not like Peretz and his posts and the way he phrases things, but look at the responses his comments generate, on this thread and others. That alone, on a complex topic like this, is valuable. The issue is difficult, and we still don't know enough -- about the funding, the people, and more. And SMac -- get over it -- there is son question that mosques and Islamic centers have been used as recruitment and terror centers. That is a problem. I'm less interested in the idea of this being "sacred ground;" it isn't -- it's a business district. The 1st Amendment issues are also not all that relevant, or at least don't have to be. As others have pointed out, there are all kinds of zoning and other issues that can be used to make the decision -- you don't have to make it a constitutional question. One thing's for sure -- wherever and when it's built, you can be sure this building will be overrun by FBI and NYPD undercover types. That's both a safety reassurance for the worried among us and a civil liberties problem. And maybe that's the real problem with the failure of the too-liberal observers among us to acknowledge that there is a problem in confronting the obviously intolerant and illiberal elements within Islam -- or within any religion, for that matter. The 1st Amendment should not be used as a smokescreen to protect them.

- LISAH

August 12, 2010 at 11:25am

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

OOOPPS -- SMac -- that should be, of course, there is NO question that these centers have been used as recruitment centers.... And, omnes, just to make myself clear -- I'm pretty much a free speech etc. absolutist. That's the really good thing about these threads -- blast away. Verbally. Not with plans for violence.

- LISAH

August 12, 2010 at 11:32am

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

Thank you for the quote, noga, but you missed the point of the punchline: "The worst that can be said, if one admits that Moslems have a right to build a mosque in New York, to worship there, and to say whatever they want there that does not rise to the level of sedition, is that it is in bad taste and insensitive. I'm inclined to think that it is a bit of both." Contrast, please, with the idiocy of Peretz: "Do you really think that, for example, a Wahabi cleric should be established as New York’s—or America’s—premier preacher, whatever his views on women, sex, marriage, other Muslim sects, Christians and Jews, civil society et al?"

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 11:33am

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

LISAH: "One thing's for sure -- wherever and when it's built, you can be sure this building will be overrun by FBI and NYPD undercover types." Good point, maybe not "over-run", but there will definitely be some way of undercover monitoring what is being preached because one can only imagine what Imam Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha was saying in Arabic inside Manhattan's premier mosque/Islamic Cultural Center if he felt comfortable being quoted by both the NYT and WSJ after 9/11/2001 as cited in my comment above at 08/12/2010 - 1:15am EDT. Further to my lingering questions: What has Imam Rauf done to date to further his vision of inter-faith understanding?; Where is his public support for the Christian minorities in Egypt, or the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan?; Why does he need his trophy building at 45 Park Place to do so?; and Why can he not do all this from the established ICC at 97th Street?: "[NY] Gov. Paterson this morning called out the developers of a mosque near Ground Zero for so quickly rejecting his idea that they move the proposed Islamic center - possibly to state-owned land, reports [NY Daily News] Glenn Blain: “How much more foresighted would it be if you were promoting cultural and ethnic understanding if you don’t wait until you build the building to do it and do it right now?” Paterson asked WOR’s John Gambling. The governor said he believes people around Ground Zero have been “badgered” for nearly 10 years - first by the attacks and then later by health concerns, traffic congestion and security issues - and that his proposal was an attempt to alleviate that frustration. “What I’m hearing from the opponents is fear and anxiety and a reaction to nearly a decade of being badgered,” Paterson said. “And I think if that’s case, I would hope that whatever spirituality exists would compel the developers to sit down and have this conversation.” Paterson insisted his was not an offer to give away state land or promote a religion. “I am not mixing church and state,” he said. “I’m not putting a religious institution on state property. I wanted to have a discussion about how we might jointly go and look for an area that would serve the community, the downtown area they are interested in helping at the same time alleviate the tension from people who are concerned about the area around Ground Zero.” http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/gov-paterson-calls-out-mosque.html

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 12:09pm

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

Some confusion here. The constitutional issue has, to the best of my knowledge, to do with the Free Exercise Clause, not a generalized First Amendment free speech principle. The state cannot discriminate against one particular religious faith or community, and whether we "extend" religious freedom to a Muslim community in one particular place is not a question for local plebescite to vote up or down: it's a constutional norm of the United States. Thus ljach's "crucial issue, which is how much current global realities may force us to compromise with our ideals," isn't one. It's meaningless rhetoric. The subsequent question, what I've been calling the "political" question, remains open however: is it appropriate, is it a good idea, does it raise problematic issues that might even work against the purported objectives? One can still discuss these matters while not rambling on ignorantly as if the free practice of the Muslim religion wasn't protected by the Constitution just as other religious faiths are (Canadians and similar excused here; Americans not).

- ironyroad

August 12, 2010 at 12:10pm

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

"Do you really think that, for example, a Wahabi cleric should be established as New York’s—or America’s—premier preacher, whatever his views on women, sex, marriage, other Muslim sects, Christians and Jews, civil society et al?" Going by your teachings which I read attentively (when they are not too long and exhausting) I would say the answer is: according to the constitution he should be allowed to be established even as people will find his preachings alarming and grating. Am I correct? Oliver Kamm whose opinion I respect often says that he is nearly a funfamentalist when it comes to the right for free speech and association. But what people do not quite understand is that the right for free speech does not entail any obligation by the people or the state to facilitate that right, that is, they are not obliged to provide or help provide, a platform for offensive opinions to be made. Those who express scepticism about this megamosque, if you boil it to its essence, are saying exactly that. If Cordova Initiators want to build a mosque or whatever, let them. But don't think you are obliged to help them if you have a queer sensation in your belly that their intentions are not as noble as they claim. It's another way of articulating the thought I'd quoted earlier from the Israeli satirist Ephraim Kishon: "...everybody has the right to speak his mind, but there is no law forcing anybody to listen."

- noga1

August 12, 2010 at 12:19pm

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

There is also a free speech issue, irony, as many of the objections have to do, not merely with the fact that it is a Moslem institution, but with the ideas that the objectors assume the users of this facility will be purveying. These objectors, claiming not to be biased against Moslems, are under the illusion that, while we cannot interfere with this project merely because they are Moslems, we can interfere based on what are presumably their nasty ideas about women, Jews, America, the west, the Mets, whatever. This is just as mistaken as the notion that the state can intervene based on religious identity or the use of the place for worship. Short of sedition, the actual plotting of some harm or its advocacy in a manner likely to produce immediate criminal conduct, they are entitled, not only to be Moslems and to worship as such, but to use the facility to purvey whatever ideas and opinions they want however loathsome those ideas may be to the majority -- including we think that 9/11 was a great thing if that is what the want to say.. Hence, free speech is as or more implicated in this controversy as the Free Exercise clause.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 12:22pm

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

"I thought the most interesting disclosure made by Wafa Sultan was the refusal of Imam Rauf, and almost all the other Muslim clerics, to sign the petition to protect Muslims who leave the faith from death theats." It is another iteration of Tariq Ramadan's refusal to condemn stoning woman to death for adultery. All he would consent to was a ten year moratorium. And by the way, it's not "refusal ... to sign the petition to protect Muslims who leave the faith from death theats." But refusal to contemplate the discarding of the religious injunction that apostates from Islam must be put to death.

- noga1

August 12, 2010 at 12:24pm

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

"But what people do not quite understand is that the right for free speech does not entail any obligation by the people or the state to facilitate that right, that is, they are not obliged to provide or help provide, a platform for offensive opinions to be made." Oliver Kamm is wrong. In the United States, the government is obliged to facilitate to the same extent that it does generally. It cannot, for example, decline to issue permits or engage in any of the normal bureaucratic behavior entailed in construction based on the identity of the builders or their ideas about anything. Discrimination of that sort, or any active interference, based either on the faith of those involved or the ideas they express is clearly prohibited by the Constitution. No normal government service may be withheld no matter how loathsome the ideas. The government is not obliged to applaud, nor is anyone else. If you don't want to listen, don't. They have the right to speak whether you listen or not.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 12:28pm

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

FWIW: back in the mists of time I worked for the Army (civilian job, military base) and I became aware of a curious incident. A senior NCO had called out a lower-rank enlisted man who had openly declared himself to be a Satanist, a worshipper of the Devil. The NCO had wanted to reprimand the soldier for something and had extended it into a series of insults about his beliefs (which he saw as part of the whole problem). The enlisted man complained and the NCO was subject to a disciplinary proceeding. I can't recall the exact regulatory grounds any more, but the general indictment was that the senior NCO had overstepped the mark and clearly infringed upon the soldier's constitutional right to exercise his religious beliefs without hindrance. Using his rank to express contempt for those beliefs put the NCO in the wrong. It generated some laughs around the office ("Hey, who's got the devil-worshipper file?") but the legal position on religious freedom was quite clear.

- ironyroad

August 12, 2010 at 12:49pm

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

roid - thanks, you said it much more clearly than I did.

- JackR

August 12, 2010 at 12:52pm

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

"The issue is difficult, and we still don't know enough"? Nonsense. This issue is quite simple, and we know more than enough. While violent Islamic extremists are all too common, there is no evidence whatsoever that those involved with this project are violent or extreme. Feisal Abdul Rauf was sent by the Bush administration, no less, to speak in the Middle East to improve relations with the US. If someday there is evidence that illegal activities are taking place in Cordoba Center then we will deal with that according to law. At present there is absolutely none. Religious freedom was one of the founding principles of this country. Our own basic values absolutely require that those wishing to build a mosque be treated as we would treat Baptists, Reform Jews, Catholics, or Unitarians. I will be damned if I will allow these principles to be abandoned because some Americans are angry and afraid. While the anger and fear are justified, the prejudice and hatred shown by Mr Peretz and others is not. Our central problem since 9-11 in dealing with radical Islam is how to fight violent barbarians without becoming violent barbarians ourselves. If we fail at that, we will have failed as a country.

- K_Wilson

August 12, 2010 at 1:02pm

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

Kamm is not wrong. You are wrong by twisting " does not entail any obligation by the people or the state to facilitate that right, that is, they are not obliged to provide or help provide, a platform for offensive opinions to be made." into " Discrimination of that sort, or any active interference, based either on the faith of those involved or the ideas they express is clearly prohibited by the Constitution. No normal government service may be withheld no matter how loathsome the ideas."

- noga1

August 12, 2010 at 1:02pm

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

Then what on earth does it mean to say that "the state has no obligation to facilitate that right or help provide a platform?" The state does in fact have the obligation to facilitate that right and provide that help to the extent it does so generally. And if we are talking about some sort of facilitation other than what is customary, then what difference would it possibly make if the state does or doesn't? What is normal is sufficient. Less than what is normal is a problem and prohibited. It is not as if the builders are asking the state to produce infrastructure for their benefit a la Yankee Stadium. Kamm is thus either wrong or incoherent, his sentence referring to an impossible condition. Sounds good but means nothing.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 1:31pm

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

K-Wilson -- You clearly aren't paying attention . The issue really IS difficult (as an issue - witness all the agonized discussions on religious freedom, security, etc. surrounding it) and we really, really DON'T know enough about -- at least in terms of what's been reported in most media, -- about where $100 million is coming from and about the back stories of those involved. The Bush administration sending someone to speak somewhere, given its ignorance about the world generally, is no proof of anything about Rauf. At least you appear to acknowledge that there are elements in Islam that would like to wipe out everyone else's freedom, religious or otherwise, And yes, of course a central,incredibly major question is how to deal with them without wiping out our own freedoms. We've been doing a pretty bad job of it so far: airport body scanners, taking off your shoes, cameras all over the place, metal detectors and bag searches....they really stink. You got any ideas?

- LISAH

August 12, 2010 at 2:07pm

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

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, raising concerns about State Department sponsorship of Imam Faisal Rauf's out-reach trip to Bahrain, UAE, and Kuwait starting August 19, 2010 (Saudi Arabia has disappeared from his itinerary): "... Furthermore, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is currently in the center of a major controversy concerning the building of a mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, near Ground Zero, the World Trade Center site in New York City. Regardless of one’s opinion of Imam Feisal, or whether the opponents of a mosque near Ground Zero are right or wrong, Imam Feisal has become a symbol of the conflict between Islam and many Americans. Everywhere the imam goes, he will be the symbol of conflict and not of harmony. Even if Imam Feisal does not raise the issue of the Cordoba Mosque, his very presence will raise the issue. In other words, we will be responsible for having exported the debate to the Middle East and the messenger will be the message. ..."

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 2:18pm

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

Neither the local government nor the public has any general right to know where the builders get their money. If there is reasonable cause on the part of the authorities to believe that the sources are illegal, then one can assume that will be investigated. However, like all such investigations, it will not be conducted in public. Wanting to wipe out everyone's freedom is one of those pernicious ideas that we permit people to express, even in a mosque.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 2:21pm

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

Let's see, according to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, if you raise enough controversy about someone, justified or not, that itself becomes grounds for shunning them. Difficult to think of a more outrageous, un-American idea than that. All the authoritarians and worse cannot wait to come out from under their rocks as soon as they think they have the cover of attacking a reviled enemy. These people are far more of a threat to American life and liberty than Imam Rauf, that's for sure. The advisory board of this organization includes or has included such as Cheney, Feith, Perle, Bolton. So this is exactly what we should expect. These people are in the category of "worse."

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 2:28pm

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

The complete August 11, 2010 letter from The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs to SecState Clinton quoted 08/12/2010 - 2:18pm EDT | K2K can be read at: http://www.jinsa.org/node/1977 [as I read Jon Lee Anderson's New Yorker interview with Ahmadinejad last night, and thought about Saudi's King Feisal's joint visit with Syria's Assad to Lebanon, and the current government vacuum in Iraq, and then read "Iran-Saudi rivalry deepens" Aug 11, 2010 by Richard Javad Heydarian at AsiaTimes online, originally published in "Foreign Policy in Focus". .. Well, it occurred to me the timing of the Imam Feisal Rauf Cordoba House/Park51 controversy somehow seems like yet another to-be-connected-dot at a very combustible moment in history. So, I returned to reading McCullough's biography, "Truman" at the moment when FDR dies and Truman becomes the President. Creation of the U.N. and Stalin's Russia first decisions. I went to sleep after Truman is briefed on the secret atomic bomb.]

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 2:43pm

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

27 of the 51 JINSA Board of advisors are retired from the United States Military. Cheney and Feith not on the list. The JINSA letter is well stated that: "...Regardless of one’s opinion of Imam Feisal, or whether the opponents of a mosque near Ground Zero are right or wrong, Imam Feisal has become a symbol of the conflict between Islam and many Americans. ..." It should not matter who states that. It is true.

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 2:52pm

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

You, its well-stated alright, if you are a fascist wannabe. This is called the "hecklers veto," and it is abhorrent to anyone who really cares about free speech. The idea is that once the hecklers start creating enough of a fuss, the fact of the heckling itself becomes justification for treading on the people heckled. The situation has become "controversial," "dangerous," etc., etc. Hence, the heckled are now to be shunned or discriminated against in some manner because of the actions of the hecklers. Same crap was invoked in the Skokie controversy and was the reason the ACLU stepped up -- to prevent the hecklers from vetoing. "It should not matter who states it? It is true." To the contrary, it should not matter that it is stated at all as it is McCarthyism. Given the leanings of JINSA, it is no surprise that it resorts to the very same McCarthyite tactics employed elsewhere by anti-Semites against Jews. That's the thing about the Islamists and our local authoritarians. They are the same people, just in a different flavor. If they were in the Moslem world and lacked the power and resources they have here, they would be the Islamists. This execrable tactic is at its root indistinguishable from the Swedes canceling the appearance of Israeli soccer players on the grounds that they and others cannot be protected from those who would attack them. But then, the American right doesn't think McCarthyism was a problem either. The think McCarthy was a hero who got a raw deal from that pinko Eisenhower. I'm nauseated again, K2K. Very strange group of people whose words you find admirable.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 3:10pm

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

"That's the thing about the Islamists and our local authoritarians. They are the same people, just in a different flavor." Strawberry Islamist or Vanilla Cheyneyist ... right out of the same box of discount thrills into the same putrid cone.

- icarusr

August 12, 2010 at 3:39pm

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

Yup.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 3:44pm

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

"Neither the local government nor the public has any general right to know where the builders get their money." It's a matter of public interest and right to know when it's that kind of building (self-designated as a community center). And it is up to the media to do its job and investigate where the money is coming from. But when the media actually does its job there will come roi and call them fascist thugs for daring to ask questions. Also if the public has no general right to know where the money to build an ostensibly public service mega center then why do we bother with passing laws that puts restrictions on how people dispense with their money in certain cases? If the government can forbid donations to a terrorist organization, doesn't it make sense to forbid receiving money from a terrorist organization?

- noga1

August 12, 2010 at 4:04pm

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

The government has no general power or privilege to inquire as to the source of funding. The public may be interested, but it has no right to know. The media are free to ask, the builders are free to answer or not. Indeed, as the media have no sort of police authority, the builders would even be free to lie to them so long as that is not a means of procuring something, that is, fraud. There no doubt is a law or a number of laws that would prohibit receiving money from a terrorist organization. Without looking it up, I can pretty well guess that anti-money-laundering laws would apply directly. If the government has some reasonable basis to suspect money-laundering in this case, it can conduct an investigation bringing to bear all of the tools that it customarily and legally employs, including subpoena of records and compulsory grand jury testimony. It could obtain search warrants and probably conduct secret wiretaps. The results of that investigation would, however, remain secret unless and until someone were actually indicted. One of the reasons that grand jury testimony is secret is to protect people from suffering adverse consequences of an investigation that does not result in a valid indictment and trial. Hence, while the public may be interested in this question, it will only learn what the builders choose to volunteer unless and until there is a public indictment.

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 4:43pm

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

http://arabnews.com/opinion/letters/article100238.ece Letter to the Editor of Arabnews.com, The Middle East’s Leading English Language Daily: "Muslims trying to build houses of worship in the US are facing increasing opposition. This includes a mosque to be built near Ground Zero. Protesters have even deployed dogs to intimidate Muslims. ..." [It was only a matter of time before this becomes a war between Islam and Dog-Lovers. What will the ASPCA or PETA have to say?] noga: it may be that registered not-for-profits have to disclose significant contributions in their public annual statements. probably varies state-by-state. Congressman Peter King (NYCD2) is the ranking member (Republican) of Homeland Security Committee, and has been the most vocal about questioning the financing of Park51. I really feel sorry for whoever lives in the walk-up apartments next door to 45 Park Place.

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 6:53pm

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

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH or of the press; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." The First Amendment applies to ANYONE who fails roid's litmus tests, including The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,and Dog-Lovers.

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 7:02pm

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

"noga: it may be that registered not-for-profits have to disclose significant contributions in their public annual statements. probably varies state-by-state. Congressman Peter King (NYCD2) is the ranking member (Republican) of Homeland Security Committee, and has been the most vocal about questioning the financing of Park51." But it's not for national security purposes. It is for Federal Income Tax/IRS purposes. You would think that if their funding comes from overseas, they wouldn't bother with a 501c3 exemption as the donors wouldn't need it. They'd still probably want a c4. Peter King is an authoritarian right-winger...he is a big-government statist. He is a consistent supporter of expanded police power of the government. As an aside, the intrusive aspects of the IRS is precisely the reason why we will NEVER replace the income tax........too many authoritarians latently support it.

- OscarPeck

August 12, 2010 at 8:06pm

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

K2K correction: Peter King, son of a NYC police officer, represents NYCD3, that hotbed of "authoritarian right-wingers" living in such radical towns as Levittown, epicenter of suburban Nassau County. 130 residents of NYCD3 perished on 9/11. Oz Sultan, the new spokesman for Park51 as of yesterday (?), told CNN yesterday Park51 would be applying for Homeland Security funds for anti-terrorist programs. You can now follow Oz Sultan/Park51 on Twitter. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." applies to OscarPeck as well.

- K2K

August 12, 2010 at 9:12pm

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

"The First Amendment applies to ANYONE who fails roid's litmus tests, including The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,and Dog-Lovers." What sort of addled nonsense is this? The First Amendment applies to us all. And it protects not only speech but criticism of that speech. You have the right to express your opinion, and other people have the right to express their opinions about you and your opinions. The petty-authoritarian crowd around here cannot seem to keep that distinction straight. When you call upon the government to stop someone from speaking, you are urging the violation of their constitutional rights. Even that speech is protected, but it is not immune to the criticism that it is bigoted, illiberal, or worse. How hard is that, really, to understand, apart from the fact that the opponents of this mosque are wriggling and jiggling and wriggling some more trying to invoke state power in the service of an impermissible end and cannot therefore find any way to square what they want with our fundamental liberties?

- roidubouloi

August 12, 2010 at 10:59pm

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

King represents an upper middle class district on Long Island. McCain beat Obama in his district. Such demographics are often represented by authoritarian conservatives, such as King. This guy was a big supporter of the IRA, speaking of terrorists. Although at least those terrorists had a legitimate complaint about being oppressed (by the British Government), terrorists they were. Ole Peter. But K2K, I agree with yall on the end result: do not build that Mosque. Good taste and respect says do not put that Mosque there. It's really not about religion. And the government could probably stop it without running afoul of the first amendment. Oh, if there is first amendment issue, its not an Establishment Clause issue - it's a Free Exercise issue.

- OscarPeck

August 12, 2010 at 11:25pm

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

roidubouloi "The government has no general power or privilege to inquire as to the source of funding.” There are whole areas of activity where the government does have a right to inquire into the sources of funding. This is how many gangsters have been put behind bars. In this case too, if there is even a hint that some of the money was obtained illegally (say from organizations tied to terrorist activities, or from drug deals) it can compel the builders to reveal the source and amount of funds obtained.

- jdyer

August 13, 2010 at 12:50am

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

oscarpeck: there is no legitimate reason for any level of government to block a mosque at 45 Park Place. I just wanted to understand the opposition to the location. And now I do. And I agree with you that 45 Park Place is not in good taste and not respectful. The refusal of the Bloombergians to even try to comprehend the opposition to the location is the worst kind of intolerance because it truly divides America. Calling anyone who protests for any reason a bigot is the real intolerance. 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? 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. I hope someone opens a Doggie Day Care/Grooming Spa on Park Place so all those tourists have somewhere to drop off their canine companions while the humans visit the National September 11 Memorial Museum. I am certain such a Dog Haven will have no problem finding union construction workers to do all the necessary renovations while they boycott the vacant building at 45 Park Place. (Building Trades Union boycotts are Phase 5 of this never-ending controversy.)

- K2K

August 13, 2010 at 1:01am

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

OscarPeck: "Oh, if there is first amendment issue, its not an Establishment Clause issue - it's a Free Exercise issue." Why "Oh"? I posted the same comment, using pretty much those same words, on 8/12 at 12:10 p.m. on this thread. Great minds think alike, I guess . . .

- ironyroad

August 13, 2010 at 2:17am

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

It is also a free speech issue as the freedom of speech protects the right to speech that the community finds tasteless and insensitive. They have the right to express thoughts that offend us. We have the right to say we are offended. The government has no power to intervene or obstruct. Withal, there is plenty of reason to believe based on the things they say that there are many opponents whose motivation is anti-Moslem bigotry. Among them are the opposition to mosques everywhere, miles and miles from Ground Zero.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 5:16am

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

"Regardless of one’s opinion of Imam Feisal, or whether the opponents of a mosque near Ground Zero are right or wrong, Imam Feisal has become a symbol of the conflict between Islam and many Americans. Everywhere the imam goes, he will be the symbol of conflict and not of harmony. " Aside from being a perfect example of the "heckler's veto" - "We raised a stink, so see? There's all this conflict around the issue! He's divisive!" - there's another highly unpleasant aspect to the quote. Note the phrase "the conflict between Islam and many Americans". This is not only fundamentally wrong, it's extremely dangerous. The idea of fundamental conflict between the West and Islam is the basis of Islamic extremism. It was the motive behind the 9-11 attacks - to start a religious war. Islam comprises a billion-plus people, and is no more homogeneous than Christianity. Even George W. Bush understood this - that accepting the Islamic extremists' view of Islam at war with the West (all of Islam, not only the extreme few) is giving them precisely what they want, and runs the risk of making it true.

- K_Wilson

August 13, 2010 at 9:58am

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

The government shouldn't block it- I think the Mosque is a lousy idea, but I think blocking it would be worse. That said, I do believe that the government could legitimately block it and frame a prohibition to slide between those two constitutional concerns of free exercise and free expression. But it's a lousy idea. I don't see it improving Muslim relations in the U.S.....and there is a risk of it enhancing the deterioration. The same thing would happen if the government stops the Mosque. The group needs to withdraw the idea.

- OscarPeck

August 13, 2010 at 10:45am

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

Excellent point K-Wilson. That had slipped right by me and I am glad to see that someone noticed and called it to our attention. Oscar, I have to disagree on the law. I think the chance that the government could block this project if it complies with existing zoning and building regulations is exactly none.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 11:17am

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

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 11:22am

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

K2K seems not to understand the difference between a Wal-Mart and a mosque.

- roidubouloi

August 13, 2010 at 11:45am

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

Peretz -- Why not shine your baleful light on all the West Bank Jewish terrorist rabbis and who among the American Jewish communityis funding them to overthrow Israeli democracy? Where have you been sending your charitable checks recently, for instance?....surely not the JNF... How about the current portion of Shoftim this Shabbat -- on ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh...and the nauseating habit of real Jewish settlers' uprooting of arab olive groves... you're so hypocritical it's nauseating.

- peterkussell

August 13, 2010 at 5:27pm

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

ironyroad has mentioned in other related threads about the two existing Muslim congregations in the same neighborhood, Tribeca, north of the WTC site. Better late than never, the NYT Anne Barnard reports on both, 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 10:02am

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 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 12:03pm

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

On these issues, one could do worse than consider pages 178 starting with the paragraph that begins "The second thing that a real Left should do...to page 183 concluding with the words "...of the spirit and the world.)" of Levy's Left In Dark Times, where Levy makes a series of thundering distinctions between secularism and tolerance, which, I think, constitute a very effective answer to those objecting to the building of the Community Center near Ground Zero. I am with Roidubouloi and JackR and some others on these issues and find Peretz incoherent on them. A little long winded, but I liked Gitlin's essay published here a bit ago: http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/76990/american-values-ground-zero-mosque-constitution-law.

- basman

August 14, 2010 at 12:07pm

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

Here's another try at the link: http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/76990/american-values-ground-zero-mosque-constitution-law. Gitlin refudiates the sensitivity argument effectively.

- basman

August 14, 2010 at 12:17pm

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

ok basman, you also disagree with president Obama, who acknowledged "the sensitivity argument" - it is not an impossible task to understand both narratives, which is what most of the rest of us have been trying to do. Gitlin's selective omissions reflect partisanized journalism. what I posted at 12:03 pm may not be Obama'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 12:45pm

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

peterkussell: Yes, this is a good point. This issue should also be addressed. But this should not in any way change the current discussion: Is the construction of a mosque near ground zero, given all the sensitivity regarding this site wise? Does it not smell of provocation? I think it is not wise, it seems it is viewed by most Americans as provocation and I think it would do Muslim community a lot of good to reconsider. Others think that this is a correct decision. Since I am not an American mine is just an observer's view. But the discussion is interesting.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

August 14, 2010 at 2:18pm

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

Here's I'm told the entire statement: President Obama's remarks for Friday night's iftar dinner at the White House, marking the breaking of the daily Ramadan feast, transcribed and distributed by the administration: Good evening, everybody. Welcome. Please, have a seat. Well, welcome to the White House. To you, to Muslim Americans across our country, and to more than one billion Muslims around the world, I extend my best wishes on this holy month. Ramadan Kareem. I want to welcome members of the diplomatic corps; members of my administration; and members of Congress, including Rush Holt, John Conyers, and Andre Carson, who is one of two Muslim American members of Congress, along with Keith Ellison. So welcome, all of you. Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties and seders and Diwali celebrations. And these events celebrate the role of faith in the lives of the American people. They remind us of the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs. These events are also an affirmation of who we are as Americans. Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act of Establishing Religion Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion." The First Amendment of our Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land. And that right has been upheld ever since. Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose -- including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious -- a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in stark contrast to the religious conflict that persists elsewhere around the globe. Now, that's not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -- particularly 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. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And 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 everyone else in this country. And 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 unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure. We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -- from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we're fighting against, and what we're fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam -- it's a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -- they're terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -- and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11. So that's who we're fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms -- it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us -- and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today. In my inaugural address I said that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus --- and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and every culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. And that diversity can bring difficult debates. This is not unique to our time. Past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches. But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be -- and will be -- today. And tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan --- making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. Like so many other immigrants, generations of Muslims came to forge their future here. They became farmers and merchants, worked in mills and factories. They helped lay the railroads. They helped to build America. They founded the first Islamic center in New York City in the 1890s. They built America's first mosque on the prairie of North Dakota. And perhaps the oldest surviving mosque in America --- still in use today --- is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Today, our nation is strengthened by millions of Muslim Americans. They excel in every walk of life. Muslim American communities --- including mosques in all 50 states --- also serve their neighbors. Muslim Americans protect our communities as police officers and firefighters and first responders. Muslim American clerics have spoken out against terror and extremism, reaffirming that Islam teaches that one must save human life, not take it. And Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military. At next week's iftar at the Pentagon, tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery. These Muslim Americans died for the security that we depend on, and the freedoms that we cherish. They are part of an unbroken line of Americans that stretches back to our founding; Americans of all faiths who have served and sacrificed to extend the promise of America to new generations, and to ensure that what is exceptional about America is protected -- our commitment to stay true to our core values, and our ability slowly but surely to perfect our union. For in the end, we remain "one nation, under God, indivisible." And we can only achieve "liberty and justice for all" if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam --- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. So thank you all for being here. I wish you a blessed Ramadan. And with that, let us eat.

- basman

August 14, 2010 at 5:54pm

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

...ok basman, you also disagree with president Obama, who acknowledged "the sensitivity argument" - it is not an impossible task to understand both narratives, which is what most of the rest of us have been trying to do. Gitlin's selective omissions reflect partisanized journalism... K2K Gitlin and Obama are making the same point about sensitivity, just that Obama is more politic in his rejection of its claims as a bulwark against the community center. That's so because after paying due rhetorical homage the claims of sensitivity, he goes on to support the project and reject the arguments from such sensitivity. He also makes the crucial distinction, which, I think, needs to be made to confront what Irony rightly calls the political as against the legal argument, which distinction informs my comments on these issues about a week ago around here. To wit: ...And let us also remember who we're fighting against, and what we're fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam -- it's a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -- they're terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -- and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11... What say you on both points, K2K, if anything, that is responsive to them?

- basman

August 14, 2010 at 6:12pm

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

I'm looking forward to read Basman's treatise: Against sensitivity Why the Cordova Initiative has become a constitutional imperative for America and democracy.

- noga1

August 14, 2010 at 7:10pm

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

Posters have been making the arguments about the Muhhammad Cartoons being offensive to Muslims but still published. But "Notable for a lack of republication of the cartoons were most major newspapers in Canada,[47] the USA[48] and the United Kingdom,[49] where editorials covered the story without including them." (wiki) "A New York Times op-ed recently argued that although governments should not censor expression that's offensive to religious groups, the media should exercise editorial discretion and self-censor. In fact, the author said that this kind of self-censorship "is not just an American tradition, but a tradition that has helped make America one of the most harmonious multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies in the history of the world." 4. (Robert Wright, "The Silent Treatment," New York Times, Feb. 17, 2006, A23.) And there was this story from Israel: "Tatiana Soskin was a resident of Hebron, the Jewish city divided UN-equally between Jews and Arabs.... Tatiana was a young woman who decided to express some of her frustration and anger at the war of terrorism the Palestinians were waging against her fellow Jews. In June of 1997, she drew several pictures of a pig she called “Mohamed.” She attempted to post these drawings on Arab-owned stores in Hebron… Tatiana’s budding art career was cut short for she was apprehended by the Israeli authorities and brought to the Jerusalem Police station. Tatiana was arrested and later put on trial. Judge Zvi Seagal presided over this case. The judge compared her drawing to the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and said she had no respect for humanity and human rights." http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/curious-biography-of-mohammed-pig.html So it seems that democracies do have quite a healthy respect for people's sensitivities and journalists exercise much self-censorship and restrain their own rights for "free speech even if it offends" in cases where maintaining the public harmony is seen as an important value in and of itself.

- noga1

August 14, 2010 at 7:52pm

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

Obama backtracks a bit today 08 14 2010, with CNN's "Ed Henry: What do you think about the reaction to your speech about the mosque? President Obama: My intention was to simply let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally, in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country's about. And I think its very important that as difficult as some of these issues are, that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about." K2K believes that the Muslim residents of New York City and the metro suburbs have unfairly been drawn into this firestorm of opinion because three of them decided to build on the site of a building severely damaged on 9/11. Noga's point of "maintaining public harmony" is of value. Choosing 45 Park Place was deliberate. The NYT article from December 9, 2009 that quotes Imam Rauf is what started the protests from many, not all, 9/11 families and survivors, a local protest that then got politicized and partisanized. 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 - triggered by the starnge 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&pagewanted=all (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 - his 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-defender-of-architecture/ 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 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. And one of the survivors of 9/11.

- K2K

August 14, 2010 at 9:17pm

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-cle...

- K2K

August 15, 2010 at 12:24am

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

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

- K2K

August 15, 2010 at 10:45am

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

What people missed about the Mosque at ground zero Obama got: "President clarifies comments on plan for Islamic center Defends Muslims’ rights, but doesn’t endorse location" http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/08/15/president_clarifies_comments_on_plan_for_islamic_center/ It's all about location, location, location.... as real estate people like to say.

- jdyer

August 15, 2010 at 11:07am

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

Obama first said this, with which I agree, “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. And 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.’’ If he walked back from that for politics, so be it: his point, the point, remains principled and correct. That point doesn't require a treatise. It requires a persuasive response which I have yet to read from anyone, either at the level of principle or at the level of prudence. The onus of persuasion is on the objectors, one of the points Peretz has upside down. Noga1, you particularly in all your posts, all your links, all your general comments, have come nowhere near to being persausive on the issue. K2K, respectfully, if you were trying to answer responsively--that is what I urged you to do, be responsive--my two specific points put to you, in your "08/14/2010 - 9:17pm EDT", you haven't as I read you. I see rather, with all due respect, is a torrent of words and links that go all over the place. What's wrong with some unadorned, concise, plain spoken linearity? If Islam is discontinuous with Jihadi terrorism, Islamism, if you will, as said by Obama and I repeat: ...And let us also remember who we're fighting against, and what we're fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam -- it's a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -- they're terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -- and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11... then what is the relevance of "location, location, location" as an objection? If the argument is that Islam is not discontinuous, then there is a least a coherent position to be taken, which depends on the validity or invalidity of its premise. And that is a different order of argument. But my position depends upon its invalidity, which is to say, on the premise of that discontinuity. Jack, I don't read, btw, such "walk back" as Obama walked his subsequent clarification as picking up on what others have missed--not endorsing location. Nobody has missed location--it's pivotal in the objectors' arguments. Rather, as I read him, Obama put his initial remarks, by his clarification, in a more politically appropriate context: recognize the principle, but leave others duke out the specifics. I read that as a try at some political recapture and I take his real position to be what he originally said in the bit I just quoted--which I read as an implicit endorsement of the location based on general and first principles. But, then, Obama often tries hard to be many things to many people

- basman

August 15, 2010 at 12:55pm

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

This blog, or whatever it is, verges on the totally irrational.

- mlottman

August 15, 2010 at 1:59pm

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

p.s. For anyone interested: after quoting Levy and finally having reached the end of his book, I have been trying to reconcile what I extrapolate is Levy's answer to the Community Center controversy--secularism--and Obama's answer--religious freedom--as embedded in his speech framed by his celebration of the profundity of faith in American life, such faith being the fruits of constitutionally protected religious freedom. For Levy concludes his book, disappointingly and unconvincingly to my mind, with his nostrum for the rehabilitation of the Left. That nostrum answers, or is meant to answer, the sub textual question running through his book: how does he reconcile his thunderous disaggregation of the modern Left with his location of himself "as a man of the Left". His answer: an unremitting atheism with all its consequences. From page 313 of the hard cover edition: "First lesson. The empty heaven....smashing the remaining stars in the firmament of Politics. Second lesson. The mourning period...pain without nostalgia...Regret, yes, probably--yet the regret of nothing, a complete focus on the future. ..third...lesson. Action. Even activism...A poetry which becomes the opposite of the "'lyrical illusion' of doing...all the more buning because shorn of the pretense of transcendence." I can reconcile Levy's trumpeting of secularism with Obama's freedom of religion as an answer to the problem posed by the Community Centre by understanding that below the constitutional values and principles of religious freedom is necessarily the underlying essential separation of church and state, however much unstated that separation is constitutionally, and without which separation the principle of religious freedom is incoherent. That brings the essential *legal* secularity of America into harmony with Levy's general assertion of secularity as applied to the problem of the Community Centre. Why I find Levy's nostrum unconvincing is because I don't believe, contrary to his diagnosis, that the Left can't bear a world without God, or more precisely and more broadly too, a world without transcendence of any kind: From page 211: "If progressivism eventually, once more, starts to flirt with evil--and if it's already starting to turn its back on that Dreyfusard, antitotalitarian, antifascist tradition that was its greatest honor and that still is its only reason for existing--it will be because it can no longer stand the idea of an empty heaven and the twilight of its idols." As I say, this is too grand and sweeping a diagnosis from where I come.

- basman

August 15, 2010 at 2:28pm

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

Nice quote of Gerson by Chait that--typical of Chait--gets right to the heart of things: "An enormously complex and emotional issue -- but ultimately the right thing to do. A president is president for every citizen, including every Muslim citizen. Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone.”

- basman

August 15, 2010 at 2:57pm

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

...From page 313 of the hard cover edition:... That should be page 213.

- basman

August 15, 2010 at 2:59pm

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

basman “Obama first said this, with which I agree, “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. And 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.’’ If he walked back from that for politics, so be it: his point, the point, remains principled and correct.” Obama had the good sense to qualify his comment about the free “practice of religion” when he added, “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.” The “same rights” doesn’t mean unlimited rights: Mormons don’t have the right to practice polygamy, nor those religions that practice female genital mutilation have the right to do so. Then there is the fact that religions have a history and in assessing their practices one has to take that into consideration. Do Christians have a right to persecute Jews because their theology (and here I am speaking of those denominations like the Greek Orthodox Christians who did not give up on the theological notions that Jews are guilty of deicide)? Religious right is not unlimited. Yes, Muslims have a right to build Mosques; however, given the history of 9/11 one would suppose that they would have enough sense not build Mosques on or near ground zero. Obama was right to point out that location is very important.

- jdyer

August 15, 2010 at 4:14pm

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

"The onus of persuasion is on the objectors," says basman. sorry, but unless you live in NYC, you do not understand what is really going on. K2K: "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." The developers are using "prayer space maybe mosque for congregation to be determined" to have a free hand in building whatever they want. It is a con to paint any opponent as a bigot. NO ONE should be destroying a 9/11 survivor that happens to be a building that merited landmark status BEFORE 9/11. Bloomberg consistently abuses his power in development and landmarking disputes. If Mayor Mike likes the idea, he does whatever it takes to shove it through.

- K2K

August 15, 2010 at 4:42pm

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

Well I grant you I do not live in NYC.

- basman

August 15, 2010 at 5:49pm

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

But why do you say that Jack: are all Muslims to be tarred by jihadis: was 9/11 a Muslim attack or an attack by extremists perverters of Islam? The limits on the free exercise of religion are here a non sequitur. Legality isn't the issue.

- basman

August 15, 2010 at 5:54pm

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

As I said before, this blog is almost totally irrational.

- mlottman

August 16, 2010 at 1:52pm

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

basman “But why do you say that Jack: are all Muslims to be tarred by jihadis: was 9/11 a Muslim attack or an attack by extremists perverters of Islam?” All Muslims as individuals, no. Still, how do you know that the jihadists “perverted Islam?” Islamic clerics are divided on the issue and there is no central authority in Islam the way that there is in Catholicism. Moreover, some of the Muslims who support the mosque also support Hamas. Hamas, btw, has endorsed the Cordoba house. Does this mean that they practice tolerance towards non Muslims? Take a look at their charter. I don’t think it’s a good idea for non Muslims to endorse a religious center which is supported by Hamas and other jihadists even if they have the legal right to set it up.

- jdyer

August 16, 2010 at 3:02pm

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

mlottman: go fuck yourself!

- basman

August 16, 2010 at 5:05pm

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

Jack: good points. When I have a better moment I'll make some brief points back.

- basman

August 16, 2010 at 5:08pm

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 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 5:51pm

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 8:04pm

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

...location, specifically 45 Park Place, is the issue.. I defer to the New Yorkers, but I read that very, very close to the Community Centre site are bars, including strip ones. Is that true? Well, Jack, if you think that that the 9-11ers did not embody the perversion of Islam and that Islam is assimilable to them: 1. I reject that; and 2. that is a different order of issue, which I am happy to pursue. I take it that that is what you are saying when you rhetorically ask, "Still, how do you know that the jihadists “perverted Islam?” Islamic clerics are divided on the issue and there is no central authority in Islam the way that there is in Catholicism." Please be clear whether what I have tentatively imputed to you as your position is your position, or whether you're making a point I missed. I suggest it's a big leap--with excluded middles--from some Muslims supporting Hamas and Hamas endorsing--if it has--this project, to painting the project with a Hamasian,/Jihadi brush. All of a sudden I am to read Hamas's Charter to understand the real meaning of the Centre. If you are saying that this Centre can be so painted, that it is virtually a Hamasian outpost of some some kind, then the argument I take from that fraught assertion is the that the Centre constitutes a security risk. That too is a different order of argument from appropriateness which is the real issue being mooted here. And if the Centre can be so painted, then the case for its inappropriateness is of course made out. On that last point, I have an open mind. The question is empirical. What's the evidence for the Centre being a security risk or, less than that, being capable of being painted as *essentially*a Hamasian thing? To my mind, a few statements plucked from here and there won't do; nor will Hamas's endorsement of the Centre. So I keep coming back to my essential argument, I can't see a cogent objection to this Centre--going to appropriateness-- unless one wishes to call Islam Islamism, or this Centre an Islamist institution as opposed to as Islamic one.

- basman

August 17, 2010 at 11:58am

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

p.s. I favoured Obama's original comments on the project and shared Greenwald's disappointment that he walked them back. But political reality is political reality.

- basman

August 17, 2010 at 12:42pm

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

Thanks for the clarification, gator. My own point about the so called NY Mosque of "cultural understanding" is that you can't create understanding when your first act is to build the mosque in an area where a great many Americans and especially New Yorkers think it doesn't belong. If you want understanding you first have to understand the feelings of others.

- jdyer

August 17, 2010 at 10:46pm

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

...http://www.theatlanticwire.com/editor-at-large/view/article/Cordoba-House-Charles-Krauthammer-and-the-First-Amendment-44... Bam! Who's Gator?

- basman

August 18, 2010 at 12:17am

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

Trying that link once more: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/editor-at-large/view/article/Cordoba-House-Charles-Krauthammer-and-the-First-Amendment-44

- basman

August 18, 2010 at 12:22am

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

Money quote from the above: ...And why do they say this? Well, the two obvious possibilities are bigotry and political opportunism. Maybe they associate this Muslim center with the perpetrators of 9/11. That would be bigotry, since the only real connection is that both are Islamic. Or maybe, in the case of Republican politicians and right-wing commentators, it is simply a matter of taking advantage of a political opportunity that has fallen into their laps. Both of these reasons are fairly unattractive. Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn't bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional? None that I've heard or read... Me neither!

- basman

August 18, 2010 at 1:15am

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

".... Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn't bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional? None that I've heard or read..." Many people oppose the location of the mosque, not the building of the mosque. This isn’t a sign of demagoguery. The demagoguery and bigotry is in evidence in those who want to build the Mosque some of whom support Hamas. Besides as I said above, if you are trying to build good will and reach out to the community building a Mosque in a location where most people consider it inappropriate isn’t conducive to your aims.

- jdyer

August 18, 2010 at 1:16pm

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

Okay, and there, repeating ourselves, is where we shall leave it. Except who's "gator"?

- basman

August 18, 2010 at 4:13pm

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

jackson: "if you are trying to build good will and reach out to the community building a Mosque in a location where most people consider it inappropriate isn’t conducive to your aims." Thank you for trying. It IS astonishing how stubborn so many people can be to your well stated fact. Park51's mission to nurture dialog and interfaith understanding has already failed, because of the location at 45 Park Place, because it was close enough to be directly damaged on 9/11. So many people absolutely refuse to acknowledge that fact, which is also the sole reason Imam Rauf wanted 45 Park Place. No matter how many time this fact is cited, basman and his side of the not-debate, refuse to acknowledge this fact. Park51's mission has not just failed, it has revealed the impossibility of rational dialogue in 21st century America (on any subject?)

- K2K

August 18, 2010 at 10:59pm

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

K2K: respectfully, give me a break: apart from all your impertinent --in the sense of not being pertinent-- distracted and distracting talk about zoning and heritage and hallowed ground and scattered remains of 9/11 and needing to be a New Yorker to understand this-- all that K2Kian nonsense--I have yet to hear from you one rational argument for opposing the Community Centre as a matter of appropriateness. I'm with Michael Kinsley--cited by me above-- on this: every syllable, word, phrase, sentence and paragraph. Tell me where he's wrong? For the 19th time that I'm asking you, in other words, to make a sensible argument. P.S. Do you know who/what "gator" is?

- basman

August 19, 2010 at 12:48am

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

no basman, I do not know who 'gator' is. I have not read Kinsley. Tonight, I have been learning more about the two men who built 45 Park Place, Paul Spofford and Thomas Tilehouse. I now believe 45 Park Place should be preserved because of THEM, in their memory, for having 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. If you do not understand the historical significance of the very specific building that may be destroyed, then I can not satisfy you. We are on different planes of perception. I do not care about any blogging-head opinion. Every argument in favor has been made. There was NEVER a zoning issue. Most of the protest is NOT intolerance or fear. It is about wanting to be heard and respected for having strong opinions, and not be called a bigot. Tonight, I also read the 08 17 2010 profile of the developer Sharif El-Gamal in the NY Observer, and he is spinning quite a story - must be that crisis public relations firm they hired. One point (of many): "...Mr. El-Gamal, who now lives on the Upper West Side, continued to focus his energies on the Muslim community in Lower Manhattan, a neighborhood that had long expressed a desire for a new community center. The District Needs Statement put out by Community Board 1 reads, "With the tremendous increase in the population of the Financial District and Seaport and Civic Centers, a community center is urgently needed to support a strong and stable community there." ..." Well, I read the same District Needs Statement three weeks ago, but I looked at the map, and also have worked in the Financial District and Civic Center neighborhoods, and have visited the Seaport neighborhood, and used to shop in Tribeca South in the 1980's and eat expense account meals in Tribeca and downtown. I stick to my original point: yes, THOSE neighborhoods need a community center, but Tribeca and Battery Park City do NOT. So why did El-Gamal send an 18-year old employee out to find a property specifically in Tribeca South? Downtown is compact, but 45 Park Place is a solid 15 minute + walk from those neighborhoods cited (not too many people live in Civic Center). So, I am now seeing more spin, more distancing from Imam Rauf. Smoke and mirrors. I know people like me can never offer what people like you, basman, want as a "sensible argument". NYC is torn apart over this - that should be sensible enough to stop what is NEVER going to achieve it's goals of "healing" and "interfaith dialog". I guess if I were a lawyer and comfortable solely with abstractions as reason enough to keep quiet, I would not be so intrigued by the building on the tax lot of 45 Park Place. Or as a New York voter seeing the anger and turmoil and name-calling spread like an oil spill through the outer boroughs where most Muslims actually live. All because three people had a vision that HAD to be served in this specific building solely BECAUSE it was severely damaged on 9/11? Now American and overseas Muslims are criticizing the disrespect of Rauf+Khan& el-Gamal in pursuing a project that disturbs so many people, for many different reasons. basman, you are the third or fourth TNR person to badger me for a "sensible argument", but then deny anything and everything I offer as NOT PERTINENT. My bottom line today is, I stand with the New York City Fire Department. THEY should be running the whole country, not a bunch of ideologues who call everyone who disagrees with them either a racist or a bigot. America is doomed anyway, because we no longer have people like Spofford & Tilehouse, or Truman and Eisenhower, the last honest Presidents who understood what America IS. "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." 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:

- K2K

August 19, 2010 at 3:11am

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

basman, if you think everything I write is nonsense, then just ignore me. considering the real nonsense posted by a few in TNR, why am I so dangerous that you have to join the bullies who tear down their targets? no answer needed. you act like I am your uncle Ted :)

- K2K

August 19, 2010 at 3:15am

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

K2K, relax, You're a good guy. We all can get a little carried away in the spirit of things. Here's a note I sent to a friend of mine: ...Rocco, thanks for your comments. But they confuse me a little. Do you mean the underlying issue concerning the building or do you mean the underlying issue concerning the War with Jihad? I think the underlying issue for the former is not the legality of the project—which seems conceded by all—but its appropriateness or inappropriateness. I think building it is appropriate and the opposition is inappropriate. My essential reason for thinking that—all questions of entitlement aside—is that that opposition assimilates Islam to Islamism so that all Muslims are tarred by the Jihadi/ 9/11 brush. As though, for example, Muslims weren’t killed during 9/11, weren’t part of the First Responders, don’t fight as part of American forces...

- basman

August 19, 2010 at 10:05am

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

Hey K2K from "Uncle Ted" and I quote: ....A few days ago I posted a very important article by Evelyn Gordon namely: If Israel has no claim, it is nothing but a thief. There is a very important comment on the article by Itzik Basman. This article expands on his earlier comment. By Itzik Basman Here are some arguments, from an Israeli perspective, for Israel reanimating the legitimacy of its claims to the territories that are principled, practical and feasible: 1. There is case to be made for that legitimacy. 2. Legitimacy changes the paradigm from occupied to disputed ìand the characterization of Israel from occupier and thief to embattled claimant seeking to vindicates its rights. (Read more…)

- basman

August 19, 2010 at 11:18am

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

basman: I understand your "essential reason [for] think[ing] building it is appropriate and the opposition is inappropriate. " Most of the original opposition, before being hijacked by the right, was about 1) destroying the history of the site, including that part of the history on 9/11, 2) Mayor Bloomberg's unceasing efforts to shove unwanted developments through; what is widely seen by New Yorkers as abuse of power (the new Yankee Stadium being the most iconic of Bloombergian disdain for democracy, followed closely by his War Against Trans-Fats), and 3) nine years of discord over the failure of Governor Pataki, the Port Authority of NY/NJ, and the Lower Manhattan Development Corp to do THEIR JOBS: "The shame of New York: Why there's a space for the mosque" Last Updated: 8:36 AM, August 19, 2010 Posted: 12:54 AM, August 19, 2010 John Podhoretz "The real story of the Ground Zero mosque is that the project only became feasible because of the appalling and astonishing fecklessness of the officials who were charged with the reconstruction of the site and the neighborhood all the way back in 2001. We're just three weeks shy of the moment, nine years ago, when the landing-gear assembly from the plane that hit the South Tower smashed through the roof and two floors of 45 Park Place, which housed a Burlington Coat Factory. Imagine that, in the weeks following, you had expressed the opinion that in nine years' time, that building would sit abandoned only 560 feet from Ground Zero -- and there would be no memorial, no museum, no nothing on the 16 acres on which the towers themselves sat. Gov. George Pataki and his chosen site-planner, Daniel Liebeskind, in 2006 examining one of their Ground Zero fantasies -- "planning" that delayed all construction. Forget the whole question of whether there would be a mosque (or Islamic cultural center) in its place. Just imagine that you'd delivered the view that New York would so completely fail to maintain a sense of purpose regarding the salvation of Ground Zero. Imagine the scorn to which you'd have been subjected at the suggestion. Yet here we are. Memories of the last nine years have turned Ground Zero from a site of horror, to a reminder of grief, to an occasion for ludicrous artistic posturing -- and now to something very close to parody. Grand and grandiose schemes floated in the immediate aftermath of the attacks -- opera houses, museums, exact replacements of the Twin Towers, the tunneling of West Street, the memorial inside the "slurry walls," the 1,776-foot building, the $2 billion PATH station -- have vanished or shrunk to meaninglessness or transmuted into nothing. In retrospect, with the exception of finding the precious remains of the victims, maybe Ground Zero shouldn't have been cleared at all. Maybe those 80-foot piles of twisted steel -- which seemed to go on forever, and filled everyone who saw them with a kind of horrified rage almost impossible to put into words -- should've stayed in place as a reminder of the evil, just as the hull of the USS Arizona sits in the waters of Pearl Harbor and always will. It seems certain now that the clearance of the horror led directly to the shameful dereliction of leadership that allowed the most important building site in American history to become a ludicrous testament to the ability of postmodern Americans to hamstring themselves and lose sight of what is most important. With the removal of the wreckage came a lassitude, a lack of urgency, that turned the silly arguments over whether this second-class dance troupe or that weird little museum should get a major venue on the site into urgent matters requiring months of public debate. Then, of course, there was the design competition that led to the preposterous and architecturally unfeasible Daniel Liebeskind building -- which was basically scrapped two years after it was declared the winner. Oh, and how about that Michael Arad memorial, called "Reflecting Absence," with reflecting pools and an "underground interpretive center" whose designer all but demanded control of the $350 million set aside to pay for it? Something will be there, something called a memorial. But it isn't there yet. Nine years have passed. Nine years. Nothing. It's safe to say that, had Ground Zero been handled better, or handled at all, the Burlington Coat Factory site wouldn't have been sitting there fallow to be snapped up for a song and given to Imam Feisal Rauf. The buildings around the site would have been renovated in ways that would have been respectful of it and with some positive relation to it. It's an unimaginable failure with many fathers: the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the politicians who control it; the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., and others. But at the top of the list of shame sits former Gov. George Pataki, who had primary statutory authority for the site and whose idea the design competition was. Pataki's forgettable 12-year governorship deserves to be remembered only for what he was unable, unwilling or just incapable of doing when history called on him to do something great. Instead, he dithered and fought and pouted when Rudy Giuliani got too much credit, and fantasized about running for president and finally faded away. Pataki called President Obama "dead wrong" for supporting construction of the mosque. But this wouldn't be an issue at all if Pataki had done the job that posterity called upon him to do. His failure is our shame." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_shame_of_new_york_TLa3pKBborwxO3tfoRpoNO None of these reasons for the opposition have anything to do with Islam or mosques. Bloomberg forced through overturning term limits in NYC, voted twice by New York, so that Bloomberg could run for a third term. On November 2, 2010, New York voters get a third chance to vote for term limits. In NY, this election is more about Bloomberg than Park51,

- K2K

August 19, 2010 at 1:47pm

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

...None of these reasons for the opposition have anything to do with Islam or mosques... But "Islam or mosques" and the like are the only reasons that matter to me and virtually everybody else I have heard and read on these issues, pro and con. You seem to be in a world of one with all this local stuff in relation to them.

- basman

August 19, 2010 at 3:20pm

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

...None of these reasons for the opposition have anything to do with Islam or mosques... But "Islam or mosques" and the like are the only reasons that matter to me and virtually everybody else I have heard and read on these issues, pro and con. You seem to be in a world of one with all this local stuff in relation to them.

- basman

August 19, 2010 at 3:21pm

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

I repeated myself for emphasis. :-)

- basman

August 19, 2010 at 4:25pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close