Much to my relief, upon his return to the United States from travel abroad, Feisal Abdul Rauf affirmed intention to proceed with the Cordoba House community center, exactly at the location already planned, inspected, permitted, and approved. I couldn’t have said it better than he did.
“I have been away from home for two months, speaking abroad about cooperation among people from different religions. Every day, including the past two weeks spent representing my country on a State Department tour in the Middle East, I have been struck by how the controversy has riveted the attention of Americans, as well as nearly everyone I met in my travels.”
It is notable that, as an American, albeit not born in this country, he declined to respond to controversy within the United States while abroad:
“Many people wondered why I did not speak out more, and sooner, about this project. I felt that it would not be right to comment from abroad. It would be better if I addressed these issues once I returned home to America.”
Apparently he understood the criticism many people directed at the Dixie Chix – that whatever their opinion of the President, they should not make such remarks while abroad.
“Cordoba House will be built on the two fundamental commandments common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam: to love the Lord our creator with all of our hearts, minds, souls and strength; and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We want to foster a culture of worship authentic to each religious tradition, and also a culture of forging personal bonds across religious traditions.”
It’s hard to argue with that. This was even more impressive:
“President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg both spoke out in support of our project. As I traveled overseas, I saw firsthand how their words and actions made a tremendous impact on the Muslim street and on Muslim leaders. It was striking: a Christian president and a Jewish mayor of New York supporting the rights of Muslims. Their statements sent a powerful message about what America stands for, and will be remembered as a milestone in improving American-Muslim relations.”
That is really our strongest card in the face of those who embrace a military understanding of jihad, and then take up arms based on that understanding. Not only are Muslims free to build Cordoba House, but we also have two Muslims in congress, at least one of whom was elected from a district with a Christian majority, and more Jewish voters than Muslim voters.
Cordoba House is not a mosque, it will contain a space for Muslim worship, but whatever it is called, building it is a victory – a victory for the United States of America, and the best of what our nation has offered the world.
Thanks for this!
“As I traveled overseas, I saw firsthand how their words and actions made a tremendous impact on the Muslim street and on Muslim leaders.”
So, it’s only a matter of time before those impacted will allow freedom of religion in their countries, freedom of speech, freedom to convert to any religious belief. Moreover (and this is important) they will stop funding anti-semitic propaganda and violence against the Jews. I will be checking the news to see when they build the first church and the first synagogue in Saudi Arabia. Any prediction if this will happen this year?
When Ceaucescu was dumped in Romania, threatening to the last to place half his own central committee in front of a firing squad, until he found himself facing one instead, my mother observed “Take the lid off Romania, and what pops out? The Iron Guard!” We saw similar results in the Soviet Union – an organization called Pamyat began agitating to revive all kinds of traditional anti-Semitism, as propagated by the Ohkrana. Why do I mention this? Because Muslims have no monopoly on anti-Semitism and violence against Jews, and because democracy is no guarantee that either one will decline. The world is a more complex place than that. Only a die-hard Marxist-Leninist (and one who had not the misfortune to take power, at that) would believe that a few simple political maneuvers will usher in a utopian era of peace, plenty, love and universal brotherhood.
We would be a big step forward if the rather diverse mass populations of various Muslim nations would simply be immunized against broad general appeals that the USA is the enemy of Islam and all the world’s one billion Muslims. The secondary results will vary, but might include pressure for more democracy in some countries, or less in others. If a truly free election were held in Egypt today, the Muslim Brotherhood might well win, which is one reason our foreign policy is chained to the kleptocratic Mubarak regime. Remember when George W. Bush insisted on an election in the Palestinian territories, and Hamas won?
I really could care less when the first church or synagogue is built in Saudi Arabia. We’re better than they are, we have a superior framework of government, we are considerably more diverse, and they are going to do whatever they are going to do within their own country.
It’s ironic how many strawmen you had to bring in the open – just so that you could ignore what I wrote. Let me start with the history lesson. Anti-semitism was official Soviet policy since 1948 (it also partly explains why USSR was such a strong supporter of “palestinians” and various corrupt moslem regimes). Your claim that moslems don’t hold monopoly on anti-semitism is weird – given that no one argues that. It’s a strawman, really. I also did not claim anything about democracy (actually, the word democracy is not even mentioned in my comment). And finally, I did not predict that we can achieve “utopian era of peace, plenty, love and universal brotherhood.” Indeed what I asked for is much simpler, and US already has it – freedom of religion, freedom to convert from one religion to another, freedom of speech. If you equated what I said to “utopian era of peace, plenty, love and universal brotherhood” – does this mean that you assume we have this in US – cause US has all the stuff I asked for in my comment. Or – more likely – am I to assume that this was just another of your strawmen?
And yes, indeed, ” they are going to do whatever they are going to do within their own country.” But here is a trick – if they are doing what they want – what makes you think that there are no moderate christians in this country that will try to emulate what they do – and treat moslems in christian countries same way moslems treat christians in moslem countries? At some point you need to go and convince moslems to wise up – or they will have to deal with christian moderates.
The reason that immoderate Christians in the USA are not going to “treat Moslems” in THIS country the way “Moslems treat Christians in Moslem countries” is that religion does not have that status in American jurisprudence. A nation which elevates any faith to the status of Established Religion may in fact impose restrictions or limited privileges on practioners of Dissenting or Infidel faiths, whether the Established Religion by of the Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Nestorian, Buddhist, Sunni Moslem, Shia Moslem, Druze, Alawite, Sufi, Hindu, or other faith.
To speak of the United States in such terms is talking apples and oranges. We have no Established Religion. Period. (It takes decades for European emigres to get used to this — we just don’t think like Europeans do.)
It’s a tad more complicated than that. USSR was not a religious state, so the idea of a country with no preferred religion is easily understandable. But same is true for some Western countries – say, France was a secular republic for decades – and yet, they are now prohibiting the burqa. What’s even more important is that US had official policy of discrimination against the blacks (even though the Constitution did not allow this since the Civil War), and then in a few decades it was all taken down, and instead we got the system of discrimination against whites and asians. Surely, freedom of the press was violated at times – the Sedition Act of 1918 is a prime example. Before Hoover-FDR, the economy was independent from teh state – and then it all changed. Back in the 1940ies, 100,000 Japanese-Americans were sent to concentration camps with open approval by the ACLU and the Supreme Court. In short – in perilious times, things may change quite quickly.
And speaking of moderate moslems and christians – all moslem countries agreed that blasphemy against Islam must be punished. The UN is discussing this measure, and if anything, the materials criticising or mocking Islam is already de-facto censored in US. That’s a rather new development, and it may be expected that some moderate christians will try to emulate the moslems and enforce their rules over media and Hollywood. If anything, terrorism clearly works, and there are plenty of folks in US who may decide to change things around.
In short, never say never.
We should live up to our own values, not down to those of others. I have no desire to emulate Saudi Arabia.
But, since you brought it up, I think that our actions do have the potential to influence other countries. It seems clear that places like China have adopted some of our market approach to their economy. So we can have an influence. Our presence in the Middle East has also, I believe, had some influence on women’s issues. The killing and beating of women for adultery is now getting bad press. Other secular Muslim countries are lobbying to have it stopped. It will be more difficult for the fundies in Saudi Arabia to maintain their hold is the young people there see that Muslims can go elsewhere, worship freely and have an economic future. They might want to even bring that kind of culture home.
Steve
““As I traveled overseas, I saw firsthand how their words and actions made a tremendous impact on the Muslim street and on Muslim leaders.”
It’s fair to ask comrade Feisal to explain what exact impact he expects to achieve.
“It will be more difficult for the fundies in Saudi Arabia to maintain their hold is the young people there see that Muslims can go elsewhere, worship freely and have an economic future. They might want to even bring that kind of culture home.”
Moslems had a free run in USA for the last decades, if not even centuries. Nothing has changed. Apparently, it’s not American freedom alone that can change the Saudi culture. I would say we need a more forceful response – and bowing to Saudi princes, acknowledging that we won’t allow “religious pollution” (the term used by one of the groups promoted on this website) in Saudi Arabia by our soldiers won’t help.
It’s fair to ask comrade Feisal to explain what exact impact he expects to achieve.
Interesting. Which part of Rauf’s own words quoted by Siarlys fail to answer your question?
“We want to foster a culture of worship authentic to each religious tradition, and also a culture of forging personal bonds across religious traditions.”
Or is your real question “C’mon comrade Rauf! Reveal to the world your plan to bring sharia domination to America!”
Moslems had a free run in USA for the last decades, if not even centuries.
Really. According to published American history, with examples in every text book that covers the period, the first Moslems in North America were slaves. Free Moslems who found themselves here (such as three sailors on a Spanish ship) were captured and sold as slaves. It wasn’t until the Treaty of Tripoli that Muslims could safely set foot on American soil.
From that point on, you get full marks for being correct that Moslems could immigrate to the US… just like members of any other religion.
At your service for providing actual facts. ;-)
Frankie – it all goes to the question of “science” that we discussed before. I was too lazy to correct you when we started this debate – and now I have to deal with this mess. Once again – the issue is of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, not feelings.
My claim: It’s fair to ask comrade Feisal to explain what exact impact he expects to achieve.
You quote Feisal: “We want to foster a culture of worship authentic to each religious tradition, and also a culture of forging personal bonds across religious traditions.”
That’s, to put it mildly is a meaningless claim. For example – who and how decides what worship is authentic to which religious tradition? For example, Sharia law, with brutal punishement for women, homosexuals and for those that choose to leave Islam – are those authentic for Islam or not? Does Feisal in his explanation expects Saudi Arabai princes to open its country to outsiders and stop its persecution of non-Islamic faiths or not? What’s authentic in Saudi Arabia – medieval brutality or American modernity? Feisal does not explain, does he? The “personal bonds” – that’s too is quite unimpressive. Is he saying that in return for all the outreach to the Islamic cleric we should expect nothing more than a meeting with some Saudi Prince? Is our ultimate purpose to meet with these bustards – or to make them recognize that religious freedom is a universal right and they should abide by it or risk America going vicious on their asses? No reply from Feisal, right?
This is what I mean by “EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE”, comrade.
The rest was just as silly:
My claim: “Moslems had a free run in USA for the last decades, if not even centuries.”
Your reply: ” It wasn’t until the Treaty of Tripoli that Muslims could safely set foot on American soil.”
Treaty of Tripoli was signed on June 7, 1797 – more than 203 years ago. That’s slightly more than 2 centuries. Again, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE supports my claim.
Frankie, you’ve got nothing on me, comrade. Everything time you think you caught me in inaccuracy simply means you did not read carefully what I wrote. In short – you’ve got reading comprehension problem. It’s not my English skills that’s at issue here – it’s all in your head.
I see you are wasting your time again. Really, better English comprehension will save you a lot of time.
At least you waste your time efficiently. I notice you did not do any research of your own, instead assuming the what little I did is more than enough to be definitive here.
Again, Frankie, as is customary, you claimed that I was wrong, but all the evidence you brought only made my argument stronger. This, still, according to you, confirms that I (not you) have bad reading comprehension.
I am starting to get mildly annoyed with your obtuseness. Are you gonna at some point show ANY empirical evidence that I did not read or understand you correctly, or you will continue repeating this as a mantra, and believe it will magically become true?
I made simple statements, in English, that you continue to fail to respond to even in their simplicity. Why should I spend hundreds of words explaining something that you’ve already made a conclusion about, decided what it must be, or (as is usual) think you can use different words to mean the same thing?
I’ve been breaking a personal rule with you up to now. No more. I will not do your thinking for you. If it has become annoying to have someone truthfully observe that your comprehension of English is lacking, well, boo hoo, so sorry you’re in a bad mood…
Look familiar, that last part, hm?
You keep saying that my English comprehension is bad, but you never able to show where specifically I mis-interpreted you. I, on the other side, am more than ready to show examples when you mis-interpreted and misunderstood what I clearly wrote.
This is called “EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE” – I’ve got it, and you haven’t. Still, lack of evidence does not stop you from repeating the mantra that you are a poor misundestood chap, and it’s always someone else’s fault.
Dude, you are so typical. And just in case you are wondering – if you don’t stop saying that I misunderstand you – I will post again two quotes from, and demand that you provide evidence that you were truthful about my statements. Do you want that?
It is not fair, or appropriate, to ask Feisal to explain what exact impact he expects to achieve. A lot of the impact will be maximized if it is NOT talked about in detail. As a crude analogy, if the CIA were asked to provide details, in public, of its covert operations, and what it expected each one to achieve, all of them would be moot. A little closer to the point, diplomacy can never be carried out entirely in the open, because it involves concessions to the pride of would-be allies. A documentary film-maker can blow wide open the death of a Saudi princess, but people whose job is to be on speaking terms with Saudi officials (and someone has to) could not get involved with that. To each their own place.
There are times when simply blowing seedy diplomacy wide open can have a cathartic effect, as Comrade Lenin demonstrated when he exposed to all the world the sordid treaties that bound the Allies in World War I. On the other hand, the exposure didn’t make much of an impact on the course of diplomacy in subsequent decades, or even seriously derail the course of the war. German soldiers and British soldiers didn’t shake hands and walk away from the trenches in disgust.
Moslems haven’t had a free run of the USA. Only a Russian emigre with mixed Soviet and Czarist world views would talk like that. You sound like the Ohkrana whipping up anti-Semitism, except your scapegoat is different. Americans who are Moslem are as free as any of the rest of us. They are not issued identity cards classifying them as a distinct demographic group, nor is anyone else.
So, let me get is straight – you proudly quote Feisal’s claims of his achievements – but you claim it’s unfair to actually look into details of what he achieved. All right, how about you delete this quote from him because it means nothing at all to anyone who is seeking evidence. You may have blind trust in Feisal – but I don’t, so when you tell me to believe his words – well, that’s just a bit too much for me.
As for Feisal’s ability being a pro-American diplomat – he is known for his Anti-American statements. Whose side is he really on is a valid question. So far, he sounded like a typical anti-American, two-faced scoundrel.
“Moslems haven’t had a free run of the USA. Only a Russian emigre with mixed Soviet and Czarist world views would talk like that.”
I wrote somewhat quite different: “Moslems had a free run in USA for the last decades, if not even centuries.” In other words, moslems were not running USA – they had free run in the USA, i.e. they were allowed to live freely, like any other minority group. And apparently, all these freedoms did not stop the moslem countries to be oppressive of their minorities. But more importantly, you saying that I had ” Soviet and Czarist world views” simply because I said moslems were freee in US?! This is just stupid – how is this a vew of soviets and czarists? Explain! Particularily, when you yourself said that moslems are just as free as everyone else in this country. This is beyond ludicrous.
And lastly – lets be honest on something – I know you want to think that people who disagree with you are bigots – it makes your life easier. Well, comrade, I suggest you drop the racist/bigot card, because it expired. I am just as much as bigot as you are a child molester. Actually, I think it’s far more likely that you are child molester that I am a bigot. Maybe you also had sex with your mother.
Details my dear Russian emigre, the devil is always in the details. Feisal has spoken in general terms of increased understanding between people of different faiths. He should not be asked to detail exactly what impact this will have on the words in the Hamas charter, the timetable for Hamas to recognize Israel, or any other speculative matter that nobody could seriously predict.
Of course Moslems were allowed to live freely in the USA. That is because their religion, like the religion of Catholics, various kinds of Protestants, Greek and Russian Orthodox, Jews, atheists, Quakers, Etc. Etc. Etc. were of no consideration legally. (There were lots of neighborhood feuds, but those tend to diminish from one generation to the next). Again, you are showing your European thinking. In Europe, even the most enlightened regimes consider “rights” to be the gift of a benevolent state, whether monarchy, republic, or rule by peoples commissars. America has not benevolently granted anything to Moslems as a group. Citizens are citizens, and Moslem faith is no bar.
I haven’t called you a bigot. If I intended to do so, I would spell it out in so many words. I have suggested that you have a lot to learn about America, and you have continued to make that obvious with every new comment.
I would invite you to poll every child I have ever had any association with in my adult life, but I wouldn’t subject them to contact with a being with as twisted a mind as your own. My mother is a life-long Republican who has better things to occupy her time than issuing denials to speculative implications. Maybe she thinks I’m ugly.
“He should not be asked to detail exactly what impact this will have on the words in the Hamas charter, the timetable for Hamas to recognize Israel, or any other speculative matter that nobody could seriously predict.”
Feisal was the one who claimed that his visit had deep impact – it’s only fair to ask him to explain what impact he is talking about. Surely he can mention at least one thing that we can go and check. Otherwise – his was an empty talk. But moreover, it’s ironic that ignored all teh questions that I did ask – and none were about Hamas and its charter. And more importantly – all of these demands to moslem leaders are rather basic…Here is I am repeating them: “So, it’s only a matter of time before those impacted will allow freedom of religion in their countries, freedom of speech, freedom to convert to any religious belief. Moreover (and this is important) they will stop funding anti-semitic propaganda and violence against the Jews. I will be checking the news to see when they build the first church and the first synagogue in Saudi Arabia.”
“Again, you are showing your European thinking. In Europe, even the most enlightened regimes consider “rights” to be the gift of a benevolent state, whether monarchy, republic, or rule by peoples commissars. America has not benevolently granted anything to Moslems as a group. ”
Again, you are making claims about my thinking – but you fail to prove that I indeed think this way. Indeed, I am far more understandable of the rights than you are – for example, I believe that our religious rights, free speech rights are indispenseble – but so our property rights, freedom of association. It is indeed your side which believes that the government ALLOWS us to keep some fruits of our labor, that tax cut to the rich allow the rich to have more of someone else’s money. If anything, for me, the government is a necessary evil, and it’s function should be limited to very few things – mostly protection from enemies foreign and domestic, and should involve no wealth transfer – social security, medicare, medicare, welfare – all should be abolished. So, please, don’t try to think that your views of individual liberty are any more progressive than mine…
But on this part – my argument was simple – moslems had all rights in US for a very long time. It’s unlikely that the building of a Hamasque on Ground Zero would suddenly bring any new and more flattering understanding of this country to the moslem despots. It’s a pretty simple thought, I am surprised you chose to misinterpret it.
And the last piece was quite strange. You claim that “I haven’t called you a bigot” – and yet in your previous comment you said: “Only a Russian emigre with mixed Soviet and Czarist world views would talk like that. You sound like the Ohkrana whipping up anti-Semitism, except your scapegoat is different. ”
Now, an attempt to whip up Okhrana type anti-semitism (anti-moslemism in this case) is surely bigoted. Wouldn’t you say?
Oh, you want him to detail some of the conversations he had and some of the words people he spoke to said, that was favorable? That’s fair enough, and I would be surprised if he didn’t come forth with some such detail over the next few weeks. The New York Times limits the Word Counts available for Op-Ed pieces, and no doubt he didn’t want to use it up on details, when he had so many general points to make. Your arguments do get more reasonable as you respond to valid criticism, but have you forgotten that you began with this?
“So, it’s only a matter of time before those impacted will allow freedom of religion in their countries, freedom of speech, freedom to convert to any religious belief. Moreover (and this is important) they will stop funding anti-semitic propaganda and violence against the Jews. I will be checking the news to see when they build the first church and the first synagogue in Saudi Arabia. Any prediction if this will happen this year?”
No mortal human being could read a crystal ball and provide hard commitments of that nature. Nor could someone whose project is to change the GENERAL atmosphere that ANY political school has to work with, provide details of how and when any specific ideologically motivated organization is going to respond.
Before we proceed any further, let me do the honesty check. In one of your comments you misquoted me, and as a result you even accused me of bigotry. I want you to apologise for misquoting me.
I wrote: “Moslems had a free run in USA for the last decades, if not even centuries.”
Your reaction: “Moslems haven’t had a free run of the USA. Only a Russian emigre with mixed Soviet and Czarist world views would talk like that. You sound like the Ohkrana whipping up anti-Semitism, except your scapegoat is different. ”
Now, there is a huge difference between the terms “free run in USA” and “free run OFF USA”. The first clearly states that moslems were left free in the USA, while the second is the conspipracy theory.
Are you ready to apologize for misquoting me? Moreover, please explain how did this happen? Was it sloppy reading? Lastly – your misreading of my comment resulted in you accusing me of being a bigot. Ca nyou promise that next time you will read me carefully (at least twice) before commenting – and you will be read me at least 4 times before you conclude that I am a bigot?
Now, there is a huge difference between the terms “free run in USA” and “free run OFF USA”. The first clearly states that moslems were left free in the USA, while the second is the conspipracy theory.
That’s a fair statement. You could do all of us a huge favor by recognizing possibly ambiguous statements and expanding on them when you first post them. “What I mean by that” is an excellent introductory phrase, and should the reader still misunderstand you, you are off the hook.
What’s ambigious in the term “free run in USA”? Should my posts explain every little phrase of mine, os even the dimmest bulbs could not misinterpret me?
Should my posts explain every little phrase of mine, os even the dimmest bulbs could not misinterpret me?
Maybe. It depends on how well you trust the remaining context of your post to provide that clarification, or trust that readers will accurately extend the context of your previous posts to the one in which you delight in a quick turn of phrase (something I like to do, and which gets me into trouble as well).
Here’s a very simplisitic example.
Our Angelique starts a post about her horse (something she does occasionally). In one of the first responses to it, I post how much I like horses and go on to chat with her about some of the things she said. The thread grows, gets to a second page, and at the end I reader who has not read the rest of my posts sees me write something like this:
“Those horses should be put to pasture or euthanized!”
The reader immediately assumes I hate horses (and even people who own and care for them). The reader could not be more wrong. I might spend the next 10 posts trying to get that reader to read the rest of the thread.
I didn’t misquote you, I characterized what you said. You defined a demographic portion of the American citizenry by their religious faith, and then stated they had gotten “a free run.” That is not how American law works, and while we have had a bumpy time absorbing immigrants who arrived with such thinking deeply ingrained by experience in their respective homelands, in the long run, it is not how American culture works. It is not different than characterizing people of the Jewish faith as “others” and discussing what “their” rights and place in the nation should be, whether with benevolence or with bigotry. You didn’t stoop to the level of bigotry, and I didn’t call you a bigot. You COULD take off from what you have said as a foundation for bigotry, but that’s only one way you could go with it.
That honesty thing is not working out for you, right?
“I didn’t misquote you, I characterized what you said.”
In order to characterize me as a “Russian emigre with mixed Soviet and Czarist world views” who sounds like “Ohkrana whipping up anti-Semitism, except your scapegoat is different” you were forced to misquote me “Moslems haven’t had a free run of the USA.” Of course, I did not say “free run OF USA” – it was “free run in USA”. Two very different statements.
“You defined a demographic portion of the American citizenry by their religious faith, and then stated they had gotten “a free run.” That is not how American law works,”
Firstly, your statement is completely weird. I was making a factual statement. Are you saying that it’s illegal to investigate how US laws were applied to people of different faiths? If not, then how exactly is my statement goes against the workings of the US laws?
“and while we have had a bumpy time absorbing immigrants who arrived with such thinking deeply ingrained by experience in their respective homelands, in the long run, it is not how American culture works.”
It’s not in the American culture to examine how American laws and customs were affecting people from different religious groups? Isn’t it above your pay grade to make such generalities?
“t is not different than characterizing people of the Jewish faith as “others” and discussing what “their” rights and place in the nation should be, whether with benevolence or with bigotry.”
To start with, Jews are different from Christians different from Moslems different from Mormons different from Hindus. They are different because they say that they believe different religions. Moreover, I commented on how Moslems WERE treated – not how they SHOULD be treated. Again, you mischaracterized what I said. Why do you need to do this?
“You didn’t stoop to the level of bigotry, and I didn’t call you a bigot.”
You said that I was a “Russian emigre with mixed Soviet and Czarist world views” who sounds like “Ohkrana whipping up anti-Semitism, except your scapegoat is different”. And this solely because I said Moslems were not discrminated in US!
“You COULD take off from what you have said as a foundation for bigotry, but that’s only one way you could go with it.”
A person whipping up anti-moslem feelings and making moslems into scapegoats in same way that Okhrana attacked the Jews is not a bigot?
And, according to Forbes’ Claudia Rosett, it may be a victory we have won none too soon: If We Don’t Build It, They Will Kill You?.
Curiously, Rosett’s and Rauf’s observations also seem to parallel those of President Obama, Petraeus and others concerning the consequences to the safety of our soldiers and other Americans if the Jones Quran burning proceeds.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Claudia Rosett is a moron — that’s not an insult, just a statement of fact. There are at least two different levels on which this war of ideas must be fought. One is, dealing with whatever “leadership,” often self-appointed, often at the point of a gun, is effectively in place in territory we have to concern ourselves with. The other is the loyalty of the much larger civilian populations in the various cultures and political entities that this “leadership” holds sway over or among.
When someone holds effective power, another party with overlapping interests or vulnerabilities can act to overthrow an inconvenient person or party, can cut cynical deals with them because they are there, can try to isolate them, can denounce them from afar and hope someone else closer to the game will depose them, or can fawn and placate them, but if in power, they cannot be ignored.
On the other hand, just because a vicious dictator is “our son of a bitch” doesn’t mean we need to stand by them a minute longer than serves our interest, and, just because we are unable to depose an ass who stands in our way, or cannot rally public opinion to pay the price necessary to do so, doesn’t mean we are committed to them. On the other hand, if we need them, for now, our government will speak nicely to them, whatever the bloggers choose to say.
Meantime, there are a billion people scattered among dozens of cultures whose thoughts are in the short term irrelevant to putting armies in motion, or not, but who will, or will not, be amenable to mobilization, this way, or that way. The fact that Cordoba House can even be built in America “does not compute” for people whose own rulers would never allow such freedom, which is a net positive for us. To turn around and STOP building it would send the opposite message: “Oh, America really does hate Muslims and really is just like our government, only in reverse.
For God’s sake, read Sun Tzu on the Art of War before spouting pious drivel like this.
Of course, a different and rather more plausible explanation is – when the Cordoba hamasque is built, the terrorists around the globe will tell the moslems – look American is afraid of moslems. We can kill Christians and Jews wherever we want, we prohibit them from building in the moslem land – and they are trembling of our power and they let us build our mosques anywhere we want. If even Americans are afraid of us – Allah is surely on our side.
And who told you that moslems in moslem countries will view America as tolerant and nice – versus viewing it as weak and submissive?
There has been nothing in the Muslim press I have seen, granted I just survey a few sources, that supports this. There is a lot of grumbling about AQ leaders hiding in caves while everyone else gets killed. They have also noted that we occupy more Muslim land than ever. They most assuredly know that we are not afraid of them. While stationed in Saudi Arabia, one universal trait I observed was the respect the Saudis felt for our military.
Steve
Yes, but Joseph Stalin would have instantly interpreted such a gesture as a sign of weakness, therefore a highly opinionated Russian emigre would naturally assume that any population anywhere in the world would do the same.
Stalin probably doubled the number of Red Army casualties in World War II by meddling in military decisions with consistently poor judgement. He probably misjudged half the sincere gestures offered to the Soviet Union as well.
H-A will probably scream “bigotry,” but I simply see a consistent pattern of thought which reflects
(a) European thinking in general, as distinct from American thinking. European liberals and social-democrats make similar errors when discussing American events and jurisprudence.
(b) Specifically Russian thinking, influenced by the undoubted intellectual and emotional scars of the later decades of the attempt at socialism, which can easily distort understanding of what has grown up here since the revolution of 1776.
Its not a personal failing, but there are times when our good friend should take more time to learn about how this country is put together, instead of considering it a bully pulpit for ideas and perspectives decidedly foreign to our development.
This too is strange. I was discussing the response by moslem terrorists – I’ve even specifically said “the terrorists around the globe will tell the moslems – look American is afraid of moslems.” How did you deduce from this tht I don’t understand America is difficult to understand. Can you clarify this?
When people say “this action will be interpreted as a sign of weakness” it reflects the mind of the speaker, and the speaker’s own assumptions and life experiences, as much as it reflects the reality of the people who are being characterized. In this instance, YOUR thinking is, some OTHER people will interpret the completion of Cordoba House as a sign of weakness, as a sign that America is too weak and spineless to PREVENT the righteous Muslim jihad from building a center of power in the very bowels of our commerce, in one of our greatest cities.
How human beings of the Muslim persuasion will actually think about this in their OWN minds varies considerably. Osama bin Laden will find it difficult to say “America is at war with Islam” when Cordoba House can be, and is, completed, with the support of the Mayor of New York (Rudy Giuliani’s annointed successor, no less). Some of his staff MAY try to run the line in certain areas “see how weak America is?” That would be a Goebbels move, but it might be tried. Will it play on the street? To some, no doubt. But probably not to the majority. Its hard to suggest at this point in time that this is weakness. It looks far more like friendship, on the part of the same country that has an army on the ground in Afghanistan, which arrived with a Muslim army as its allies (the Northern Alliance) and is supporting a (rather corrupt and unworthy) Muslim government in Kabul, against a Muslim terrorist army driven from power some years ago.
Claudia Rosett is a moron — that’s not an insult, just a statement of fact.
My good Siarlys,
If so, aren’t you being a bit gratuitously cruel in piling so savagely onto the pathetic attempts of someone of such limited intelligence and accomplishment? Surely even morons have feelings, too.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Really.
Besides, I had always thought it was common knowledge, per Jilted John, that Gordon is a moron (“he’s more of a man than you’ll ever be”).
Thing you got to realize ’bout Our Man Jenkins, I’ve noticed, is that any writer in skirts with the bad form not to parrot his settled prejudices on any number among his hottest of hot-button issues becomes irresistibly Kryptonite to his Supey, red cape to his Toro, “Niagara Falls” to his return-of-the-repressed vaudevillian, “Jack Dempsey” to his punch-drunk prizefighter, “mattress” to his Graham Chapman bed salesman, &c. – he turns a man possessed unto projectile maledictions that are each of them majestic forces of nature capable of raising the mightiest of waves in every cup of Lipton from Wasilla to Key West. Cf., locus classicus, “CAITLIN FLANAGAN“, after auto-cuing the requisite Bernard Herrmann shriek-trills from Psycho.
Other than with Chicks Wot Know Not Their Place With Bloody Gobs Shut Until They Turn Stout Jenkinsites, he’s the halest of hail-fellows-well-met, the booniest of boon companions on all occasions, the foxiest of foxhole comrades when the going gets tough and sodas are threatened with discriminatory tax.
Aww, and you just said something nice about me a few days ago. I’m crushed.
If Claudia had expressed her thoughts in casual conversation with personal friends, I would never have thought to respond caustically to her attempted discourse. Indeed, I would have been unaware of it.
When she offers it to the word as analysis worthy of consideration, then is offered in turn on the recommendation of yet another, the hollowness of her reasoning and her loose grasp of the most elementary facts becomes fair game.
I simply think it a bit of hyperbole to declare the construction or prevention for that matter, of the Cordova house/Park51 as a victory for anything but the Iman who wants to build it, or conversely, the group who wants to stop it.
There are several Muslim places of worship in the area right now and no one is seeking to uproot them, so this isn’t a victory for religious freedom either, or for the rights of Muslims to freely associate or whatever.
If the Iman were really interested in promoting friendly relations between the religions he would move it, plain and simple. There is no reason that it MUST be built on that spot and no other. He could easily make his point about the lack of need to move, his rights to build in that area by declaring such, and adding his willingness to move to promote peace.
Such a move would not be a defeat, but conversely, prove that those who were fighting against him had no real reason to do so (unless the subsequent cultural house proved in fact, to be a place promoting hate.)
No one is in fact victorious here.
I disagree with your conclusion, or I probably wouldn’t have written the original post, but there are certainly facts and perspective here that must be carefully considered. The storm of controversy itself is indeed causing damage that nobody could consider a “victory.”
I would consider it a defeat for the First Amendment if a chorus of loud complaints — particularly such irrational objections as we’ve seen raised so far — resulted in anyone having to move. There is no reason it MUST be built on that spot. The fact that there are Muslim places of worship in the area, and that nobody is launching a campaign to close down all Muslim places of worship in the U.S., or in NYC, or in Manhattan, or within a defined radius of the WTC site, shows that we are far from sinking to the degraded level of a Krystalnacht. However, to remain firm, and calm, and proceed with the original plan, remains in my view a victory for the best principles of our Constitution.
I understand what you are saying but I think that is an emotional, not logical. I CAN understand the feeling, and if the statement had been shut down all the Mosques in the area and never let a Muslim pray, I would have agreed with you. Moreover, if some law were proposed making it impossible legally to build a Mosque (and only a Mosque) in the area, I would agree with you.
But this was a request of the a significant segment of the 9/11 families; those who’s loved ones died horrifically.
Moving the building outside the area which was damaged, where body parts were found, where debris was found would not have undermined anything.
No controversy would have ensued if the Iman had declared that he would respect the wishes of the family, because after all his mission was one of peace; his statement could have been based on the idea that the right to build there was his, as well as the right to move to another area in order to maintain peace and build bridges with people of other religions. This would, if anything, have brought him accolades.
Instead it became a battle, and it became a matter of “I win you lose” which in this case only further underlined the contention of the opponents that this was in fact a building of victory to the terrorists.
He could have stepped away from the whole thing and gained a great deal by determining he wasn’t in this to fight.
I’m not saying always give in; that is a ludicrous position to take. But in this case, fighting only inflames, and destroys at least one of the purposes of building the structure in the first place.
I mean an emotional not logical response…sorry for my lack of clarity. Any other mistakes too bad, I should have reread before posting…but I’m too lazy half the time!
Lawrence Wright in The New Yorker:
In the dispute over Park51, the role of the radical imams has been taken by bloggers and right-wing commentators. In this parable, Pamela Geller, who writes a blog called Atlas Shrugs and runs a group called Stop Islamization of America, plays the part of Ahmed Abu Laban. Geller has already contributed to the phony claim that President Obama is a Muslim (which twenty per cent of the American public now believe is true), by promoting a theory that he is the bastard son of Malcolm X. Because of Park51’s location, Geller compares the community center (or the “9/11 Monster Mosque,” as she terms it) to Al Aqsa, the ancient mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem—a flash point for Jewish extremists in Israel.
Geller framed the argument for the New York Post, which added the false information that Park51 was going to open on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Deliberate misrepresentations of Imam Abdul Rauf as a supporter of terror further distorted the story, as it moved on to the Fox News commentariat and from there to political figures, such as Newt Gingrich, who compared Abdul Rauf and his supporters to Nazis desecrating the Holocaust Memorial Museum by their presence. These strident falsehoods have undoubtedly influenced the two-thirds of Americans who now oppose Park51. The cynicism of this rhetorical journey can be traced in the remarks of Laura Ingraham, who interviewed Daisy Khan, Abdul Rauf’s wife and partner in the project, in December. “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it,” Ingraham told Khan then. “I like what you’re trying to do.” Ingraham has since been brought into line. “I say the terrorists have won with the way this has gone down,” she said last month, on “Good Morning America.” “Six hundred feet from where thousands of our fellow-Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam, and we’re supposed to be considered intolerant if we’re not cheering this?”
Culture wars are currently being waged against Muslim Americans across the country. In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where Muslims have been worshipping for thirty years, a construction vehicle was burned at the site of a new Islamic center. Pat Robertson, the fundamentalist Christian leader, warned his followers on the “700 Club” that, if the center brings “thousands and thousands” of Muslims into the area, “the next thing you know, they’re going to be taking over the city council. They’re going to have an ordinance that calls for public prayer five times a day.” As in the Park51 controversy, fearmongering and slander serve as the basis of an argument that cannot rely on facts to make its case.
Rick Hertzberg nails it – I’m just surprised others haven’t thought of it sooner:
Much of the controversy over Cordoba House has focussed on its location. Critics rage that it’s a mere two blocks from the 9/11 site—way too close. Defenders counter that it’s two whole blocks from the 9/11 site—by lower Manhattan standards, real far. Critics say it should be put somewhere else, though they tend to be vague about where. Even some defenders have timidly wondered whether some other spot might be more “appropriate” in terms of the symbolism of it all.
Fortuitously, there exists one location that would be ideal for the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.” That location would be . . . Ground Zero. [More]
Excellent. Thank you for two wonderfully on-point and factually based contributions to this discussion.