Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
The great "Ground Zero mosque" hoax
Anyone paying attention the last couple of weeks has heard multiple reports about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It's been labeled a "victory mosque", described as towering over the memorial to the victims of 9/11, and as being the pet project of a terrorist-sympathizing, Muslim imam. All of this would be cause for Americans to get upset, and no surprise, polls show we are.
But what if what we're being told are gross distortions mixed with bold faced lies?
Three simple fact checks help put the flap in context:
1) There is no "Ground Zero" mosque
If you take a minute to Google map the address of the supposed "ground zero" mosque, 45-47 Park Place, you'll find the proposed site is on a small city street buried in the middle of the block. It is separated by two full city blocks of towering buildings from the World Trade Center site. While the entire lower Manhattan might be considered "Ground Zero", the site of the mosque is separated visually and physically from the World Trade Center site. No one visiting the World Trade Center site will see it - unless they take a wrong turn on the way.
2) There is no "Victory" Mosque
The stated goal behind building the Muslim center in lower Manhattan is to recapture the spirit of mutual respect between Judaism, Christianity and Islam that existed in Cordoba, Spain, from 700 - 1200 AD. While Europe was trapped in the Dark Ages, marked by bloody religious repression, Cordoba thrived as a commercial and cultural center with what was, for the time, a high level of religious freedom. For example, in the 10th Century, Cordoba became the intellectual capital for Jews worldwide. The stated point of the project is creating a world where Jews, Christians and Muslims connect again in a way that builds mutual understanding and respect. This is precisely the opposite goal of the 9/11 terrorists.
3) There is no Terror-Loving Imam Behind the Mosque
The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is reported to have good relations with the Jewish community and has strongly condemned terrorism. He is precisely the kind of Imam that violent Islamic radicals despise the most. He has been lambasted in some quarters in the US for stating that American support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Middle-east motivated the 9/11 terrorists. While the precise motivation of the terrorists may be subject for debate, his analysis can only dismissed blithely by those unfamiliar with the deplorable practices of American "allies" in Middle-east ranging from the Saudi regime to Egyptian government. But this misses the point; we don't have to agree with his analysis or the way he expressed himself to agree that in a free society, unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they have the same rights as anyone else to build and operate a house of worship.
Target the Saudi Government - Not Americans
Not only are the "facts" that have been widely reported gross distortions, but the arguments for banning the mosque are fatally flawed. Some have argued that America should not allow the mosque to be built until Saudi Arabia permits the building of churches. As someone on the forefront of pressing for full religious freedom in all nations - including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan - for almost a decade, I strongly support the view that Saudi Arabia must abide by its international commitment and permit people not only to build the houses of worship they choose, but to speak freely about their religious convictions and to change their faith should they so choose. But this misses a key point. If we want this to happen, we should target the Saudi regime, not Americans like Imam Rauf.
Specifically, the politicians currently railing against Imam Rauf, should rather use their influence and power to place conditions on the vast economic and security cooperation between the US and Saudi Arabia. The conditions should require the Saudis to end their egregious human rights violations - and most specifically, their abuse of religious minorities including Christians and Shia Muslims.
Don't Give the Government Power to Ban our Houses of Worship
But there is a second disconnect. Americans have the right to build our houses of worship wherever we choose, as long as we lawfully purchase the land and build to code. Indeed, in 1998 the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was passed to ensure this right is robustly protected. Do we really want to give the government the right to pick and choose which religions get to build where? Do we want Evangelicals banned from building new churches in neighborhoods where they are an unpopular minority? Do they want the majority to be able to decide where Mormon churches can be built, or Synagogues or Adventist Churches, or Catholic? We are all minorities somewhere in this country. Do we want the majority to be able to squelch our plans to build a house of worship?
Where is the fear of intrusive government when we need it? Where is the dedication to the First Freedom found in our Constitution when it really matters?
Stop Damaging American Security
The so called "Ground Zero" controversy has no doubt effectively raised the profile and filled the coffers of the politicians and advocacy organizations misleading the public. Scapegoating unpopular minorities is generally an effective way to gain power and influence. But it comes at a price. In this case, the price is not only the integrity and credibility of the individuals and organizations that raced to jump on this bandwagon. It is deeper and it is broader. This controversy has done much to stoke hatred against American Muslims at home and in the process, has made peaceful Muslims around the world doubt our commitment to equality and liberty. In so doing, these attacks on American Muslims gives fuel to violent Islamic radicals.
The politicians and NGOs that have stoked the "ground zero" mosque hoax should be seen for what they are - security charlatans. Their intolerance weakens our society and our allies, while strengthening our enemies.
Conclusion
Even if we are willing to abandon our constitutional right to freedom of religion, even if we are willing empower the government to pick and choose between religions, even if our conscience doesn't bother us when inflammatory remarks are made about a vulnerable minority, even if all this is true, it is indisputable that America's self interest at home and abroad lays in supporting peaceful voices in the Muslim community, not employing distortions to whip up the fires of prejudice against them.
By
James Standish
|
August 13, 2010; 12:14 PM ET
| Category:
Islam
,
Religious Freedom
,
Religious Freedom/Haman Rights
Save & Share:
Previous: Iftar? Shabbat. |
Next: Ramadan, translated
Posted by: dseigler2 | August 27, 2010 6:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: dseigler2 | August 27, 2010 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't believe the majority who are against where the location of the Community Center/Mosque is to be built want the government to step in. What everyone I know would like . . . is for the Iman to make the decision on his own, as a sign of respect. Why is it that everyone starts screaming racism, and religious persecution, and that would be stamping all over their rights. Of course it would if those who don't want them to build want to use the courts or government to stop the building. That isn't the case.
Of course if they were to meet with the families of 911 and do something say something to them, to bring them on board, who would I be to argue. What I would like to see is for the people in charge to make the decision to build elsewhere on their own.
The link that follow is to a letter that pretty much sums up how I feel, and how I would imagine free thinking common sense people feel about the Muslims.
http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2001/200141/princegeorgescty/letters/75236-1.html
Thank you for the space. SKB
Posted by: snodinn | August 24, 2010 4:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If the imam were such a radical, why would the bush administration have sent him around the middle east with karen hughes? this whole thing is obviously a hoax due to one factor: it's the same old same old for mosques around the country. just read the comments on any issue regarding islam and you'll find out fast what americans feel... pure hatred with a racist slant. they don't like that word racism, but leave them alone with a box and a few moments and the racism starts to fly with a vengeance. i'm more ashamed than ever to live in this divided, vitriolic country.
Posted by: ltattoo | August 20, 2010 1:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Read it! I agree with Standish regarding government "banning" the location of houses of worship. That is a serious problem, and we do not wish to have any unfortunate precedent setting actions here.
What I do hope is that MY church in it'...s zeal to ensure that it's own rights are protected, would have the strength and moral fortitude to be Christ-like and willing to explore alternatives if needed out of concern for the hurts and hearts of others. Nothing less can be expected of a church where Christ is followed.
Apparently there is not so much concern for the feelings and sensitivities of others in this circumstance, which probably reveals certain things about this Imam and the group behind the project. It makes this Imam, seem more concerned about his own rights than the sensitivity of others. He claims that this particular structure is being built to bring the community together! Well, maybe later.
Proponents of this mosque would have us believe that the concerns of New Yorkers (and others) are merely prejudice against Islam. Admittedly, it is probably easier to go on with the plans having those particular blinders in place.
The Imam today has declined to meet with the governor of New York to explore alternative location options that the governor wanted to suggest. I can hear the applause already.
Perhaps all of us are opportunists in some way with this. There are many who wish to see this mosque built so that we can have a solid test case against government obstructing religious activity. There are probably others who are really wanting to see this thing moved to make a statement about terrorism. Not sure either motive is thoughtful.
New Yorkers are the victims of both groups, folks. Too bad!
The way New Yorkers feel is not a hoax. Standish in this piece focuses on (in his view) why those feelings are illegitimate.
Posted by: Tromboneguy | August 18, 2010 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As a member of clergy in the Adventist denomination (as is this article's author), I applaud this stance and commitment both to facts and to liberties for religious minorities.
Too often, nowadays, tribalism or sectarianism wins--we stand for those in our own clan, protect the interests of our own group.
When any religious organization, particularly a relatively small organization like the Seventh-day Adventist Church (itself on the religious margins somewhat), stands in solidarity with and defends the interests of another religious minority for that group's sake, it is a moral victory. Standing up for the "other," whether she be Muslim or gay or what have you, is commendable.
Posted by: jaredwrightus | August 18, 2010 5:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If Walt's comments were not so heartfelt and typical of what some think this would be almost funny. Imam Rauf is just what he identifies himself as. Mr. Standish's characterization of him are very close to the mark of how the Imam describes himself. The bottom line was so well put, "Even if we are willing to abandon our constitutional right to freedom of religion...." I guess we should adopt Walt's criteria for the constructing houses of worship in the United States, but if we do what would remain of the protections enshired in the Constitution?
Posted by: safiyah1111 | August 14, 2010 7:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Where are the crowds of Muslim's clamoring for a place to worship in Manhattan? This not about religion - it's about politics and the imam is not a man of peace. He claims that he denounces terrorism, be he doesn't consider the 9/11 attack an act of terrorism. Nor does he consider Al Queda, Hamas, or the Taliban terrorist organizations. Just Google his name to see that it is true. So ... it's a matter of terms. Islam has long put up mosques on or near the sites of great victories. That's why many in the know are calling it the so-called "Victory Mosque." Yes, anyone who says it's on ground zero or that it towers over the site doesn't know what they are talking about ... but neither do you. SO, how about if we ALL do our homework, lower the rhetoric and try to figure out why this particular site is so important to this imam and who he *really* is and then collectively make an informed decision if this is really a religious freedom issue or a national security issue. OK?
Posted by: Walt | August 14, 2010 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
http://groundzeromosquetheamericanway.blogspot.com/