This comment by Tim Sandefur pretty much captures my own view on the row over the “Mosque” at Ground Zero (or whatever this building is meant to be called).
In a separate forum, I got into quite a heated debate with folks over the fact that I said that while I defend the rights of owners of property to do what they want with said property, that does not mean I cannot be angry at the gesture of say, building a Islamic centre right next to the scene of an act of mass-murder by Islamic fanatics. My anger, apparently, has led to a few folk calling me out as a sort of bigot. Not so: I can see both sides of the argument here: the families of 9/11 victims feel, with cause, that the location of this building is a fairly crass and provocative gesture and are concerned at the possible choice of name – the Cordoba Center, and about the possible sources of funding for it.
On the other, let’s not forget – and this is a point that needs to be made regularly – that Muslims going about their lawful business were murdered on that terrible day, and their families might want to have that fact acknowledged in some sort of way by having a place to worship in a place that gives meaning to their grief.
But it would help things if those who are concerned about the motives of this centre would not automatically be dubbed as stooges of Sarah Palin or some sort of great right wing conspiracy. Part of the annoyance that folk feel about this is that there is a sense of injustice that while Islam benefits in the West from the broad protections of freedom of expression, that that tolerance is not reciprocated in the countries where this religion holds sway. Try building a Catholic church in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, after all, is a country that has funded dozens of mosques and other places, including those encouraging some of the most extreme forms of Islam. Saudi funding is akin to a government grant rather than a donation from a private individual.
It’s partly a problem of language, or of the classification schemas of the human brain which are externalised as language. The brain can only handle the world by classifying it in certain classes (things which are red, things which fly, things that may be eaten, etc) and the classification choices are the building blocks of thought. I think Wittgenstein was trying to get at this. I think, because like everybody else, I don’t actually understand Wittgenstein, but I can pretend to as well as any philosophy lecturer if forced into a corner.
So we have various classes like “war”, which is a state of aggression between one nation (a geographically bound population class) and another, and we have “crime” which is a transgression by some member or members of a population class against other members of that same class. So wars are external to collectives, and crimes are internal to collectives, and are handled in different ways. And we don’t really know how to deal with something which is neither. It is much like a European seeing a platypus for the first time, and saying, “well, is it a mammal or is it a reptile?” and trying to handle it either as class mammalia or class reptilia, and whichever they decide it it, it doesn’t quite fit. This is the fundamental problem of this other thing- terrorism. It isn’t a war, and it isn’t a crime. It’s a platypus.
So if it were a war, then all members of the enemy collective would be equally considered enemies, and may be aggressed against. Or, if it’s a crime, then it’s an individual thing without collective culpability. But it’s neither, or both.
Was 911 a muslim action, or was it an individual action? Or can we develop another class which accurately fits the facts, that is, it is a marsupial, and from that derive a judgment as to how to behave towards it? Until then, it seems to me, we will continue to flip back and forth between using civil and military language and methodologies. The arguments about appropriate behaviours and responses largely reduce to which inappropriate class the individuals arguing consider to be correct, much like professors fiercely divided into two camps regarding the mammalian or reptilian nature of the platypus.
Or try building one next to Cordoba Center? And if not a church, then at least a gay bar?
I suspect it is a deliberate provocation. Still, property rights trump other considerations, even at Ground Zero. As we often say here, you do not have the right not to be offended. And the argument that ‘you couldn’t do the opposite in Mecca’ isn’t terribly convincing – the obvious riposte being well, yeah, that’s exactly why they suck teh balls (literally as well as figuratively, if those CIA reports of Taliban pederasty are accurate) and we’re awesome.
Of course, it would be better if they took stock of the public mood over the issue. Nevertheless, if they go ahead with this development, I really like the idea of building several extremely gaudy stripclubs, gay clubs and perhaps a few obscure fetish joints at 50 and 52 Park Place. Oh, and we’ll need bars. Many, many bars.
And we need to find out who makes America’s best bacon and pork sausages, and get them to open a shop close by, too.
Excellent! The irresistible scent of smoking bacon haunches will be the delight of passersby 24 hours a day.
Some of that hickory goodness might waft into the mosque during Friday prayers. Half their luck.
I agree. This building should be allowed. If built, it will be the worst sort of Islamic triumphalism – a deliberate insult. But banning it is not the way to defeat Islam. The good news is that this ruckus will concentrate the minds of huge numbers of people on the question of what is the way to defeat Islam.
What a vile religion.
When the Cordoba Center is built, it will start to help to replace the awful spiritual bankruptcy in America. That lack is evident in the generally held belief that “property rights trump other considerations”. Of course they do, for now. Where capitalism is God, there is blasphemy.
Well now. If this is extended to its logical conclusion, what you have is something not too far from what the Wahhabis dream of. Oh, the irony.
NJ Dahwood, our occasional visitor who, if memory serves from a comment thread a few months ago, has endorsed – or signally failed to condemn – the murder of infidels (as he or she defines them), on account of the ravings of a 7th Century military commander.
What Brian said.
Whoops! I assumed he was a Christian fundamentalist who was salivating over the prospect of a backlash caused by the construction of this mosque. My mistake.
Carry on, Mr Dawood.
What do property rights have to do with capatilislm?
Property rights are about protecting a persons freedom and liberty on their own land.
How many Muslims were actually killed on 9-11 in the terrorist attacks? I mean, apart from the terrorists themselves?
WHO, what physical human beings will actually do the tasks necessary to implementing the creation of this “concept?”
From what strata of society will the workers be drawn –
the good, rugged Roman Catholics, cousins of first responders?
There may well yet arise, through threat of boycotts, the inability to get the necessary labor and equipment deployed. “You do this job and you will never work in this town again!”
Who will supply the materials, transport them, etc. ?
There are many other “rights” which will offset the “rights” asserted here.
If all involved will stand back enough to observe, instead of project, they will see these circumstances as issues of obligations, not claims to “rights.” “Rights” of some, after all, are dependent upon the obligations of others not to intervene. But, when those “rights”are dependent on the free choices of others to act and cooperate or not, carrying no obligations to do so, they have the wrong designation.
There is no “right” to this “concept.”
As someone who has consistently been in favor of in-your-face attempts to offend Muslims (e.g., “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”), I can’t very well advocate any governmental effort (or any violent effort by other parties) to prevent the building of this in-your-face attempt to offend non-Muslim Americans. But to suggest that this center is not provocative, and that Americans should not see it as such, insults my intelligence. There is no right to NOT be offended, but we have every right to be offended, and to protest loudly to that effect.
Of course they have the right to build a mosque anywhere they wish, as long as they don’t mind being seen as insensitive and socially tone-deaf. I suspect that, if the mission of Cordoba House is actually reconciliation, the location will be changed; plainly reconciliation is not being promoted by this spat. As for myself, if objections by the locals to a structure are merest bigotry that can be safely discounted, I intend to found a Charles Martel School Of The Military Arts in Cairo.
fake, property rights are intimately involved with capitalism – a system in which the owners of capital get to decide how it is allocated, as to opposed to some central planning system. Of course there are different forms, and there are corporatist versions of capitalism, in which the owners of capital are often placed under severe controls, or where certain privileges are granted by states to specific interest groups, and so on.
Is that really the standard we should have for our government and our society? “What Would Saudi Do?”
Its more than a Kerfuffle and less than an existential crisis. No one seriously denies their right to build it, if they jump through all the planning and zoning rings that this dear dear city imposes on anyone who wants to build anything.
Its obviously a thumb in the eye of non muslims and of Americans in particular. Made much worse by the fact that nothing has arisen on the site of the World Trade Center, its still a big ugly hole and will remain so until the politicians and the lawyers have rung the last drops of value out of the arguments over what to build.
Yet by rubbing the wound raw the Mosque builders have revived memories of the attack and reminded Americans and especially New Yorkers why we are fighting the War on Terror and why calling it “Overseas Contingency Operations” is such an idiotic bit of linguistic buffoonery.
If you want to relegate the discussion within the parameters of property rights, then of course the free disposal of property should allow the Cordoba Community center to go ahead. Your touchiness is immaterial to the proper execution of the law.
The one ground that could be persuasively used to forbid the mosque/community center would be foreign policy/public safety and I don’t believe the present administration would take that step; hell, it doesn’t even have a name for the GWOT.
I am not convinced that the Cordoba project will become a memorial to the 9/11 terrorists, but the process of its beatification is outside of American control. I can see how half-educated and benighted madrass students could see the new mosque/community center as visible proof of the 9/11 ghazi attack’s success and the respect and adulation one receives for a job well done. It is certainly more glorious that OBL or Zawahiri cowering in some cave or shit-brick hovel in an undisclosed location.
Perhaps Iman Feisal is exactly who he says he is (moderate Sufi of undisclosed confession who hopes for peaceful reconciliation between the USA and the Umma, building bridges of dialogue yadda yadda) and if so, shine on you crazy diamond. But if the C. project attracts radical Sunnis and Shi’as and it will become an international problem and one that is largely self-inflicted.
A lot of thoughtful comments here. The consensus seems to be that the developers of this Center have every right to build it, and its opponents have every right to object, loudly and often, as well as to engage in various forms of “counter-offensive” (as it were!). Seems about right to me.
I think Gene is correct: notwithstanding any pious claims to the contrary, the true purpose of the developers is to be confrontational. Anyone who was truly interested in promoting inter-faith comity would acknowledge as genuine the objections of non-Muslims (even if not agreeing with them), and would be looking for another, less offensive, site. The fact that they’ve dug in their heels and are not even willing to discuss that tells you all you need to know about their real intentions.
Personally, I hope they go ahead and build it. The Cordoba Center will serve a variety of useful purposes, just not the ones its supporters claim. It will, of course, become a mecca (sic!) for Islamic extremists in the western hemisphere, and so will (or certainly should, anyway) be under very close scrutiny by all western intelligence agencies. It’s easier to keep an eye on the bad guys if they all congregate in one place. The words of Imam Rauf will be under continual, close scrutiny; he will no longer be able to fly under the radar, and when he reverts to form he will be called on it. He will become the face of Islam in the US. I hope he’s ready; the scrutiny will be intense.
And the Center will serve as a lightning rod for US opposition to Islamic fundamentalism, focusing and concentrating it on a specific location. I imagine that protests outside its doors will be a regular occurrence, if not more-or-less continuous. Its presence may even serve to help awaken the general public to the dangers of Wahabbi-ism and Islamic radicalism, which so far haven’t become serious public issues here. This will become particularly evident when the (inevitable) complaints start being made about its neighbors, especially if those include such things as churches of other faiths, bars, strip clubs, restaurants and street vendors serving pork, etc. Having a discrete, identifiable enemy is a good thing.
I’d like to make one observation concerning Johnathan’s point about the “Muslims going about their lawful business [who] were murdered on that terrible day”. Undoubtedly there were some, who were every bit as innocent as the other victims in the Twin Towers. But from the terrorists’ point of view they were merely collateral damage; everyone else was a target. There is a substantial difference, and while I am not unsympathetic to their families’ grief I am a whole lot less solicitious of it than that of the real victims. If they need a place of worship in which to give their grief “meaning”, find somewhere else. That search for “meaning” shouldn’t depend upon causing additional pain to others, because it that’s what it takes they can just do without.
JP is right. I would say his point about trying to build a Catholic Church in Shoddy Absurdia hits the nail on the head. Yes, we are narked that our freedoms are used against us by folks that would deny me the option of opening a tiitty bar in Mecca or a Catholic chum of mine of preaching the Gospels in Riyadh. Yes, we in The West are fucked off with the whole antic. Yet we cannot descend to their levels. For that would be defeat as well.
I don’t buy that, NickM. “Descend to their levels”? By treating them exactly as they treat us and, indeed, as they should logically expect to be treated in return? Isn’t that some variant on the Golden Rule?
Subjecting ourselves to the loss of freedoms in the name of elusive and unattainable “security” is, indeed, defeat. Treating our opponents in a reciprocal fashion is anything but.
Context is everything in this case. If you were to ask me if it is in general a good idea to deliberately do something to offend Muslim sensibilities, I might very likely say yes, given our current war footing. But I am not about to go ripping off the veils of the women who walk around my neighborhood, as they have offered no offense to me personally.
Those who argue for the mosque on the basis of property rights have a point, but, should then shut their cake holes if, say, Trey and Matt of South Park fame were to purchase property nearby and erect a 10 story high animated billboard depicting Uncle Sam buggering Mohammad on a continuous loop. While it is an amusing thought, I think it is a question of national pride, and we are indeed ‘better than that.’
Here is a question I would like to see answered then, if the builders of this monument of reconciliation and understanding are truly intent on honoring our mutual cultures: do you intend to let anyone to come celebrate diversity in your mosque, even if they are Christian, Jewish, or female?
How others treat us is an irrelevance in this case, as it is in most cases. We are not responsible for them or their actions. We are, however, responsible for “our” reaction to their actions.
Yes, anyone who cares enough to object to the mosque is entirely free to form his or her opinions. But likewise I am free to form my opinion of those who object. The words “idiot” and “authoritarian” come to mind…
Can anyone explain precisely what “freedoms” “we” are giving up if the mosque goes ahead as planned?
I’m noticing that some of the folks that were extremely loud and strident while accusing anyone opposing the mosque, in concept, as being ignorant, racist, bigotted, etc etc, plus claiming that such folks wanted to trample the law to stop it, despite the vast majority of opposition opinion granting that there was no legal problem here, are strangely silent on the subject of the International Muslim reaction to the idea. Which, from what I’ve seen published in English, pretty well mirrors the Western criticism that it’s a galactically stupid and counterproductive idea – with Muslim commenters from Canada going so far as to deem it ‘fitna’, and one Imam, who actually supports violent Jihad, btw, finding the idea so dumb he’s saying that it must be a “Zionist Plot”.
But of course, what do they know. Obviously just a bunch of bitter, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, ignorant of Islam clingers. Must be. No other reason anyone should be opposed to the idea. None whatsoever.
Oh, and if they keep it up, the Islamic discussion may make the Anglospheric discussion look like a disagreement over place settings, cause by some of what I’ve seen, it almost looks like they’ve crossed well into “fightin words” territory.
Philip, when I spoke about giving up “freedoms” I wasn’t referring to this mosque, but rather speaking to a larger issue raised by NickM. I don’t think I expressed myself well, so I’ll try again. First, though, to be perfectly clear I think the developers of this mosque have every legal right to build it, and it in no way impinges on any of our freedoms. I have a fairly lengthy post on this point languishing in smitebot purgatory; perhaps we’ll all get to see it sometime.
I was actually addressing NickM’s generalized comment (at least, as I understood it) that to respond to the absence of reciprocal western-style freedoms in Muslim nations by denying them those freedoms here would be “descending to their level” and would be somehow tantamount to “defeat”. As I said, I disagree. But the point I was trying to make was that when we meekly submit to oppressive travel restrictions, electronic airport strip-searches, warrantless wiretaps, secret (and unchallengable) demands for such things as phone and library records, etc., all in the name of supposed “security”, it is then that we have truly been defeated. How we treat foreigners is far less telling than how we treat our own citizens.
until I see on the front page (of the government run media du jour and not some backwater press) sincere and official muslim denunciations of what happened that day, I am going to continue to object to it regardless of how many muslims were murdered that day by their own brethren.
what makes the muslims special that THEY need to have or should be allowed a special place to grieve the murders of muslims? if muslims really cared about what happened that day they would want some kind of ecumenical place of worship. but no…they have to have special treatment because the rest of us are dogs and unclean. whatever.
This project at this site would be appropriate if the mosque was designated the “Mosque of Atonement”. If it included a memorial gallery depicting the victims of 9/11. If there was an on-site facility for Moslems to donate money for the families of the victims. If it included a Greek Orthodox church to replace the one destroyed on 9/11.
And so on.
But that’s not what it is.
Furthermore, as Andy McCarthy has documented, Imam Rauf has extensive connections to the Moslem Brotherhood and other radical Islamic groups.
I will further point out that while Saudi Arabia is the gold standard of Moslem intolerance, there are other Moslem countries where non-Moslems are suppressed and many more where kuffar are barely tolerated and violence against them is winked at by the authorities. Try building a Christian church in Pakistan, or Turkey, or Yemen, or Indonesia, or Iran.
Moslems are very aggressive in demanding accomodations from others, and very slow in providing similar accommodations.
If it is intended to be offensive, then would not the most effective reaction be to ignore it? Acting hugely offended rewards the intention.
If it is not, then paying no attention and letting it get on with its community centring (whatever that is), would be the civil thing to to.
Either way the best thing to do is nothing, even before you discount the rights of the builders.
That should be, “even if you discount the rights of the builders.”
Laird,
Thank for the clarification. Back to your original statements, I half-agree.
Subjecting ourselves to the loss of freedoms in the name of elusive and unattainable “security” is, indeed, defeat.
That’s the half I agree with. We impose on ourselves the restrictions on liberty they would, we presume, impose on us.
The bit I disagree with is this:
By treating them exactly as they treat us and, indeed, as they should logically expect to be treated in return? Isn’t that some variant on the Golden Rule?
No. The Victorians instructed their children to “do as you would be done by”, not “do as you are done by”.
We’re not responsible for how others choose to regard us or to treat us. We are, however, held to account for how we treat others.
Responding in kind is always descending to the level of the instigator. Sometimes it is a legitimate response, that’s true, but the justification has to be carefully judged. We all know the perpetually aggrieved types who can justify any behaviour as a response to previous slights, real or perceived.
As Jefferson or Madison or someone said, if it doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket it ain’t my problem. And since the mosque does neither of those things, it is an irrelevance. Delicate sensibilities and injured sentiments trifles are not sufficient to cause me to deprive others of their property rights.
No, not at all. Such an approach is reasonable when the offense in immaterial (someone tells you are a jerk, you know you are not, you don’t care about the person etc.) This in far from being the case here. Another important point is that the Muslims in question are not the only offending party here – the other important party being the various politicians at various levels of importance, the President of the United States not being the least among them.
Also, what Philip Scott Thomas said – which is nonetheless not at all to say that we should not counteract the offensive action. What it does mean is that we should counteract our way, not theirs.
John Stewart nails Glenn Beck over comments made by the the mosques imam:
(Link)
“The Victorians instructed their children to ‘do as you would be done by’, not ‘do as you are done by’.”
Perhaps, Philip, but neither is exactly what I was suggesting. Rather, it was “do unto others as they expect to be done unto.” (OK, the grammar there was poor, but you get the idea.) Meeting the other party’s expectations would seem to be a higher standard than merely meeting one’s own. And someone who treats you like crap, and believes that it is his right (even his obligation) to do so, can hardly have an expectation of receiving anything other than the same treatment in return. I’m granting them the courtesy of assuming their rationality. What could be more noble?
“We’re not responsible for how others choose to regard us or to treat us. We are, however, held to account for how we treat others.”
“Held to account” by whom? Who but a hypocrite could condemn reciprocal treatment? I acknowledge no one else’s right to judge me on that score. You are certainly welcome to hold yourself to a higher standard than your adversaries, but I feel no such need. (If that makes you a better person than me, so be it.)
Actually there is another Victorian mantra:-
“As ye have done to others so shall it be done to you.”
So I think we should wait for the building of the first synagogue in Mecca or the re-consecration of Agia Sophia in Constantinople before granting planning permission for this mosqe in Walmart rein New York.
Ian B. – Wittengenstein is not going to much help on this (or anything else).
When Wittengenstein visited Oxford in the 1940’s, Harold Prichard dragged himself from his death bed to ask L.W. some civil questions – of course the man could not give proper replies, as to do so would have exposed the “great philosopher” Wittengenstein as a charlaton.
Almost needless to say Prichard got no thanks for his effort (just as Joad got no thanks for exposing Logical Positivism for the nonsense it is). Wittengenstein was a “great man” and if his ideas did not seem to make any sense that was only because we were too stupid to understand his words.
As for the mosque – everyone (including Palin and Gingrich) accepts the Muslims have a legal right to build it.
Governor Palin stood against a State wide building code in Alaska (which Comrade Barack Obama demanded as part of the price of the “Stimulus” slush fund) so she understands perfectly well that “private ownership” is an empty concept it if is strangled by government regulations.
However, it also obvious that this mosque is intended as slap in the face – just as the vast Saudi funded mosque in Rome (within sight of the Vatican) is intended as a slap in the face.
The Muslims are making their intentions plain – they seek not just to hold the lands they have, but also (as their sacred writings demand) to seek conquests.
Europe, North America – there is no limit to their desires.
Fair enough – and they should be opposed, calmly but firmly.
For example, people should seek to covert Muslims – by pointing out the evil life of Muhammed and the false nature of his teachings.
However, the “liberal” elite in the West do not wish to oppose the advance of Islam – on the contrary they see Islam as an ally in the struggle to destroy the West (and they are correct – although their thinking does not really extend to what happens AFTER they have destroyed the West).
The “treason of the intellectuals” – or rather the elite that control the universities (including the teacher training colleges) and the “mainstream” media, is the key to understanding the decline of the West.
Try building a Catholic church in Saudi Arabia.Try building a Catholic church in Kosovo.
A Catholic church in Kosova? Well how about a Catholic cathedral?
A Catholic church in Kosova? Well how about a Catholic cathedral?
My reply was supposed to be a link to the cathedral’s wikipedia page–must’ve been lost in the ether.
How about a Nazi cultural outreach center across the street from Auschwitz? After all, the goal of the progressive left is to “promote understanding”…
The Serbs are Orthodox (traditionally) not Roman Catholic.
However, it is difficult to have any sympathy with the Serbs as I remember them constantly going on about how the Albanians were outbreeding them – WHILST THEY HAD ONE OF HIGHEST ABORTION RATES IN EUROPE.
The words “perhaps the Albanians would not have become the majority in Kosovo if you had not killed so many of your own babies” spring to mind.
Rather than trying to mend their ways – the Serb fighters just tried to kill the civilians of other ethnic groups (in order to make up for the Serbian babies that had been killed over the years – killed by Serbs themselves).
Everyone commits crimes in war (that is the nature of war), but all sides do not commit the same level of crimes – and the Serb fighters killed a lot more civilians than their foes did in the various wars on the break up of the old Yugoslavia. It was not just their Red Star cap badges (from the old Communist army) that showed they were the “bad guys”.
At the moment the West is on it’s back foot. The attack of the Caliphate has well outwitted westerners, so well-educated in truth denial as a way of life.
The mosque will be a massive triumph for populist Islamism and carry the war several stages further so that the psychological environment (meta-context?) in which this discussion is taking place will have been forgotten.
If the al Dura event which sparked and set the mind-set for the 2nd Intafada from 2000 on, had been exposed as the hoax it is, back in 2000, the world, and the way we think, would be a very different environment today.
Nothing so passé as yesterday’s headlines?