Ground
Zero Mosque - Insult or Olive Branch?
Proposition: "The decision to locate a Muslim cultural
center two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan just may
be the most audacious affront yet in millennial cultural-religious
push and tug between the Christian World and the Muslim
World"
An unfortunate characterization, indeed. It suggests an
inevitable "War of the Worlds" scenario. But the
proposition may delight dualistic thinkers. It comforts
some to believe that "we are virtuous and going to
go to heaven" and "they are the evil tools of
the devil." Ugh! Why do we encumber ourselves with
ideologically bankrupt ideas like these? Let's take a step
back and consider the arguments.
The
arguments in favor of permitting the Muslim cultural center
to be built are: 1. The building is located on land that
is zoned by the city of New York City to permit such uses.
And the owners have the legal right, therefore, to move
forward with plans that the applicable zoning ordinances
allow. 2. Many Americans are not familiar with Muslim cultural
and religious practices, and so a cultural center could
build greater understanding. This might, in turn, lead to
greater tolerance, openness and a reduction in societal
tensions. 3. Law abiding activities typically conducted
in a cultural center and house of prayer are somewhat less
likely to result in harm to oneself or others than other
kinds of legal activities permitted by the relevant zoning
ordinances, such as operating a gun shop, stripper bar,
or liquor store.
Argument
#1 gives the owners the right to open a Muslim cultural
center or Mosque, and thus puts the burden of proof on those
who would try to stop them. Those opposed must show that
there is an overriding reason why that right should be prevented
from being exercised. In a free country, this is a significant
burden. A principle of the American system of government
and free enterprise is that property rights should not casually
be overridden.
Argument
#2 attempts to show that some social good might come from
this project. And argument #3 suggests that no more harm
will come from it than might otherwise come if other sorts
of legal activities were conducted at that location, e.g.
selling guns, booze or sexual entertainment.
It
would seem like a slam dunk "OK, what's the problem"
sort of decision. Even the Mayor of New York supports the
project.
But
there is another side. At times the strident protests to
the proposed project seem to reprise the drum beat of religious
xenophobia that was part of the US run up to the Iraq War:
"Here come those same fanatical Muslim terrorists who
attached us on 9/11. They're not Americans! Building a Mosque
so close to Ground Zero is just a slap in the face - an
insult to all the true Americans who died in the attacks
of that terrible day. And what if it's really a terrorist
front?"
Between
the fallacious appeals to emotion and the fallacious appeal
to ignorance, these arguments in opposition to the proposal
just might get enough people agitated to make the Manhattan
Mosque an election year wedge issue. But wedge issues separate
people by oversimplifying problems rather than solving them.
Wedge issues frustrate moderates who are striving for bipartisanship
approaches which solve problems and advance the common good.
Being
fair-minded, however, demands that we look for the kernel
of truth behind the fear mongering. No question whatsoever
about 9/11. It was a horrible crime, an act of war, a brutal
killing of thousands of innocent civilians. No doubt that
Americans of many kinds died in the attacks of that infamous
day: Jewish Americans, Christian Americans, African Americans,
Native Americans, White Americans, Latino Americans, Asian
Americans, Atheist Americans, Agnostic Americans and, yes,
Muslim Americans.
So
when the Manhattan Mosque proposal is interpreted as a "slap
in the face of all Americans" what might that mean?
If we were to assume that the 9/11 attacks were motivated
by a religious zeal and perspective shared by the majority
of Muslims, then perhaps the building of a Mosque so close
to Ground Zero could be interpreted as an intentional attempt
to rub salt into the wound on the American psyche. But we
cannot reasonably make that assumption. Radically militant
interpretations of the Muslim faith are held by only a small
minority of Muslims, in the same way that radically militant
interpretations of Christianity are held by only a small
percentage of Christians -- perhaps not the same percentage
for the one as for the other, but certainly not so large
in either case for those views to be seen as representative
of Muslimism or Christianity.
Muslim
religious fundamentalism may play a part in the leadership's
efforts to motivate young, uneducated, self-destructive
fanatics. But how much was it a part of the motivation of
the Al-Qaida leaders themselves? This commentator is just
skeptical enough about ideologies in general, and religious
ideologies in particular, to believe that culture, economics
and politics were the major drivers, not religion.
Another interpretation of the opposition perspective is
that for the city of New York to permit the Manhattan Mosque
would signal that the city did not fully appreciate the
heroic sacrifices of the first responders who themselves
became casualties of the 9/11 attacks. This is a more difficult
interpretation to evaluate. The sense that the victims and
their families are not being fully appreciated and respected
in this matter emerges not only from the specific comments
and actions of today's city officials and the media, but
from the interpretation which others put on those comments
and actions. A famous philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, once
cautioned that "whatever is received is taken according
to the manner and perspective of the person doing the receiving."
Short version: If you took offense, then you were offended,
regardless of what may have been intended. This does not
mean that you were correct in how you took things - you
may have taken offense when none was intended. But your
feelings are real and they must be acknowledged before we
can move forward.
So,
if people are feeling offended by the proposal or by how
city officials are responding to the proposal, then, at
a human level we need to acknowledge those feelings and
address them. Otherwise those negative feelings will fester
and diminish the chances of achieving the intended outcome,
which is greater mutual understanding.
Bottom
line: Should the group which wants to build the cultural
center / Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero be allowed to
exercise their legal right to do so? Yes. Should they and
the city officials dealing with this also acknowledge and
address the sense of alienation and renewed pain which this
might be causing to the friends and families of victims
of the 9/11 attacks? Yes. Are we to permit feelings of hurt
and being disrespected on the part of some citizens to trump
the rights of other citizens to exercise their freedoms
under the law? No.
Try
this thought experiment: What if this were the United
Nations seeking to build a UNESCO field office in Vietnam
very near the site of the Mei Li massacre? What if this
were the US Army seeking to build a school for Special Ops
anti-insurgency at Wounded Knee South Dakota? What if this
were a German Lutheran church seeking to build a cultural
center and house of prayer outside the gates at Auschwitz?
What if this were an Orthodox Jewish synagogue being proposed
to be built in Rome, across the street from St. Peters Basilica?
Assume that all relevant local ordinances are in place to
permit these organizations to undertake these projects.
Do analogous arguments apply, pro and con? What should be
decided in each case?
I
asked myself these questions because I was trying to figure
out if there were answers to questions like: How far away
from Ground Zero is "far enough" so that a Manhattan
Mosque project would not cause offense? Five blocks, a half
mile, three miles, what? And, how long ago is "far
enough" so that sufficient time would have passed to
assure that offense was not given? Ten years, two generations,
two millennia, what?
Peter
A. Facione
Address
comments to me at pfacione@measuredreasons.com,
or message me on facebook.
Click to go to the blog itself, "Ground
Zero Mosque - Insult or Olive Branch?"
Responses Received:
July
22 AF wrote: "Who authorized
the selling of the land? I think staking a claim to a
piece of land on the site where 3,000 people have died,
is a "slanted low" for the jihad. The jihad
could be on bended knee, hunched over in meditation, or
a squirrel lover, but my reply would be "No".
Manhattan's Ground Zero experience left the lingering
remains of smoke and death for days. Can Christians turn
away and forgive? Are you sure there isn't a space availability
option lurking ten blocks away?"
Dear
AF. You're making a number of mistaken assumptions.
Not all Muslims are jihadists. Muslim Americans were
also victims of the 9/11 attacks. Ten blocks further
out is not five times less of a problem. But, most importantly,
intolerance is not going to improve the situation for
anyone.
July
23 SS wrote: Definitely a subject
that stirs the emotions of all people, but it does show
the importance of looking at things with a critical thought.
I understand that our freedom of religion is protected
by our constitution. Which to me is probably the biggest
reason why living in our country is so great....I am free
to choose the religion which I choose to worship.
The
following is what I understand the building to be about....
The existing building at 45-47 Park Place in New York
City's Lower Manhattan district is the building causing
all the commotion these days. It is located a few blocks
from Ground Zero and dates back to the late 1850s. A Muslim
outreach group the Cordoba Initiative, has been using
it for Friday prayers since late last year. The space
has been open Monday through Friday between noon and 10
p.m., according to a source familiar with the project.
According to the Park 51 website, the facility “will
be dedicated to pluralism, service, arts and culture,
education and empowerment, appreciation for our city and
respect for our planet. Park51 will join New York to the
world, offering a welcoming community center with multiple
points of entry.”
According
to an outside consultant working directly with Park 51,
who spoke about the project on the condition of anonymity,
if built, Park 51 (a nonprofit facility) would cover 150,000
square feet and stand approximately 13 to 15 stories high.
The space would be divided into a prayer space for Muslims
and include meeting spaces, meditation rooms, a memorial
dedicated to 9/11, a spa, basketball court, swimming pool,
auditorium, and classrooms offering everything from digital
photography to language classes, all open to the public.
The entire facility would also be green and include a
garden.
Sounds
kinda, non threatening to me, and just maybe, people of
other religions might understand Muslims better and fear
them less. In line with your comments, Pete..... Until
9/11, the worst act of terrorism in our country was the
1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City
by Timothy McVeigh. Do you know he was Catholic. Certainly,
he was misguided with evil intent, but because he was
raised "Catholic", should all Catholic churches
be kept at a distance from the bombing site? If so how
far? Anyway, a great leading topic for critical thinking.
Dear
SS: Thank
you for the useful info you found in your Internet search.
July
23 WB Wrote: While an action
such as building a mosque is benign in and of itself,
additional communications and contact between peoples
of different cultures and/or beliefs can be a bridge to
better understanding and tolerance. However, there are
still many who will choose to maintain a dogmatic stance
in opposition, regardless of time, distance or logical
arguments to the contrary. As we have seen with some people
in the world, there is never enough time nor enough distance
to permit certain "others" the freedom to conduct
their activities in peace. Ours is a nation based on certain
principles and laws to enshrine and enforce those principles.
While employing reasonable temperance and concern for
the sensibilities of others is oftentimes desirable, how
does one incorporate the sensibilities of an unreasonable
opponent? I for one am willing to respect the rights and
beliefs of others, as long as there is a mutual respect
and tolerance being offered. When this mutual respect,
as evidenced by political positioning, breaks down, then
the recourse may best be to respectfully move forward
(offering a continuingly open hand of tolerance, love,
openness and counsel) according to prevailing rules and
regulations under the protection of the laws of society.
That is to say, allow the expression of opposition, hear
it, and move on.
Dear
WB: Not an unreasonable approach,
"open-handed tolerance within the prevailing rules
and law," mixed in with mutual respect whenever
possible.
July
24 KW wrote: Is this an audacious
affront or an audacious opportunity? The greatest challenge
facing the United States has always been to live up to
the high standards and ideals set forth in our constitution.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality, (ooops
we had to fight a war, do some genocide, add amendments
and we're still working to make it a reality today)…
The extremists who launched the attack on 9/11 made decisions
based on fear, hatred, a lack of belief in our system
of law, and a deep pessimism that caused them to decide
that this horrific act was a valid way to effect change.
Here (despite the ick factor that I admit made me cringe
at the location of this cultural center) we have an opportunity
to demonstrate our commitment to dialog, a willingness
to learn (and teach), and confidence that our core values
are strong. In many ways permitting a cultural center
(and hopefully a peace garden) may be the best way to
demonstrate that the values and thought processes that
cause death and destruction cannot succeed. Let's make
a decision that honors our losses, but looks forward to
working together to build a better understanding of who
and what we all are as Americans.
Dear
KW: I
think we're on the same page. Thanks.
July
27 NF wrote: Dear Dr.
Pete: Your
commentary seems to say quite a lot about how we behave
as humans. When this type of memorial is built to commemorate
a great tragedy or crime, we are often told that the memorial
is necessary to make sure that no one forgets the atrocity
that occurred. Usually the argument for building a monument
is that the monument is necessary so that the hate crime
will not be forgotten, because if it is forgotten it might
more easily happen again. This is an argument without
any hard evidence, but on its face it points to our ability
as humans to reconstruct the past to suit our current
needs. Given that we know cultural attitudes change over
time, maybe we need reminders of what happened, so I'm
not arguing against monuments. But it is telling that
events like Wounded Knee and now Manhattan 9-11 have a
timeless character even for those who have not visited
the monuments. I have never visited Wounded Knee, and
yet I find the telling of the story to be a timeless sadness.
I don't think I am going to have to visit Manhattan to
remember 9-11. I'm not sure that monument are needed to
help some of us to remember the lessons of hate crimes.
I don't think the live TV I saw on 9-11 made my evaluation
of that hate crime any more tragic than reading about
the details of the Tuskegee Incident. Both crimes are
unthinkable to me. And both crimes, supposedly committed
with what the perpetrators saw as defendable motives,
bring great sadness to me.
So
who is it that needs to control buildings in the vicinity
of this type of monument? Is this a different phenomenon
entirely than our remembering and learning from the event?
Maybe at least some of the feelings being expressed about
the mosque do NOT have to honored. Thanks for the read.
Dear
NF: Thank you for working
on the thought experiment. Memorials built to commemorate
tragic events -- and to happy ones -- are generally
positive. We need them not only for our individual memories
but because they help define our community by calling
to mind our shared history. Memorials can also be problemmatic.
For example, if a community, or an individual, is not
healthy enough psychologically to move forward because
of the memory-burden and the emotions evoked by a building
identified as a memorial. Humm. Something for me to
think more about.
