I’ll be frank. I’m a Jew and I’m not looking to take an Arab to lunch.
My wide circle of friends doesn’t include one Muslim. I had a Pakistani doorman I got along with so well I would jokingly inform him we were keeping an eye on him, warn him I could have him deported faster than he could say Allah akbar and offer him a cupcake at noon “to celebrate the first day of Ramadan.”
I’ve rubbed shoulders with Muslims throughout the Middle East and at the UN, and rubbed the PLO’s most prominent Palestinian in America, Edward Said, the wrong way. I’ve had better relations with Baha’is, Buddhists and Coptics.
So, when I support the right and the propriety of Muslims to create and maintain a place for prayer, i.e., a mosque, anywhere in The United States, it’s not for them—it’s for us.
I do so with some reserve, even with trepidation. Conceivably, a mosque could be a mask for ill. But we have to take that chance. Not to do so would be tantamount to treason for all we stand for. All we profess to stand for.
That would start and end with freedom. Not freedom in the abstract, not freedom in slogan or song, not even freedom as our bromidic birthright—but the freedom we uniquely enjoy as citizens of The United States, freedom we are granted, freedom we are remarkably entitled to—by right and by law, by tradition, precedent and practice—specifically by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of The Constitution of The United States.
Setting The Constitution, the flag and apple pie aside for a few minutes, let’s examine this polarizing, complex state of affairs in simple English, a language that pols, pundits and some plain fools are cynically unwilling and seemingly unable to speak.
The mosque at Ground Zero that everyone is so emotionally-charged about is only one facet of a 13-story community center containing a mosque. It will also include offices, meeting rooms, a gym, swimming pool and basketball court, facilities for lectures, forums and weddings, and a performing arts center.
Simple. A community center. Not on Ground Zero, but two blocks from Ground Zero. Two blocks from the “hallowed land” self-righteous and self-serving knee-jerks-with-opinions have self-hallowed. Land only the families of the 3,000 victims (victims, not “martyrs”), not politicians or pundits, have any right to sanctify, and, unless they’re entitled to wear vestments, only totemically at that. Not to overlook that in Manhattan, two blocks away is a good distance from anything.
Ten blocks from Ground Zero is a narrow, two-story mosque that has yet to alarm or rile anybody. It was founded 25 years ago by Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam whose American Society for Muslim Advancement intends to build the disputed community center. Even closer, a mere four blocks from Ground Zero, is a basement-level mosque founded 40 years ago. Not only do both mosques predate 9/11 by a great many years, but also, the latter preceded the Twin Towers by several.
Not so simple in the hearts and minds of demagogues and dogmatists. “A mosque steps from Ground Zero,” according to the topography of The New York Daily News. Forewarns The New York Post “…where there are mosques, there are Muslims, and where there are Muslims, there are problems."
An opportunity for an opportunist to weigh in. House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of law, “whether religious freedom or local zoning,” but a matter of respect. So, a man sworn to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America puts “respect for a tragic moment” before law or the Constitution—in an election year.
Not to be out-voiced (in an election year), national Tea Party leader Mark Williams objected to the mosque by declaring that Muslims worship "the terrorists' monkey god." Does anyone care what manqué 2012 GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich had to say? Just as I thought.
Article I, Section 3 of The Constitution of The State of New York declares: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind…” That is in addition to the inalienable rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of The United States. We have the categorical manifesto of the President of The United States: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”
I don’t believe you stand for any policy or principle in part. You either stand for something or you don’t. The men who wrote The Constitution put religious freedom first among The Amendments for a reason. It might not coincide with my choice, if given one, but I’ll stand by it confidently, and, come to think of it, proudly.
With similar logic, and passion, I feel I have no choice but to support the right of The American Society for Muslim Advancement to build its mosque where it chooses—in spite of doubts that it may be ill-advised. “This is America…”
"Unshakable" is absolutely right; it can be no other way.
My wide circle of friends doesn’t include one Muslim. I had a Pakistani doorman I got along with so well I would jokingly inform him we were keeping an eye on him, warn him I could have him deported faster than he could say Allah akbar and offer him a cupcake at noon “to celebrate the first day of Ramadan.”
I’ve rubbed shoulders with Muslims throughout the Middle East and at the UN, and rubbed the PLO’s most prominent Palestinian in America, Edward Said, the wrong way. I’ve had better relations with Baha’is, Buddhists and Coptics.
So, when I support the right and the propriety of Muslims to create and maintain a place for prayer, i.e., a mosque, anywhere in The United States, it’s not for them—it’s for us.
I do so with some reserve, even with trepidation. Conceivably, a mosque could be a mask for ill. But we have to take that chance. Not to do so would be tantamount to treason for all we stand for. All we profess to stand for.
That would start and end with freedom. Not freedom in the abstract, not freedom in slogan or song, not even freedom as our bromidic birthright—but the freedom we uniquely enjoy as citizens of The United States, freedom we are granted, freedom we are remarkably entitled to—by right and by law, by tradition, precedent and practice—specifically by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of The Constitution of The United States.
Setting The Constitution, the flag and apple pie aside for a few minutes, let’s examine this polarizing, complex state of affairs in simple English, a language that pols, pundits and some plain fools are cynically unwilling and seemingly unable to speak.
The mosque at Ground Zero that everyone is so emotionally-charged about is only one facet of a 13-story community center containing a mosque. It will also include offices, meeting rooms, a gym, swimming pool and basketball court, facilities for lectures, forums and weddings, and a performing arts center.
Simple. A community center. Not on Ground Zero, but two blocks from Ground Zero. Two blocks from the “hallowed land” self-righteous and self-serving knee-jerks-with-opinions have self-hallowed. Land only the families of the 3,000 victims (victims, not “martyrs”), not politicians or pundits, have any right to sanctify, and, unless they’re entitled to wear vestments, only totemically at that. Not to overlook that in Manhattan, two blocks away is a good distance from anything.
Ten blocks from Ground Zero is a narrow, two-story mosque that has yet to alarm or rile anybody. It was founded 25 years ago by Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam whose American Society for Muslim Advancement intends to build the disputed community center. Even closer, a mere four blocks from Ground Zero, is a basement-level mosque founded 40 years ago. Not only do both mosques predate 9/11 by a great many years, but also, the latter preceded the Twin Towers by several.
Not so simple in the hearts and minds of demagogues and dogmatists. “A mosque steps from Ground Zero,” according to the topography of The New York Daily News. Forewarns The New York Post “…where there are mosques, there are Muslims, and where there are Muslims, there are problems."
An opportunity for an opportunist to weigh in. House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of law, “whether religious freedom or local zoning,” but a matter of respect. So, a man sworn to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America puts “respect for a tragic moment” before law or the Constitution—in an election year.
Not to be out-voiced (in an election year), national Tea Party leader Mark Williams objected to the mosque by declaring that Muslims worship "the terrorists' monkey god." Does anyone care what manqué 2012 GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich had to say? Just as I thought.
Article I, Section 3 of The Constitution of The State of New York declares: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind…” That is in addition to the inalienable rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of The United States. We have the categorical manifesto of the President of The United States: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”
I don’t believe you stand for any policy or principle in part. You either stand for something or you don’t. The men who wrote The Constitution put religious freedom first among The Amendments for a reason. It might not coincide with my choice, if given one, but I’ll stand by it confidently, and, come to think of it, proudly.
With similar logic, and passion, I feel I have no choice but to support the right of The American Society for Muslim Advancement to build its mosque where it chooses—in spite of doubts that it may be ill-advised. “This is America…”
"Unshakable" is absolutely right; it can be no other way.
Posts
Excellent post, Ray.
ReplyDelete-- Jeff Degan
The First Amendment of the US Constitution, for the win.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the founders demonstrate their true brilliance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBarry said...
ReplyDeleteRay,
Nice work.
Since NYC had no ordinance regarding that particular location of this "Cultural Center",
it doesn't violate any law and should be allowed to be built.
Whether it is a good idea to have the Mosque built at that particular site is another issue.
However, as Ray admirably pointed out to us,
“This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”
Sarah Palin, New York Republican Rep. Peter King, Newt Gingrich, and most of the Republican legislatures have all jumped on the attack bandwagon, with Gingrich suggesting that we should follow in Saudi Arabia's example and ban houses of worship not of the "dominant religion". Basically, stating that America is a "Christian Nation" with no toleration for other religions.
(Just wondering: Are Mormons considered Christian by Newt and Palin standards?)
Most Republicans are insisting to make this Mosque there political battleground in the 2010 election.
(I thought it would have been abortion).
To reiterate the words of their hero President, G.W.,
Bring It Own!!!
Great job,
Ray
Well Ray, my Wife is an Arab and I know you two have lunched together at least twice... :)
ReplyDeleteStill, despite being raised in the middle east she is not the typical Arab... being Atheist not Muslim, having smuggled Schindler's List into her native land and having played a Jewish Concentration Camp inmate in "I Never Saw Another Butterfly." There are always exceptions to the rules.
As for the Mosque... I'm opposed to it. I can't see allowing a mosque to be built in a location that was Ground Zero (or close enough) by an attack on our nation of epic proportions by radical Islamists. And it is even worse when the Imam in charge has made such public statements as saying that the U.S. is partially to blame for 9/11 and the reports that he has ties to Flotilla Funding.
Still I must say that I smile inwardly at the suggestions that if it is built that they should build a Barbecue Restaurant on one side and a strip joint on the other. Maybe in December they could erect a Menorah to one side and a Nativity to the other... or would permits be refused for these religious structures on some spurious grounds.
Despite being an Atheist I'm all for people exercising their religious freedom... but as an American sometimes you just have to say, "No".
When I told a friend of mine that they were building a Mosque on Ground Zero he was quite sure that the only reason was in the hopes that it would get bombed as an excuse to further radical Islamic hatred and attacks. My Arab relatives were quite sure that the Mosque was being built with the best of intentions and that those in charge were just misguided and thought that this would foster harmony and togetherness and bridge gaps... but there is no way they can believe that after this uproar leading me to believe that my friend was right and their intentions are not so pure.
I suppose if the law is on their side then they have the right to go ahead an build it... but the people also have the right to stand up and voice their opposition to such a slap in the face to America.
So Muslims are the misunderstood to be coddled and mollified for what the west has brought upon them, but Republicans ( the usual suspects Bush and Palin) are worthy of crucifixion? It's marvelous how limousine liberals, even those with a modicum of understanding of the middle east like yourself, do so based more on their progressive opinions rather than facts. If you bothered to have done the slightest research on the Imam Rauf you would know that:
ReplyDelete1: The Cordoba Institute is s smoke screen for Muslim rule returning to "Al Andalus". Cordoba had been the capital of Muslim Spain.
2: Muhammad Gamei’a the former Imam at the Islamic cultural Center of NY said of the 911 attacks "The Jews were behind these ugly acts, while we, the Arabs, were innocent. . . . If it became known to the American people, they would have done to the Jews what Hitler did!”
3:In a March 2004 interview Rauf told the Sydney Herald that "the West would have to recognize the damage they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end"
Perhaps Governor Patterson will find a suitable home for the (wink wink) "cultural" center on the Upper West Side. Or maybe across the street from the guilt ridden home of the uber-liberal Jews at Temple Emmanuel. Then Muslims and Jews alike can stand together in an ebrace filled rendition of kumbaya as the "moderate" Muslims inflict a more quiet and reasonable jihad on them.
Has the progressive revisionist history decided to ignore what happened to Poland when Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler? Was Pol Pot just misunderstood? Perhaps it's time for the American Nazi party to have that freedom march in Skokie now?
The building of the alleged cultural center at ground zero is an affront to the first amendment not its poster boy. Rememebr what Justice Holmes said about "yelling fire in a crowded theatre?" NY is a stage. A crowded one. It was deeply wounded by the events of 911. You don't build a tribute to those who caused those wounds anywhere near where it happened? Or are you all so blinded with Bush-Palin rage that you can't even see that?
A very disappointed Elsie.
So Muslims are the misunderstood to be coddled and mollified for what the west has brought upon them, but Republicans ( the usual suspects Bush and Palin) are worthy of crucifixion? It's marvelous how limousine liberals, even those with a modicum of understanding of the middle east like yourself, do so based more on their progressive opinions rather than facts. If you bothered to have done the slightest research on the Imam Rauf you would know that:
ReplyDelete1: The Cordoba Institute is s smoke screen for Muslim rule returning to "Al Andalus". Cordoba had been the capital of Muslim Spain.
2: Muhammad Gamei’a the former Imam at the Islamic cultural Center of NY said of the 911 attacks "The Jews were behind these ugly acts, while we, the Arabs, were innocent. . . . If it became known to the American people, they would have done to the Jews what Hitler did!”
3:In a March 2004 interview Rauf told the Sydney Herald that "the West would have to recognize the damage they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end"
Perhaps Governor Patterson will find a suitable home for the (wink wink) "cultural" center on the Upper West Side. Or maybe across the street from the guilt ridden home of the uber-liberal Jews at Temple Emmanuel. Then Muslims and Jews alike can stand together in an ebrace filled rendition of kumbaya as the "moderate" Muslims inflict a more quiet and reasonable jihad on them.
Has the progressive revisionist history decided to ignore what happened to Poland when Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler? Was Pol Pot just misunderstood? Perhaps it's time for the American Nazi party to have that freedom march in Skokie now?
The building of the alleged cultural center at ground zero is an affront to the first amendment not its poster boy. Rememebr what Justice Holmes said about "yelling fire in a crowded theatre?" NY is a stage. A crowded one. It was deeply wounded by the events of 911. You don't build a tribute to those who caused those wounds anywhere near where it happened? Or are you all so blinded with Bush-Palin rage that you can't even see that?
A very disappointed Elsie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA response to Elsie,
ReplyDeleteThe White Extremist American Nazi Party does march in Skokie, Illinois and throughout many cities in the U.S. legally.
Protesters march along side of them legally as well.
Both groups are protected by the laws of our First Amendment to the Constitution.
I think you need to read the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
I appreciate constitutional scholars, (being one myself of course). So let me enlighten you a bit on the first amendement:
ReplyDeleteIn Schenck v U.S. (The famous crowded theatre comment case) Justice Holmes said ""The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Words and actions alike--i.e. building a mosque that 70% of people do not want built on the selected site-- can pose a clear and present danger.
In Chaplinsky v New Hampshire the court found that some words are not protected by the 1st amendement as they are tantamount to violent action. NOT THE TEA PARTY PEOPLE but these fanatical Muslims (like the Muslim Brotherhood) who are behind the funding of this mosque who have vowed themselves to destroy Israel and all Jews.
Finally, in Employment Divison v Smith, the court held that " the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself". In other words, the professed desire by Imam Rauf to insert Shria law into American law through this "cultural center" violates the very tenets of the first amendement you refer to.
Both sides of the mosque debate have serious and worthy arguments. Intellectual haters of Roman Catholicism (like Time's Joe "I went to Harvard dammit" Klein")suggest building a Catholic School next to a school yard. Greg Guttfeld at Fox suggested building a gay bar next to the Mosque. Hardly reasonable ideas but both make the point of the extremes that this debate has sent people to. Of course, there are those in the debate that fall back on the simplicity of the Im not with Stupid argument of blaming Bush or Palin. The reality is, this is not a first Amendment issue except as it applies to protecting the public under the clear and present danger doctrine.
Again, I suggest that the mosque be built at the Intersection of Broadway and Columbus and that Sharia law be instituted in that neighborhood that supports it most. What progressive remedy will you have when your wives or daughters are convicted of showing their faces and are then dragged into the streets for a Sharia beating party to mete out justice?
Elsie the Legal Cow.
Response to Elsie,
ReplyDeleteApparently, the strip joint next to Ground Zero
is no problem; but, building a cultural center next to a Mosque that has existed in that vicinity for several yeas is major headlines.
The courts will rule overwhelmingly in favor of the right to build the Cultural Center.
The losers will be the taxpayers that end up with the bill for useless appeals.
As far as your comment about Sharia Law: "your wives or daughters are convicted of showing their faces and are then dragged into the streets for a Sharia beating party to mete out justice"?
This is America not Saudi Arabia.
Our laws forbid the enforcement of such cruelty.
Your comment makes no sense at all.
In the end, Rauf got the attention that he desired to show the world--"see America is a bigot country when it come to Muslims"--thank you for giving Rauf the stage and audience to make his point.
Since Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife, you can hardly claim that "Our laws forbid the enforcement of such cruelty"
ReplyDeleteAs for a strip joint next to Ground Zero... I have no problem with that. Strippers did not attack America and destroy the WTC, and a strip joint speaks far more to the right of women to do as they wish than a Mosque.
We have had many cases where judges and juries have made poor decisions. Remember O.J.?
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean we should throw out the First Amendment Laws?
Since judge Charles made a poor decision does that mean that the State of New York Article I, Section 3 of The Constitution of The State of New York declares: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind" should not apply to Muslims?
According to your logic, since the Oklahoma City Bomber was Christian, then, Oklahoma should ban all Christian churches from being built in Oklahoma City.
The argument about Oklahoma City is idiotic. McVeigh did not declare "All Glory and Honor to you Lord Jesus Christ" in the way the terrorists shouted "Allah Akbar"! He did not inject Christianity into the discussion, EVER. The Pope, however, sensitive to the feelings of Polish People and Jews forbade a group of nuns from building a convent near Auschwitz. This is how "bridge-building" works.
ReplyDeleteMost High School students who have studied American History and Civics know, that the article cited from the NYS Constitution is meaningless as it is trumped by the US Constitution. The First Amendment stands, with clarifying court cases, as the arbiter of religious freedom and freedom of the press.
Great article I just read that lends a more rational voice to this discussion (in my opinion). http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff082510.php3
By the way, if Sharia law does somehow get inserted into American courts do you think we will still be allowed to have these discussions? I wonder how long any of us would last in Iran, for instance, openly expressing opinions. (shudder)
Elsie The Non-Progressive yet reasonable cow
Why is it intolerant to want no mosque at ground zero but acceptable to ban Christmas or Channukah displays in schools and town squares; or the 10 commandments on courthouse walls? I think if they go forward with the building of this mosque I am going to hire an attorney to sue Rockefeller Center to remove the tree and all other Holiday displays in the plaza.
ReplyDelete