Zarathustra,
That's the liberal narrative. Whenever they disagree with conservatives, we must be racist, bigots, fear-mongers, and violence inciters. It's the same damn play every time. Insult those with whom you disagree. They accuse liberals of demonizing Muslims, but don't hesitate to demonize conservatives.
I have the courtesy not to make my responses to this topic about you or any other personality, as you noted. Now here's a thought: how about you make your responses without sweeping statements about liberals? I'm not making sweeping statements about conservatives or conservatism. Probably the staunchest conservative on this board (Cail) has come out in reluctant support of Park51. In fact, right-wing libertarianism is pretty cut and dry on the issue of freedom of religious expression (on which more in a second). But in any event, let's keep this germane to the discussion without digs at political ideologies.
The Constitution does not of course mandate tolerance. It does mandate freedom of religious expression, which is being curbed by blocking Park51 even by those opponents of the project like yourself who pay lip service to the First Amendment. What you are saying in essence is "Of course they
can build it; we just don't
want them to exercise their Constitutional rights." The First Amendment is as much an attitude as it is a technical device. It's meant to engender a
culture in which persons can express themselves without indemnity. It doesn't mean anybody has to tolerate the views expressed; people just need to have the right to express them. That's the kind of culture we Americans have striven for since we achieved independence. Discouraging the building of a religious and cultural institution
without any pragmatic basis is antithetical to the kind of culture the First Amendment is meant to build.
Furthermore, blocking this project is, again, an affirmation of the al-Qaeda narrative about what the United States stands for. The so-called "war on terrorism" is meant to destroy al-Qaeda's material and recruiting capabilities. That requires more than military operations. It requires political will. Blocking a mosque in our biggest city is not only a recruiting goldmine, it fits perfectly into al-Qaeda's justificatory narrative. According to today's
Wall Street Journal,
the propaganda effort has already begun. Opponents of Park51 like the columnist Zarahustra quoted and Newt Gingrich who say that "We can build a mosque in lower Manhattan when freedom of expression is allowed in the Middle East" stoop to a pathetic low. Are theocracies and religious dictatorships the standard of freedom to which we hold ourselves? Fuck that. We are Americans. We have built a society in which any religion can express itself. Islam is included.
But what if he actually is a radical in disguise?
That's quite a big if. Your attempts to link him to radicalism -- the views he expressed in that interview -- are, internationally speaking, quite mainstream. Read any international security analyst (the issues of
Foreign Affairs right after 9/11 for instance), and you'll see that anyone who thinks seriously about 9/11 always factors in US foreign policy actions in al-Qaeda's justification, and any serious terror analyst (e.g., Martha Crenshaw) always acknowledges that terrorists are trying to get attention. This imam has passed background checks by
the FBI who hired him as a consultant, and right now he's on
a speaking tour sponsored by the US State Department. My supposition is that he's clean.
Yours is a legitimate question, but you need to stop asking it as some point.
Mosques are not symbols of terrorism. The reason why this is about more than religious sensitivity is that nobody would given a damn if this were a church or a synagogue. So let's drop talk about religious tolerance and atheist secularism. This isn't about those issues. It's about Islam. We're risking erasing the distinction between moderate and mainstream Islam and fundamentalist Islamism.
In response to Brinn's question, the initiatives Park51 (modeled on the 92nd St. Y) would engender seem to me to be highly effective in building cultural ties. And the building of a community center in lower Manhattan would be a monument to the American tradition of religious freedom. The kind of American Muslim who would use Park51 are so utterly unrelated to the Arab Islamists who destroyed the World Trade Center that it makes no sense to punish them -- and that in fact is what opponents are trying to do by discouraging their project -- and it makes every sense to encourage them to, dare I say, repudiate the actions of the 9/11 attackers.
Think about it! A community center in downtown Manhattan built by Muslims is
utterly antithetical to the tactics and message of al-Qaeda. And blocking that community center is utterly antithetical to the letter and spirit of American jurisprudence and the American historical tradition.
, I support and encourage people to learn about others' religious beliefs. I believe I've said before, here in the Tank, that I would love to see a comparative religion class required for all US schoolchildren. The best way to un-demonize the enemy is to learn enough about them to realize that they're human, too.
a first on the Watch!) and disagreement with you. Most especially about the claim of hate and islamophobia. As defenders of homosexual behavior misuse a term (homophobia) false as applied to the overwhelming majority that it is applied to (valid for hardly more than 1 or 2 %), so islamophobia is a misuse. It implies unreasonable fear of islam or muslims and excludes the idea that it might not be hate, it might not be fear, and it might actually be reasonable opposition. 