Cordoba Center Conclusion: Five Pillars of the Debate

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bf1110d8-a5b0-11df-a5b7-00144feabdc0.html

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/16/you_know_what_let_the_terrorists_win

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/19/sensitivity-or-liberty-pastor-phelps-ground-zero-and-our-therapeutic-nation/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/16/my-take-doing-the-right-thing-bloomberg-and-obama-near-ground-zero/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/16/my-take-president-obamas-assault-on-americans-first-freedom/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100818/pl_yblog_upshot/imam-at-center-of-ground-zero-controversy-helped-bush-administration


This post will be shorter, or at least my last on this particular hot button topic, since like Pontius Pilate I am washing my hands of this fad and letting things go as they will. If some maniac bombs the place, then the terrorists win, not if the Cordoba House/Park51/Etc is built about 5 blocks from the center of “Ground Zero”.

I find there are five points, much like the five pillars of Islam (Pilgrimage, Prayers, Charity, Fasting and Monotheistic Belief (?)) which are integral to this debate. But on the other hand, these foundational talking points should be systematically broken down and destroyed, since they are ruining what is otherwise the equivalent of a Muslim YMCA.

1-The center isn’t at Ground Zero, since I imagine there are already plans in mind as to what is to be done at Ground Zero for appropriate memorials or otherwise. To be exact, from the center of Ground Zero, the center is around 5 blocks, over 1000 feet from the collapsed foundations of the WTC. Not to mention Ground Zero and the area surrounding it are pretty dead in terms of new businesses appearing, so anything appearing in the general vicinity, especially with the intent of building bridges of understanding between Americans of different faiths and ethnicities, should be viewed positively, not with distrust.

2-Cordoba Center is not a mosque and it wouldn’t matter even if it were, since there are multiple mosques in New York area already. A prayer center for Muslims isn’t even the focal point of what is primarily a center for people to come together. Out of 13 stories, the top 2 will be a prayer space, so overall, the “mosque” aspect is barely a sixth of the building’s areas, including a basketball court and a culinary school, among other sections for cultural education and leisure. No different than saying a hospital is a church because it has a chapel inside, you have no logical grounds to call the Cordoba House a mosque just because it has a prayer center for Muslims planned.

The building already has Muslims praying in it since they purchased it, so does that make it a mosque? Again, no, since like a church, it doesn’t matter whether it’s called it or not, it’s about the activity performed. So the building is more like a mosque now then when it will be primarily a cultural community center, like the YMCA. So why not welcome what is a change for the better instead of opposing it because of people pulling your heartstrings like a marionette?

3-Arguing that people have the constitutional right to build the center on private property and then arguing against it because it offends your sensitivities is groundless since 1) the law doesn’t bend to the whims and caprices of people who can’t get over a grudge they hold towards Islam and 2) you can’t say people have a right to build whatever they decide to build on private property and then say the government should suppress that right because it offends you. That’d be no different than censoring Neo Nazis and the KKK just because some minorities can’t stand their message. I don’t agree with Islam or Christianity, but do I object to churches and mosques existing in America? No.

And saying the mosque is an insult to the victims of 9/11 doesn’t hold water either because the people building the center are making it open to everyone and as noted before, it won’t be a big flashing neon sign saying, “Ha, you lost loved ones in a Muslim terrorist attack, suck it!”, it will be an expansion to a pre existing Muslim community in New York and an attempt to show that American Muslims do not condone the 9/11 attacks, and in fact, wish to make amends by creating a peaceful Muslim presence near the site of an event they find reprehensible.

4-Accusing the imam of being a radical Muslim to try to discredit the center is an ad hominem tactic that hardly even holds a candle to real evidenced claims. The guy was a consultant for the army after 9/11 to educate about Islam, because he’s a Sufi, probably the most moderate Muslim subgroup you can imagine. If you think a Sufi Muslim, whose most dangerous activity is spinning in circles to go into a religious trance, is trying to infiltrate America and train suicide bombers, you’re not just paranoid, you’re stupid.

Not to mention people are on President Obama’s back about alleged backsliding on the issue. He was right to focus on legality and not whether it was a “wise decision” to choose the spot near Ground Zero to build the center. Like the judge who granted the Westboro Baptist Church some modicum of free speech protection for their protests at funerals, however cold hearted and myopic their message is, legally they are granted protection under the Constitution. Like the KKK example, you don’t have to agree or even pay attention to them, but by any stretch of interpretation of the 1st Amendment, tolerance of viewpoints you don’tagree with is integral to a civil society’s continued existence. Free speech doesn’t stop at someone being offended, it stops at people’s genuine rights to privacy being violated, which the “Ground Zero Mosque” and WBC’s protests don’t do.

5-Claiming that if the center goes up, the terrorists win, makes no sense. First off, Muslims by nature are not opposed to being Americans and living here, and building a mosque doesn’t glorify terrorist attacks. Islam is not our enemy, as former President Bush Jr. said, it is terrorism.

And more importantly, if we bend to a majority’s argument with no substance in it just because it offends them, then the terrorists would win, since we’d be surrendering a basic liberty of private ownership as well as freedom of worship and religion to satisfy the masses that are offended in some way. Which is no different than suppressing and censoring free speech in the majority of the Middle East because it offends theocratic and theonomic sensitivities of a Muslim majority stuck in the Crusade period when every non Muslim was a potential enemy and even fellow Muslims who didn’t adhere to strict legalistic standards were enemies, not unlike how Shia and Sunni Muslims have treated Sufis in their own countries.

In conclusion, any offense you take at this is understandable, but it does not mean you should call for the cancellation of what is a peaceful project meant to heal wounds, not reopen them. There are people on both sides of the 9/11 tragedy, some opposing and some supporting the project. Who is right, since both of them have lost loved ones in that attack almost 10 years ago? What about the Muslims that perished? Do their families oppose this building, a veritable stand against the terrorists, not a support of their ideology? Why should the pain and suffering of some trump the rights of others to construct something that in this case has no ill will behind it? It shouldn’t, because the law does not favor feelings or sensitivities, it is impartial for that very reason. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

Franklin Graham is Frank and Grumpy

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237453

Though the unofficial National Day of Prayer (at least in terms of the contested status according to Judge Crabb’s ruling) has passed, the controversy is not over. There is still some resentment towards Obama’s administration for uninviting Franklin Graham to pray at the ceremony held at the Pentagon. Graham Jr. speaks as if his religious liberties have been trampled on or at the very least that Obama is being too soft on Islam. The interview between him, Jon Meacham and Lisa Miller reveals a few traits of his Christian beliefs regarding Islam and more importantly about his beliefs on the relation of religious faith and civil politics.

Graham responds to Meacham’s first question about his divisive speech regarding Islam and the offensive nature of it by saying that if 80% of America identifies as Christian, then he thinks maybe 20% might be offended. Meacham clarifies that he is not offended at his praying in a Christian fashion, but that he is being quite contrary to the message of the National Day of Prayer, to unify various people of faith under the practice of prayer to God (which would include Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Baha’is among a few other minority groups). Graham’s response, initially avoiding the question or trying to seem consistent in affirming that he personally disagrees with Islam, but does not hate the people involved in Islam, concludes by saying that the world doesn’t work how Meacham wants it to; which is how I’d prefer it to be as well: people respectfully disagreeing with each other and not resorting to using hateful speech, even if you are speaking about the religion itself and not the practitioners.

Graham then persists in his argument that Christianity is under attack, which is a thinly veiled attempt to whine about how Christianity isn’t in the spotlight like it was in the 50s. Just because Obama wants to grant Muslims the right to celebrate Ramadan at the Pentagon or has a Jewish Seder at the White House Easter dinner doesn’t mean that his or any other person’s Christian beliefs suffer. Although this whole issue with Graham seems to hinge on his noting that according to Islam, Obama is a Muslim since his father was Muslim (like Judaism in a sense, perhaps). With this in mind, he clarifies that he doesn’t believe the conspiracies that Obama is a secret Muslim and takes the president at his word that he believes in salvation through Jesus Christ; which is more than I can say for a host of other evangelicals and Christians I’ve spoken to over the years since Obama’s become our president.

Graham’s other argument is that since even the Bush administration, the country has been soft on Islam as he views it: that is, a violent and evil religion. I would say it is hardly any more evil than any religion when misused for political gains or intertwining with civil and secular practice in a country that welcomes all religious faiths or lack thereof. And I have no doubt met Muslims on my own campus (though I might not have known they were Muslim) that were quite reasonable people that were not willing to suicide bomb a building to make their point or practice the misogynistic rituals that include genital mutilation of young girls and abuse of spouses for perceived insults or dishonors. And being “soft” on Islam would be not confronting the issue of Islamic terrorism in one form or another or taking on the conflict that has had a resurgence due to the recent South Park episode with Muslim groups pressuring companies to censor their material or remove it from public domain. But the Obama administration to my knowledge is taking the issue as seriously as it can with all the other things on its plate: the economic crisis/recession, the oil spill, and other matters of national security such as the attempted bombing of Time Square just last week. Take the issues as they come and at a reasonable and moderate pace. If you move too slow the enemy may overtake you, but if you move too fast, you may forget to consider that you may be your own worst enemy. Until next time, Namaste, Aloha and happy belated unofficial Day of Reason as well (http://www.nationaldayofreason.org/)