It was a big old, steaming pile of political mess the president stepped in this weekend -- a surprising mistake for a politician who once seemed so savvy about negotiating tough public issues.
But as I watch cable news pundits and opportunistic politicians hysterically decry the notion that our chief executive supported the right of Muslims to build a mosque within two blocks of the 9/11 attacks in New York, I wonder:
Isn't this what the terrorists wanted in the first place?
Sure, job one was to kill Americans, and job two was to make us fear homeland violence the way an Israeli might worry about a rocket launched from the West Bank. But one of the goals Islamic extremists have always had is to turn moderate Muslims against the West; to show them that we cannot be trusted to treat them fairly or consider their freedoms.
And they have had no better partner in that awful dance than our own religious fundamentalists. Extremists on any side understand each other well; terrorists understand that, despite all the talk of respecting Islam, some Christians need little urging to see our current conflicts and the holiest of holy wars, with little empathy or patience for tolerance.
This is why, in some ways, building a mosque within blocks of 9/11 would be the ultimate act of insurgency against those who hurt us worst.
They want us to turn Muslims in the U.S. into an oppressed minority. They want moderate Islamists to feel persecuted and unable to exercise their free rights. They want opportunities to recruit disappointed Muslims reduced to second-class status -- in the way France has seen its huge, often disaffected population of Muslims become a promising recruitment tool for extremists who note women can't even wear their hijab headgear in state schools.
A mosque within sight of the former World Trace Center site, especially if it is dedicated to peace, would seem an important antidote to that strategy; a pointed punch in the face to those who bet on Americans' worst instincts. Of course, as legendary showbiz opportunist P.T. Barnum probably pointed out at some point in his life, nobody ever went broke betting on American hardheadedness.
Salon magazine documented how the controversy over this mosque project, which was developed with the knowledge and approval of city officials, didn't kick in until conservative-oriented blogs and newspapers began shrill criticism of the notion, which coincidentally grew louder as the GOP looked for controversial issues to hammer Democrats in the approaching midterm elections.
A spin through TV coverage Monday showed outlets feasting on the conflict during a slow news season like a starving man at a smorgasbord. On MSNBC, a panel of mostly liberal commentators decried the controversy; on the morning news shows, conservative politicians were trying to square the notion that Muslims have all the religious freedom they want, as long as they don't exercise that one right to build a mosque too close to the former World Trade Center site.
But media-fed political food fights to build ratings aren't a surprise. Neither is opportunistic efforts by politicians to distract with a controversy which won't affect 99 percent of the country's population, just to find an issue which might drive angry voters to the polls.
What I don't understand, is how President Obama stepped in the middle of it all. Surely he knew politicians and pundits would seize on his statement Friday that "as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the... right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," as support of the mosque project. Surely he understood that cynical opportunists would twist his words and passionate advocates on either side of this contentious issue would hear what they wanted?
Surely he understood that hedging on the statement a day later, refusing to comment on the "wisdom" of building the mosque close to the WTC site, would only serve to anger the people who weren't upset by his seeming support a day earlier?
In the bubble of the presidency, Obama seems to have forgotten how quickly nuance is lost in a hard-fought election and how quickly people will give in to fear and hysteria. Frankly, I agree with those who say our president had no choice but to support the mosque project -- mostly because its a legal project and doing so sends the strongest message possible that our current wars against Islamic terrorists are not wars against Islam.
If we really believe our war isn't with Islam, its our only choice. Instead, we have gotten hedged statements and hysterical protests aimed at telling Muslims that, in New York after 9/11, there are some lines you can't cross, legal or not.
Just like the attackers wanted.
Check other salient media observations at my blog, The Feed by clicking here.
Follow Eric Deggans on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Deggans
away with the Friday statement alone, but the Saturday follow up was an in-artful failure.
Now he has no choice. No more just dunking his toes in the water. It's time to take the plunge.
He has to come out with an unequivocal statement, much in the style of Mayor Bloomberg.
It's time to take the American electorate to school and explain in no uncertain terms, just exactly
what the story is on the First Amendment, and why it's important to them,and the country.
It might be a good idea to make it a special Presidential message via the media in prime
time, in order to show the importance and gravity of the situation. He must show a level of
leadership at a time when it couldn't be more important.
1. All Americans to convert to Islam and establish an Islamic Caliphate across the entire world
2. If #1 fails...kill all infidels.
All this talk about the terrorists intentions are to cause discontent, give up our freedoms, etc. is nonsense. That is at best a tactic (and a poor one at that). The difference between a terrorist and a moderate muslim is #2.
Al Qaeda is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity.
Sufi Muslims want to build an Islamic Community Center 2 block from the edge of the Twin Towers property (6 blocks from the footprint of the nearest tower).
Sufis are to Islam as Unitarians are to Christianity.
These Muslims are not those Muslims. Any opposition to Park51 stems from a fundamental ignorance of simple facts. This isn't rocket science.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
Also integral to our way of life is having big messy debates about important issues, debates in which everyone has their say, no matter how much we or the govenment might disagree. To me, it would be giving in to the terrorists if dissenting views were silenced because we were afraid of "what the neighbors think." That private citizens can hash this thing out without any direct intervention from the government is what we're all about, isn't it? Generally, I think politicians--incuding Gov. Paterson--should butt out of this. This is an issue for the people of NYC to decide among themselves. If that can be achieved we can say, no matter how it's resolved, that the American ideal still works--and that's the ultimate triumph over the terrorists.
When did we suspend the 1st amendment rights to free speech(and discussion) and the right to protest? They absolutely have the right to Build their Mosque. However, everyone else that disagrees, has concerns or doesnt like it is JUST as free to speak out about it and assembled and protest.
Unless of course, you want the terrorists to win.....
There are concerns, a variety of them. But your too busy to rush to "we're denying them freedom of religion" Brushing our concerns about the iman in charge of the project, the lies he's told about it and other things, and more then a few other things.
And in denying them, and brushing our concerns aside, pretty much letting the terrorists win anyway, denying folks the idea of debating it, protesting about it and speaking out about it and concerns.
So congrats on letting the terrorists win
This issue is being made by the opponents of the mosque, an issue against a religion. Muslims died in the WTC too.
Actually most of the arguments I see have alot more substance. Perhaps you should look around.
Why not?
Or we could stop blaming an entire people due to the horrid actions of a microscopic percentage of a particular group. Now that's a good idea so how about going back to the important issues of the
day, or do we start the flag burning debate again?
Bat Yeor's definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude
Quran 009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html
Check out my Op-ED: "Echoes of past in the Ground Zero mosque controversy"
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2010/08/18/_5B00_OP_2D00_ED_5D00_-Echoes-of-past-in-Ground-Zero-mosque-controversy.aspx
Thanks,
Nemat Sadat
nematsadat.blogspot.com
Or perhaps a Christian church at some site where Christian crusaders slaughtered Muslims?