Newt Gingrich has taken what might be termed an "interesting" approach in opposing the construction of the Islamic building which people are trying to erect down the block from Ground Zero. I refer to it as an Islamic building because the ongoing fight about whether it is a mosque or a cultural center is irrelevant. Typically, if you are in favor of the building's construction, you refer to it as the latter and if opposed to it, as the former.
Personally, I think that ultimately it's a reasonable, if not wise, project, although I think the timing and the process stink. This should not be about the assertion of religious right but about the building of consensus. While those who favor construction clearly have rights on their side, they seem to be completely tone-deaf regarding the feelings of those who are opposed.
It's simply not true that all who oppose this building hate Muslims, any more than it is true that all those who oppose Israeli policy are anti-Semites. Sadly, those who support the building seem to appreciate the second claim, but not the first. But this is not about my response to the proposed mosque/cultural center, it's about Newt's. And it's about why he's wrong -- not entirely, but largely.
Twenty percent of Gingrich's response is an intelligent critique of the American Muslim community's inability to engage in appropriate self-critique, and their failure to champion the cause of freedom of religious expression, not only in America but in the world and for all religions. Another 60 percent is ridiculous and erroneous analyses of the facts related to this particular issue, and the last 20 percent is rage -- this is Newt Gingrich's approach to why the mosque at Ground Zero ought not to be built. His position is actually proof that no matter how smart someone may be (and Newt Gingrich is very smart), it's no guarantee that his or her stance on any given issue will be equally smart.
Gingrich's claim that there should be no mosque at Ground Zero "as long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia" is inane unless one assumes two things: first, that we should now use Saudi Arabia as our benchmark for what is appropriate as far as freedom of religious expression and hold that unless they are as good as we are, we need not be as good as we have traditionally been; and second, that this is a Saudi project led by people who could change the Saudi position on religious freedom but have failed to do so.
The first assumption should embarrass anyone proud of America's history of religious freedom, being second to none and never contingent on the behavior of other nations. I am not looking for parity with Saudi Arabia, and I can't imagine why any American would settle for that. We should be proud that we are arguably the best nation in the world on religious freedom, not proud to be equal to, or slightly better than, some other nation doing a lousy job, as Gingrich's approach would have us be.
His second assumption is simply unfounded. There is no question that the funding of this project should be more transparent than it is, but to suggest that it is a Saudi project or that its supporters could change Saudi policy and should be punished for not doing so is simply absurd.
As to the history of Cordoba, Mr. Gingrich is partially correct. Life under medieval Muslim rulers was no picnic for Jews and Christians and would certainly not pass any test of American constitutionality -- not even close. But it's also true that life under Medieval Islam was far better for Jews and Christians than life had been for Jews and Muslims living under Christian rule.
So if Gingrich wants to remind us of the past sins of one religious community, he ought to remind us of them all. Failing that, his selective reading of history does sound suspicious, even to those of us who are tired of all questions about Islam being met with the cry of "Islamophobe."
Newt Gingrich may be right that building any Islamic structure that close to Ground Zero is bad idea, at least for now. But his arguments for that position are at least as bad as the worst ones which favor its construction. We need to think this one out together, not compare the best of whatever tradition we hold dear to the worst of whichever one we oppose.
Follow Brad Hirschfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradhirschfield
Rev. Chloe Breyer and Matthew Weiner: The Faithful Search: A Civics Primer for Real Patriots
The proliferating nature of these anti-mosque demonstrations and their shifting tenor to panicked claims about the imminent threats of "Islamization" and "Shariazation" begs a moment of national introspection.
Palin, Shakespeare and the Ground Zero Mosque - The Caucus Blog ...
Sarah Palin to Muslims: Reject Ground Zero Mosque
Ground Zero Mosque Rebuttal: The 9/11 Christian Center
Sarah Palin Takes to Twitter to Oppose Ground Zero Mosque - ABC News
Ground Zero Mosque - www.investors.com
Muslim Prayers Fuel Spiritual Rebuilding Project by Ground Zero ...
FOXNews.com - Dozens speak out against planned mosque near ground ...
Muslim Prayers Fuel Spiritual Rebuilding Project by Ground Zero ...
In battle to build mosque near Ground Zero, opponents ask 'why ...
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-newtcrybaby.htm
I do not agree. NY has not voted upon the proposal and you can not say NY has approved. Besides there is a thing called the golden rule. You can not demand something which you deny to others. Islam can not demand the mosque, which it denies to others. Permission will only embolden the followers NOT to treat its minorities with equity.
I've said it before: this is nobody's business besides the people of the City of New York. And we have already spoken.
Are you arguing that everything that is legal is ipso facto ethical?
Don't retreat to your "Mrs. Lincoln" crap
He's wrong on all accounts. First, because in is up to New Yorkers to decide and not the "heartland". Second because there were also Muslims killed on 9/11. Third, because what happens in Saudi-Arabia should have no impact on our domestic politics.
There, it takes three lines.
I admire economy of expression--kudos.
I see your three lines and deduct two.
In the effort to gain positive public opinion, the legitimacy of this project rests solely on the ethics and sincerity of intent of its backers.
There, refutation in one line.
I do not believe that the proponents of this project are sincere in their stated reason for it. I do not believe they are ethical in their financing of it.
When a home for the elderly is built, does someone determine if the builder is pure of spirit and wants to build a place of comfort for the elderly, or are they just trying to take every penny from old folks?
The more I think of this, and I heard Sean Hannity going off on this too today, I don't think it matters. It's being built in the US and US laws apply to every aspect of it.
If it is funded by terrorist money, GOOD! That's money onto OUR economy, for a structure ruled under US law and constitution, and would be $100 million LESS for roadside bombs.
Any way you look at it we win.
Muslims didn't attack us on 9/11 any more than Christians attacked us in Oklahoma City. We can be a good example of tolerance, or we can let fear and anger control us. I vote for the former.
How long then? One hundred years?
And do we get to subtract one year for every one of the Muslim New Yorkers who died on that day?
Enough with the cults already. I amazed that I'm actually in agreement with the right wingers on this issue but just for different reasons.
9-11 was an attack by Al Quaeda.
Al Quaeda has attacked many people, even Muslims, EVEN in Mosques.
So, suppose they did a suicide bomb attack in a mosque, and it killed people, and it damaged the structure so bad that they decided to rebuild the mosque across the street. Would relative of the victims be against it, as re-building a mosque would be a sign of "victory"? Hurts your brain to think about this, huh?
Well, if you continue to let terrorists frame the battle as being against Muslims, congrats! You just got into a war with a billion people! Oh, and objecting to a Mosque PROVES it to a billion people.
The fact is, there was NO VICTORY by Al Quaeda. Build a Mosque in the US? Guess what? It is subject to all the laws of the state and local people and the US Constitution.
So, if you're Al Quaeda, and you think this is a Victory Monument, don't cheer too soon! Women can walk by in halter tops and miniskirts, and not get stoned for it. Preachers can preach about Jesus on the corner, etc, etc.
People used to compare this to building a Sushi restaurant near the Arizona memorial, until I Google Mapped many sushi restaurants near the Arizon memorial!
Depends on who is doing the rebuilding and what brand of Islam would be preached there.
When al Qaeda attacks Muslims, it is because those Muslims do not agree with the Islamist agenda of re-instituting sharia as the highest and only law in the land. Many Muslims in the Middle East have had quite enough of that and do not want to go back. Some have emigrated to get away from it.
It does hurt your brain until you get it that there is a large movement within Islam, Islamism, that wants to turn the clock back to a time when Islamic law ruled in many countries, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
There are violent Islamists like bin Laden and non-violent Islamists like Tariq Ramadan. Their goal is the same.
And? The world has finally gotten the courage to get into a war with the Catholic church and it's billions of parishioners world wide who have known about priests abuses against children but screamed anti catholic, discrimination and all kinds of sentiments if anyone dared to protest.
The scandal fist came to the press in the 1990's, here in American, and the Catholics went nuts.
They shut down the presses, and there were no more rumblings about severe abuse against men, women and children for 10+ years.
"Women can walk by in halter tops and miniskirts, and not get stoned for it."
For how long? Are you a prophet? Give us your predictions, inquiring minds want to know, test your abilities?
Huh? What are you talking about? Was there Shock and Awe bombing and tanks rolling into Vatican City? You're absurd.
Why you want to bring the RC into this I have no idea. And child molestation should be dealt with as a crime, and a conspiracy if ANY organization attempts to systemically cover it up. Crime, jail, fines and restitution are all called for... not "war".
""Women can walk by in halter tops and miniskirts, and not get stoned for it."
For how long? Are you a prophet? Give us your predictions, inquiring minds want to know, test your abilities?"
ummm... The fact is, you CAN walk outside any Mosque in the US, dressed as you please, driving a car, if you're female. Pregnant and unmarried, even if by choice, or two men holding hands. That's really the fact as it is today. And likely to be so when the Mosque is completed, and for as long as the US Constitution is the law of the land.
By coming up with some accusation of the future, and how I am a prophet, it is actually YOU that are making some stealth prediction. You are not so clever. You also lack an "inquiring mind", so you must be speaking for someone else in the room with you?
against him--thereby gaining our attention--while slipping in his own under-the-radar
arguments against Islam and the building of the mosque. I think I get it, but I don't like it.
I'd much prefer the Rabbi use his own straightforward arguments against the Islamic
religion and Muslims without hiding behind the broad shoulders of Newt Gingrich.
1. Are we to understand that an individual or group is not FREE to purchase, develop and use property as he/she/they see fit because it might rankle members of the community, dredge up bad memories of a vaguely related incident?
2. Are we to base policy and legal decisions on other countries and cultures?
3. Are we to make decisions TODAY based on events that took place hundreds of years ago and thousands of miles away?
4. Do presumed majorities get a say in others' rights as explicit in the Constitution?
If so...
1. Would you give the members of an Irish-Catholic community that ability to veto the construction of a Protestant church because members of that community were killed by Protestants (or reverse the position with an Irish-Protestant community stopping the construction of a Catholic church)?
2. Should policies and laws come about in response to situations in other countries? Maybe the Supreme Court SHOULD consider FOREIGN LAW in making its decisions?
3. In evaluation the President, is it not permissible to talk of what happened a mere eighteen months ago in history under his predecessor?
4. If the residents of a densely populated area decide that the sale of guns is a threat based on the number of gun deaths, do they not have the right to ban the sale of guns in their community?
No?
And not for nothing, but your argument is rather apples and oranges unless your claim is that all southerners are culpable for King's Death.
It is wholly offensive in many ways to the American people and should not be built at Ground Zero.
It is interesting that September 11 has significance in the Muslim world...it was the date Muslims were stopped and repelled by Charles Martel at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. A date Muslims haven't forgotten.
They had a car model named Cordoba after all.
You can focus on symbols all you want, but the fact will be that any mosque, church, any structure in the USA is subject to the Constitution and all state and local laws. So women can drive there, unaccompanied, women can walk by without wearing a burka, or wearing a bikini is they wanted. Preachers can stand outside on the corner and talk about Jesus 24/7... and no one gets stoned for doing any of these things.
As long as we don't let things get out of hand like in Williamsburg:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/topless-bike-protest-in-w_n_397505.html