I still remember, Russell, when you came to my debate with Rev. Al Sharpton, nine years ago, in New York City. You struck me then as a man of warmth and openness. In that spirit I offer you this response to your recent blog post supporting the Ground Zero mosque and your categorization of those opposing it as being guilty of hatred and bigotry, which strikes me as a bit harsh.
For the record, I am a supporter of the mosque being built, but only under two conditions. First, that its builders consult the families of the Ground Zero dead, who are the people whose opinion matters most. Second, that the 13-story complex include a museum detailing the events of 9/11 with exhibits explaining the modern abuse of Islamic teachings by extremists and their repudiation by Islam itself.
I don't expect you to agree with my conditions, or with those who oppose the mosque outright. But I do ask that you consider this.
We live in a secular age where religion has been largely repudiated. Sure, people still go to Church and they still celebrate Chanuka and Christmas. But religious values have ceased to be impactful on their lives. It's secular values that dictate what's important, from money and fame to material comfort and financial security. How did religion which was once all-powerful become so marginal? There are many considerations, but perhaps the most important has been religion's hypocrisy and intolerance. Simply put, when people witness religions behaving badly they conclude that it's all a farce. Whether it's a priest being caught molesting a child, or a Rabbi being arrested for money laundering, or, most seriously, an Imam telling his faithful to blow up children, the average person looks at this and determines that religion is a farce.
Which is why it's so important for the religious faithful, in general, and religious leaders in particular, to behave with morality, ethics, and sensitivity at all times.
But your blog post completely ignores the need for religion to behave with sensitivity at all times. It makes no mention whatsoever of how Islam might win public opinion back and instead accuses Americans of being bigots.
There are bigots in America, but Americans are not bigots. There are a hundred mosques in New York alone and nobody objects. But the average American is souring on Islam not based on any intrinsic prejudice but based on the violence they constantly read in the newspapers. And yes, I agree with you. They should rise above that and understand that the extremists do not define the faith and that the vast majority of religions Muslims are G-d-fearing and peace-loving.
But this is where the builders of the Ground Zero mosque squandered a unique opportunity to portray Islam in a favorable light, even as you completely let them off the hook. Given the huge media profile of this particular mosque, the organizers could have showed Americans how wrong they were about Islam. The builders could have taken out a full-page ad in The New York Times (they have, it is reported, $100 million for the mosque, and this expense would be tiny in comparison) announcing their intentions of building an Islamic Cultural Center at Ground Zero and inviting all the families of the 9/11 victims to the Jacob Javits Center on a specified day to lay out their plans and obtain the families reactions. They could have said that they while they are firm about their intentions of creating an Islamic presence at this hallowed site, their intention in so doing is not offend the families sensibilities but to repudiate the fanatics who have tarnished the name of Islam and hence, the builders wish to proceed with the greatest sensitivity and understanding.
Sadly, Russell, none of this happened. Rather, it was announced that a mosque is being built adjacent to a giant American cemetery irrespective of the families wishes, that it's a First Amendment right, and that all those who oppose it are bigots.
Fair enough. It's a free country. Say what you want and build what you want.
But if you're intention is to reverse people's negative impressions of religion in general and Islam in particular, then you're probably not going to achieve that by telling ten thousand people who watched their loved ones incinerated at Ground Zero, and whose remains are now part of the very air and dust of the place, that they are no longer victims of a terrible attack, but a bunch of cold-hearted bigots who hate Islam.
This, Russell, is just not the way to bring peace and reconciliation.
I wish G-d's blessings for all the good work you do.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach hosts 'The Shmuley Show' on 77 WABC in NYC. He is the founder of This World: The Values Network, and is the author, most recently, of 'Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life.' Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.
Follow Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiShmuley
The WTC disater was not a christian masacre nor was it an American masacre. It was a global diaster. People from over 50 countries and representing almost all of the worlds religions died as well.
I am very sorry you lost someone there (or anywhere), but personal greif, no matter how deep can trump the law and the constitution.
And I would like to add that if we give into fear then the terrorists have indeed won. The wanted to instill fear so that we would change our way of life. Denying our fellow Americans the right to build a Community Center on private property because of their religion, is giving into fear.
@rougebaisers, I am sorry for your loss. I lost a family member that day, so I understand your pain.
1) Even if the people building this cultural center/mosque could be seen as more sensitive if they took out a NY Times ad explaining their intentions, it does not necessarily follow that the people who oppose this mosque are well-intentioned advisors. They could - and likely are - villifying this mosque out of bigotry. Obviously, most people that are raging against the project are not doing so because they recognized a missed opportunity for inter-faith dialogue. 2) You acknowledge: "[T]he average American is souring on Islam not based on any intrinsic prejudice but based on the violence they constantly read in the newspapers. And yes, I agree with you. They should rise above that and understand that the extremists do not define the faith and that the vast majority of religions Muslims are G-d-fearing and peace-loving." People who vehemently oppose the building of a house of worship because they ascribe the violent actions of a minority to the hearts of the whole faith ARE by definition pre-judging bigots. Thus, you concede the veracity of Simmons' position while you purport to contest it.
'We, America's Muslims, have also come near this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of discrimination to the sunlit path of religious justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of religious injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.'
Apologies to Dr. King and his family for changing a couple of words. It seemed to fit.
Look religion needs to be governed.
All religions, regarding sexual abuse of its practitioner's children, embezzlement (which happens often), fraudulent fundraising and tax evasion, and the use of intoxicants, like Kava Kava, outside the ceremonial places - like driving intoxicated from a ceremony under the influence of Kava Kava.
Having a religion does not exempt it from the laws of the land.
Islam is founded on a belief that there are those that are Muslim and those that aren't and those that aren't - are not tolerated and in fact are subject to destruction, violent destruction.
My belief is that Islamic practice must be regulated in the United States against the advocacy of violent overthrow of the government, ours.
Why is it prohibitive to express outrage that a religion espouses mutilation and oppression of its women, why is it prohibitive to express disagreement against a religion that is hateful towards, mine, Buddhism?
Of course Buddhist's, Hindus and Hasidim Jews do not oppress women,
It is NOT a mosque! It is NOT on ground zero!
Say it with me now...
You're right, however, it is NOT GZ.
I think you might have missed charlietuna11's point. Doesn't sound like he's bashing ALL Christians to me.
No one at Cordoba House or Park51 has committed any crimes. No One to Forgive.
Total Strawman, savojah.
"There is a difference of what you can do and what you should do. For instance, you can build a Catholic church next to a playground. Should you?"
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/daily-show-final-word-on-mosque-arade.html
And you're the same person who says we mustn't hold Islam responsible for what radical Muslims have wrought? So, let me get this straight ...it's okay to bash the Catholic religion over the actions of a few priests, but not okay to bash Islam over a few terrorist?
Did I get that right ...
What should have been settled behind closed doors with all parties involved--and that includes 9/11 families who oppose AND support the building of the center--has turned into a media circus, a political punching bag for politicians, and a war against Muslims, in spite of the inescapable fact that all Muslims are NOT terrorists any more than all Catholics or priests abuse children.
Those of us who support the building of this community center don't have to agree with it. We can even think it's in bad taste. BUT... just as those who can support a woman's right to choose, yet not find herself ever making that same choice... DO and WILL support such basic civil rights enshrined in the Constitution. Why? Because that's precisely what it's about; protecting the rights of every single religion in the US.
So, let me ask you and all the other Huffies on here who are screaming about the Constitution ... what is it that you can't comprehend how someone can support the Constitution AND still ask someone not to take an action that is Constitutionally protected? Why would you slime or villify someone who is practicing his right of free speech?
"Why do the negras have to drink from OUR water fountains. Ain't us white folk got no rights?"
"Why do the negras and that Comu-NIST boy Martin Luther King gotta push so hard for their 'rights'? What's the hurry? What about us white folks?"
"I don't give a damn what them Yankee Lib-ur-rals say about tha' Constitution. Why can't the negras stay at the back o' tha bus where they belong? It's them ACLU Comu-nists and that boy Martin Luther King ruinin' OUR way of life an' spoilin' our Negras rotten, is what it is!"
Ringing any bells, sir?
Your reference to the US as "a country of tolerance" seems to be in keeping with the idea that Muslims in America are here on sufferance and are not American citizens whose RIGHTS say they did NOT have to consult or ask permission. (The only consultation required of them was whatever is prescribed in building/development regulations. Generally, that is for neighbours - whoever they may or may not be. So if the regulations required neighbourhood consultation, so be it. If not, forget it.)
Suffering a loss of loved ones in a tragedy does not confer on anyone additional rights superior to or exceeding mine. 9/11 families do not govern me. We are equal and I do not need their permission for anything and have no need to consult them. So far, I have not heard them speaking out very loudly about health care for the responders. That's a bunch who have earned special consideration for additional rights because of their injuries sustained during public service - and even they do not have rights superseding mine!
Our family would consult our neighbours if we were having a party that could affect parking or might impinge on their quiet enjoyment. That courtesy was common practice, but no one complained about those who chose not to follow it. And we did not try to drive them out - because we respected them as free people to consult or not as was their right.
What nobody seems to realize is that to support the builder's rights and to object to religious intolerance is not the same as thinking that it is a good idea for the mosque to be built. And to oppose the building of the mosque is not to suggest that they should be banned from doing so.