The Ground Zero Mosque; Nat Hentoff Has His Say

Like most folks these days, I receive a steady stream of forwarded columns, blogs, articles and other items from the interesting but often invasive world of the internet. And like many other New Yorkers, many of these have lately dealt with the bitter controversy over plans to build an Islamic Center and Mosque within close and to many of us, uncomfortable proximity to Ground Zero.

One of the more intelligent ones has come from a man I often disagree with - veteran gadfly Nat Hentoff. This column of his makes enormous sense and should be read by anyone concerned with this important issue:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=195409

 

Comments

[americles]

01:15 PM on 08/25/2010

Thank you for providing the link to Mr. Hentoff's column. The man is virtually synonymous with the First Amendment. For a closer look at the constitutional aspects of this issue, I hope everyone will read his column.

[Lon]

02:05 PM on 08/25/2010

What do you find valuable about the column. The extend that the column deals with constitutional issues is to say that of course Rauf has the right to build the community center.

The rest of the column to me seems to be a dumbing down of Rauf's history to a point that is embarasing. There is a lot of reducing complex issues to soundbites. And there is a reliance sources who are not particularly expert on their subject. For example he takes seriously Andrew McCarthy who thinks that Islam and the left are working together to sabatoge America. This is hardly someone who would be taken seriously by someone who actually wanted to know what Rauf believes.

To me this seemed to be a paean to ignorance. You obviously had a different take on it. What did you find valuable in it?

[Kenneth Green]

12:45 PM on 08/25/2010

Thanks for guiding me to the Hentoff column. Before even reading it I noticed how it was surrounded by ads. for safe rooms and how to defend your house from home invasion. This is the kind of crap that appeals to the scared rabbits who fear to walk the streets without being armed; the folks who will surrender all their rights except their second amendment right and are even more willing to deny those rights to those they fear. Hentoff is where he belongs.

[americles]

01:19 PM on 08/25/2010

So "before even reading it" you pronounced judgment on his column. Isn't there a word for that? Wait, now I remember... Prejudice.

[RyanC1384]

12:16 PM on 08/25/2010

I've been in the middle on this issue since the beginning. The Constitution obviously protects the right for the Mosque to be built, but emotional opposition is not unwarranted either.
Sam Harris had a great Op Ed in the Washington Post yesterday. He mentions an obvious way that the anger toward the Imam and Mosque could have been quelled.

http://www.doubledutchpolitics.com/2010/08/one-paragraph-that-could-end-the-park-51-uproar/

[Lon]

12:49 PM on 08/25/2010

If Harris' point is that Rauf should argue that true Islam is inconsistent with terrorism and that Islam should be understood in a way that is consistent with American values, then Rauf has already written a book on the subject so Harris' request seems odd.

If Harris' point is that Rauf should make his statement in a way that is as insulting to Islam as possible and includes Harris' belief that religion is naturally dangerous and Islam worst of all, then it does not seem all that reasonable a request. For that matter it does not seem like it would be all that valuable a contribution. It might help Harris to feel superior to muslims, but he apparently is capable of doing that on his own.

It should be noted that the people who brought about the enlightenment in the Christian world did precisely what Rauf is doing. They argued for freedom and intellectual curiosity from within the Christian tradition. There might have been some who took Harris' approach, but then one would not expect to hear from them since it is such an obviously useless tack to take in addressing the problems within a large religous tradition.