Missing The Point On The Ground Zero Mosque
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, columnist Daniel Henninger takes on the topic of the "Ground Zero Mosque." I will spare the context, as this is a major story and needs little background. In short, a large Islamic Center is set to be built a couple blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood. This has predictably led to some hand-wringing by some people who are dead certain that Islam itself attacked the U.S. on 9/11, and not a group of adherents to the faith. There is a difference, a very important one.
Not to be curt, but I think Mr. Henninger would probably object to the following logic: Some Catholic priests and others in the institutional church either actively sexually abused children or had some hand in covering it up. Therefore, all Catholics are at least somewhat inclined to sexually abusing children. Of course this is not true. It's the same with Islam and terrorism.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) estimates that there are roughly 7 million Muslims living in America. Even if the number were 1/10 that, denying people the right to build a house of worship - on private property, no less - represents everything that America is not, and must not be.
Henninger's column is meant to be a response to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's speech last week (watch his speech here).
Let's go graf by graf. Heninger writes:
It will be an irony of a different sort if the $100 million Islamic center rises 13 stories while the new the World Trade Center site, nine years after, remains a pit of dust-covered construction struggling to rejoin the life of New York City. For the most extreme elements of Islam, this must seem a crude, enduring victory.
This seems to be more of an indictment of New York bureaucracy and indecision on the part of city planners than any grand victory for Islamic terrorists. It also demonstrates the beauty and efficiency of private land ownership - yay property rights!
Henninger continues:
Indeed in the wake of much praise for Mayor Bloomberg's defense of civil and religious liberty, let me modestly suggest that he next go to Rome in October and deliver a sequel at Pope Benedict XVI's synod on what the pope recently called the "urgent" plight of Christian minorities in the Middle East. Here, Mr. Bloomberg was preaching to the choir. Try it over there, where it really matters.
Bloomberg is the Mayor of New York City, not an ambassador for global religious tolerance or some papal advisor-in-chief. His speech set out to highlight how we do things in America. Anyone can come to the U.S. and worship (or not) whatever God strikes his or her fancy. This is what sets America apart from the Saudi Arabia's of the world - religious freedom.
Henninger is right, Christians are discriminated against, sometimes violently, in other countries. But, what does this have to do with building a mosque near the 9/11 site? If anything, it reinforces the fundamental goodness of America against the badness of religious oppressors in far-away lands.
And, on the mayor "preaching to the choir." Apparently he wasn't, as Henninger wrote an 800-word piece about the speech in the most widely-circulated paper in America.
He goes on:
Churches are destroyed, not built. In April, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, described the disappearance of Christians from the Middle East as "a possibility that appalls me." Iran this week sentenced seven Bahái leaders, merely for being Baháis. These are national policies, not merely "extremist" Islam. This is directly linked to why the West, including lower Manhattan, is being attacked.
If churches are not being built in Riyadh, I think it has very little to do with Michael Bloomberg, Lower Manhattan, 9/11, or pluralism in America. It has to do with intolerant populations and governments enacting policies that are seen as generally disagreeable by the average Westerner (I hope). This makes me want to build more mosques, Buddhist temples, and whatever other house of worship one can conceive of in America. Defending intolerance by saying others are intolerant is wrong on many levels.
Some more:
Islam isn't just another religion in America. It is bound up in the biggest political struggle of our time. Notwithstanding Imam Rauf's commitments to "dialogue," what has he or the rest done to promote and protect the traditions of Western civil society, for which many here and in Europe have fought and died? Maybe the Constitution doesn't explicitly require it, but where is the good faith on their part?
Where is the good faith on your part, Mr. Henninger? Nearly every single Muslim ever to live in America has never committed any act of terror. In fact, the same is true for nearly every Jew, Christian, Sikh, and Hindu in America. By living and worshiping freely and peacefully in the U.S., people of all faiths are upholding the essence of what it means to be American.
And, as far as the "traditions of Western civil society" go, I think to own property, do what one wants on said property, and to worship the God of one's choice, captures the essence of what we idealists want America to be.
Henninger ends his piece by chronicling the Vatican's outreach to Islam and Islam's (mainly Saudi Arabia's) unwillingness to reciprocate "with good will." The relationship between Mecca and The Vatican has no bearing on the ability of Americans to worship freely, nor should it.
--
Zach Peterson is Current Intelligence magazine's Content Editor. The views expressed here are his own.
August 13, 2010 at 11:00
Reader Comments (3)
Great post. The unbelievably absurd Saudis-don't-let-Christians-build-churches-so-we-shouldn't-let-Muslims-build-mosques argument deserves the thorough dismantling you properly gave it above. Pointing to religious intolerance, persecution, and bigotry in a country ranked last on Pew's Global Restrictions on Religious Freedom 2009 Index is not a persuasive reason to restrict the religious freedoms of people in the United States of America.
Minor quibble -- your analogy about Catholic priests isn't really applicable. The connection between the teachings of the Bible and pedophilia (nonexistent) is rather different than the connection between the teachings of Muhammad and jihad (debatable, but very real).
Regardless of your position, you have to agree this is a well written speech. Here's my take on the techniques Bloomberg and his team employed to make this perhaps his most memorable speech of his tenure: [LINK]
@AM (I have a decent idea of who you are...<whispering creepily>) - On priestly molestation v jihad, I agree that it was not the most apt of comparisons. But, by the same token, the analogy is meant to emphasize behavior among a wider group.
I mean, the Bible doesn't exactly beg its followers to be the most tolerant all the time (see Deuteronomy) either.
My larger point was that Henninger makes a similar comparison/generalization without actually saying it, and that's just not really acceptable.