Logo

Is productive dialogue possible around Ground Zero?

Wednesday, August 18, 2010
ShareThis

The Muslim community center near Ground Zero--now Park51 instead of the Cordoba House--is keeping interfaith relations in the news, but the question now is: Is any publicity good publicity?

Back in college, I wrote a paper critiquing media coverage of interfaith dialogue. My research, just a few years after 9/11, found that there was little coverage beyond event announcements.

With recent debates, most of America has now heard of the Cordoba Initiative. People are at least discussing the possibility and purpose of talking to their Muslim neighbors, though most aren't eager to start quite yet. Even with all the hatred out there, is it at least a good thing that we're holding difficult discussions about religious freedom and dialogue, as on my previous post on this subject?

This is my reaction to this heated debate between Eboo Patel, director of the Interfaith Youth Core and a U.S. Catholic interviewee, and a CNN anchor (a representative of the group fighting Park51 was there too, but the CNN anchors comments are what really got me thinking). The CNN anchor pointed out that Park51 seems only to be creating more division, countering its goal to bring together people of various faiths. Watch the video here:

Should proponents of interfaith activity push through criticism or should they try not to make waves? As a journalist, all I know is that "not making waves" won't keep your issue in the spotlight.

The other question, though, is what is that spotlight focused on. Unfortunately, as astute media critic/comedian Jon Stewart pointed out, the spotlight is on the politics rather than question of dialogue and freedom.

An anti-Muslim attitude that conflates extremism with all Islam has become a rallying cry for some politicians, distorting the truth about both Islam and individuals such as Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf. Thanks to Eminem for linking to this article that clears up the distortion against the Rauf, and Stewart points out that Glenn Beck actually agrees with Rauf that American policy had something to do with 9/11. Our discussion would be a lot more productive if we lost all the political angling.

A few other interesting links on this story:
The Daily Show's Monday episode. I'm not posting the video here because the swearing and crack at the Catholic Church might offend some, but he makes some interesting points, and the story about a Muslim woman denied as a foster parent because she wouldn't serve pork in her house is pretty sad.

While I was right in my previous post that atheists such as Christopher Hitchens don't like moderate religious people, Hitchens isn't against the center. Read his argument against responding with emotion and taking "offense" to the mosque at the National Post.

Finally, a Huffington Post blogger wonders about the strip joint near Ground Zero and the mall planned for the new building. He also asks about the monument to Lee (as well as the shops and McDonalds) at Gettysburg.

Posted in: In preview mode

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My question is simply this

While I can understand the ideas the anonymous poster above suggested, I disagree with the conclusion. The question I derive from this is simply are we a nation with religious freedom?

The reality is that the center is not being built on the site of the World Trade Center, nor even across the street. It's like 4 blocks away. It became "newsworthy" only because it was in the general proximity and it involved Muslims.

While the anonymous poster above asks about a "Confederate War Memorial" near the African-American Museum, I feel it necessary to point out that in pockets of the country, Confederate flags are displayed with no regard to any of the negative connotations it might have. For some, it's a memento of southern pride. For others, it's a reminder of the harsh history of the south. It's perspective.

That's my big concern here...which perspective is allowed? One that reflects the larger, pluralist, society we have? Or a narrower view?

Answer to Simple Question

The proposed facility was hit by airplane debris and body parts on 9/11.

Read the linked opinion of moderate Muslims who oppose the Mosque on the grounds that it will give Islamists a victory and hurt moderate Islam. Furthermore they note the inappropriateness of building a mosque near the scene of mass murder in the name of Islam. After reading it, do you that a Serbian Othodox Church should be built upon a place where Muslims were murdered to reflect the larger, pluralist society of the Balkans?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

Hey Mr. Anonymous!

Assuming you are the same poster calling for the facility in the name of a "larger pluralistic society" Why don't you answer my question of about the appropriateness of building a Church on or near a site where Muslims were massacred?

Get the facts straight.

It's NOT a mosque. It's a community center. News flash: there were few places in the vicinity that were not covered in debris. Does that mean we're not utilizing ANY of that space for anything religious?

Further, the group founding this center is only affiliated with the people who attacked on 9/11 by faith tradition. That's like holding every Catholic in the US responsible for the Catholics who tortured the Jewish people in the middle ages, or holding every Catholic responsible for the priests who did abuse children. We wouldn't go for that, why is it okay to do that to others?

I've have the facts straight

This community center includes a Mosque on the top floor, which is an exclusive Muslim worship space.

As noted by moderate Muslims who oppose the project, if the community center was truly ecumenical it would also include a church.

It is irrelevant if the folks behind this truly are seeking peace and reconciliation, radical Islamist around the world will see this as a victory for radical Islam.

Despite the unwillingness to disclose funding sources, it is evident funding is coming from overseas. These overseas donors where not willing to give to a location that was not close to the 9/11 triumph over the infidels.

Dialouge?

I believe Megan is sincere when she says she wants dialouge, but I believe she has no awareness of how she shuts dialouge down. In the above piece, he only positions she assigns to opponents of the ground zero mosque is 1) They are hateful 2) They are political opportunists 3) They have an anti-Muslim attitude that conflates extremism with all Islam 4) They are not eager to speak with their Muslim neighbors.

If you want true dialouge, address valid points of the opposition, don't set up straw men arguments, and have the charity not to imply the basis of the opposition is largely irrational fear and hate.

Many valid points against the mosque were raised in the comments section of the prior blog on the Mosque, but Megan addresses none of them.

Megan Sweas's picture

Fear, hatred, and politics

1 and 4. "Even with all the hatred out there" does not mean all opponents are hateful and don't want to speak with their Muslim neighbors.
2 and 3. "An anti-Muslim attitude that conflates extremism with all Islam has become a rallying cry for some politicians" does not mean that all opponents are political opportunists, or that all opponents or all politicians are conflating extremism with all Islam.

But it's hard to deny that politics, fear, and hatred have become prominent parts of this discussion:

From a Washington Post article about using this as a political issue:
"Not all Republicans see an advantage in exploiting the controversy. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a rising star in the party, declined to give his opinion. He said that Obama and some members of the GOP are 'playing politics with this issue, and I simply am not going to do it.' 'We have to bring people together,' Christie added. 'And what offends me the most about all this is that it's being used as a political football by both parties.'"

The Huffington Post is clearly biased, so I'm not sure about this video, but it seems awfully clear that even Pat Buchanan is taking Newt Gingrich to task.

Participating in dialogues with Muslims and knowing a number of Muslims who practice their faith at various levels has given me a positive perspective on Islam and helped me understand that Muslims in this country do face a level of hatred. There is plenty of evidence, some of which I've linked to, that opposition to mosques around the country is due to fear. Many people might be ok with individual Muslims, but there seems to be a fear that in allowing them to gather to practice their faith, we're enabling terrorism. I don't think this applies to everyone (certainly not the opponent in the above video), but fear and hatred do seems to be an undercurrent, and we need to deal with this honestly.

As I point out in my last post, there are real concerns about homegrown terrorism (and I'll admit this scares me!), but the answer to that problem isn't to shut out moderate Muslims (I know I can't convince you this would be a moderate mosque).

I really appreciate the link to the Muslims who are against the mosque. I, too, have wondered about compromises they mentioned such as a monument or promised interfaith activities/commemorations, visible signs that extremists aren't welcome, transparency in funding. Maybe if extremists came into the mosque, those who work there might be able to convert their views (I know I'm being a bit idealistic here considering moderate Muslims are favorite targets to extremists).

To end on a positive note, here is something I think would help a lot: Archbishop Dolan as a mediator to solve this problem. It certainly would be better than a debate between Gingrich/Palin and Obama.

Clarity, Clarity, Clarity

I chose my words carefully. I did not claim you thought all people who oppose the mosque had bad motives. I wrote “the only position she assigns to opponents of the ground zero mosque (are bad things)” and she addresses none of the valid points.
The AP does the same thing to frame the debate in terms of discrimination. Instead of reporting about moderate Muslims who oppose the mosque because it will embolden Islamists, the AP sends reporters to a crazy church in Florida that wants to stop all mosques. This leads people in the leftist bubble world to conclude that opposition is largely based on ignorance or bad motives even though every opponent of any significant stature and the vast majority of people who oppose the ground zero mega mosque just ask that it be located not so close.
Framing of the debate through the leftist lens destroys clarity about what is important. Whether Imam Rauf means well is of secondary importance. Even if he has the purist motives, millions of Islamists will be emboldened.
Evan Sayat, a former liberal, posits liberal members of the “cult of indiscriminateness” have no choice but to support things such as the mega-mosque especially when Mr. Patel speaks of being “in the back of the bus.” But Mr. Sayat had his moment of clarity. You expressed concerns about transparency of funding. A spokesman for the mosque would not rule out funding from Iran, etc.

Several ideas

Here are a few ideas:

1. The Timothy McVeigh Center located next to the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

2. The Confederate War Memorial, replete with the Stars and Bars, next to the soon to be built African-American Museum in Washington DC.

Do you think that either would be built? Do you think that any group advocating them was peaceful or maybe had some ulterior motives? Do you think that regardless of rights that the sensitivity issue would prevail? Perhaps it is time that Muslims showed some of the sensitivity and respect they continually demand from others.

You are saying that...

You are saying that Islam is to America what McVeigh was to Oklahoma City and what the Confederacy was to African-Americans.   This is ridiculous, and here's what you're missing:

McVeigh may have been a Catholic, but certainly all Catholics are not a threat to this country.  Should a Catholic church not be built 2 blocks from the Oklahoma City site?

In a similar fashion, just because the 9/11 terrorists may have been Muslim, does not mean all Muslims are a threat to the U.S.

Although in principle I don't agree with putting all religions on the same level, the fact is that our government has always done this (at least in principle) from its founding. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.