The Cordoba initiative (a.k.a. the Ground Zero Mosque) has attracted controversy and caused at least one new entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, courtesy of Sarah Palin. My Blogging Tories colleagues have been weighing in extensively.
Dr Roy remarked "These builders may have the right to build this , but they really shouldn't. It is a deliberate provocation and will further poison the atmosphere between Muslims and other North Americans." At Searching for Liberty, the author leaves it to Rahel Raza and Tarek Fatah to express his disapproval by quoting their Calgary Herald column on the issue. The Blog Quebecois brings us a case from across the pond in Germany, where extremism was spread under the guise of "culture". The greatest amount of coverage can be found at Moose and Squirrel, firmly in the disagreement camp.
I will beg to differ, and "refudiate" Sarah Palin while at it. The difference between her and Margaret Thatcher, for want of a less prominent comparison, is that Maggie's balls of steel did not have a cerebral opportunity cost.
So, developers are looking to make some bucks from two loss-making buildings in downtown New York and come up with the idea of a cultural centre. Being Muslim themselves, they can definitely know better how to build a Muslim centre than, say, a Hassidic one. So far so good, pity the neighbourhood isn't exactly your run-of-the-mill big downtown business district.
Because radical nuts caused the death of 3000 people nearby, the site and its surroundings expose a very sensitive nerve that hates being touched. The developers, displaying crass lack of PR, proceed then to patronise all within earshot about how their centre will promote "understanding", "tolerance" and other intangible, unmeasurable and generally empty concepts. Because on the face of it, they've been used so extensively that they're now devoid of value. Inflation works for words too, apparently.
Those who protest, legitimately, the building of the islamic cultural centre seem to screen out the fact the proposed development does no harm. It's provocative allright, and possibly ill thought out, but it is legal and does no-one an ounce of harm. On that merit alone it passes the test of a libertarian.
The Western press regularly reprints the cartoons of the prophet in order to assert its freedom. The Cordoba Initiative is giving us a taste of our own medicine in that regard. Our most correct and noble course of action would be to let them build the damn thing.
Firstly, its location would be a poignant reminder to its attendees about what happened close by. With a good and scholarly imam it could indeed turn into a centre preaching tolerance and peace. I wouldn't set the odds too high on that one though.
Secondly, and no less importantly, the interest surrounding it could be a stimulus for both religions to study each other without resorting to rhetoric. Right now the dialectic resembles an exchange between Mullah Omar and Fred Phelps. Understanding and tolerance can come solely through a deep mutual study, in order to see each other's moral and philosophical bedrock. Islam is not radical by nature, but it does lend itself to misinterpretation. If the Cordoba centre helps correct the mistakes of many, it won't be a waste of space and money.
Thirdly, it might at last serve as a stepping stone for many budding American Islamic scholars and imams. What should be encouraged (and maybe given a little money by Bloomberg the appeaser) is a closer tie to Egypt's Al Azhar University rather than wahhabi Saudi madrassas. I am sure there are tons of American muslim youngsters who would love to study their religion and preach it. Their dreams are hijacked by the Saudis, who groom them into radicalism. Maybe, just maybe, Cordoba could be persuaded to reverse this trend and begin breeding a generation of well-versed American imams. That would go a long way to nipping the mosque radicalisation in the bud.
Many Westerners buy into the garbage that this centre is equivalent to a declaration of victory by the Muslim community, citing some symbolism. Do we really wish to lower ourselves to considering the rantings of deluded schizophrenics as actually debatable?
I call it a wedge. It is the make-or-break for the Muslim community in America and in Manhattan especially. Will they let their most public face be sullied by extremist material and preachers? If they do, it will be an indelible stain on the entire community and break all the remaining trust between America and its Muslim citizens. The stakes are high and the gamble can pay off handsomely.
For its part, America should do what it does best and keep watch. Should radicalism seep into Cordoba's operations, it should dispense stick and deportations like it's DHS happy hour.
9 comments:
Oh, you can count on America keeping watch. The buildings surrounding this mosque should immediately raise their rents since all the government agencies that keep watch on would-be terrorist cells will be clamouring for a location near this centre to keep an eye on the people coming and going. Perhaps it is a good idea to build it so you can herd your enemies into a small location to make it easier to keep tabs on them.
Maybe one of the 911 victims family members will fly a plane into it.
As repugnant as Anon #1's suggestion is he/she is probably right. There's no question in my mind that this is as much a test of US sentiment as it is a provocation... a thumb in the eye of the wounded tiger. So it should come to no one's surprise when this place becomes a lightning rod for attacks. When you have even Muslims saying it's a bad idea maybe it should be re-thought.
And yeah it passes the very basic of Libertarian tests... but it also exposes the weakness of the Libertarian philosophy. Sometimes "do what you want within the confines of the law" is not in the public interest. Would you protest a halfway house for pedophiles to exist across the street from an elementary school? I doubt there's a law against it but it's not the smartest idea.
Who do they think they're fooling? Who else other than Muslims will ever go into that place? And if the answer is approximately NONE then how can it possibly be a "center for mutual understanding" or whatever it is they claim it will be. It won't build bridges... it won't foster mutual understanding or respect. If it was a multi-faith and multi-cultural centre that would be a different story - but this will be the equivalent of the North American Islamic Batcave.
I think the clearest answer will come from looking closely at who's financing this place. I'll bet it's not coming from common Muslims, that's for sure. So if we're seeing big Saudi money being involved perhaps we should be asking ourselves WHY. Why would they back this? What's the game here? And what is likely to be gained from it?
There are a sleuth of laws against convicted child predators residing or being close to certain places where children are present. Sometimes they're completely bonkers and basically make ex-convicts complete outcasts because there's no urban area they can live in. But they're not wrong per se.
AFAIK it isn't just a mosque but a community centre. I share your doubts about the audience it will cater to, but we can't go around telling businesses who should walk through their doors.
"do what you want if it's within the law" is in the public interest exactly because it establishes the certainty of your success not being hindered by the "common good" or the "public interest" as perceived by special interest groups. Which means you can put your best skills to work without being told what's best for others.
The "public interest" is a fiction. It is exclusionary, precisely because there is no common denominator for all members of the public to agree on. Some members of the public would definitely like murder to be legal, while most, reasonably, shun such a proposal. The fact it's illegal is not in the "public" interest, but "private". It is in your interest, as an individual, for your right to be safe and alive to be enforced.
The ban on a Muslim presence close to ground zero is in the interest of those groups who feel touched by the tragedy, but it isn't the "public". It's a majority, imposing their view on a minority. The latter is not infringing anyone's right to anything. Ergo, the ban is not in the public interest, but in the interest of the majority. The same majority whose right to dictatorial power is limited by the US Constitution.
Why do you call people who oppose this schizophrenics?
The application for this building clearly stated that it is for a mosque, not a cultural centre.
The schizophrenics are the Islamic pseudo-scholars who claim that Islam will take over the west and the mosques are its victory flagpoles. Should we take these idiots seriously?
I had a slick duet of lawyers at the OHRT case for my wrongfull dismissal case where my own Company painted me a liar and weasel but then offered me a job to show the OHRC I wasn't fired.
I shot back at these Nabobs and opined how they would have done well during the era of Slavery when it was wrong but Legal and defended by Judges and lawyer like them.
So let the Islamist thugs build their tribute to their 19 hero Muslim brothers that slaughtered god children for allah.
Those idiots don't have a clue that it's now a Target full of Muslims on the top floor during friday prayers, and there are 3 airports within minutes of the Mosque to hijack any fully fueled Plane at take-off and slam into it as the clock dictates when prayer time is for maximum carnage of only Muslims.
The pro-Hamas Imam can't win, if he does profess to be a Moderate to denounce Sharia and exalt the USA, then another 19 Muslims will slaughter them in a new 9/11 attack to that Mosque, if he is using Taqqiyah and a true islamofascist thug,this may trigger a civil war where a lone nutbar flies a plane into the Tower which will be blamed on "The Joooo's" and spark a worse global riot and mass murder by Muslim than the cartoons did.
Use Google earth, see for yourself the 3 airport near-by which I think is a set-up to lure in an attack to fuel more Terrorism that CAIR loves to claim has no link to Islam.
This "slamming a plane into Cordoba House" bullshit stops now.
It's a barbaric thought to entertain, and no civilized person would ever contemplate it.
It's not a target, and should never, EVER, be considered as such.
I only hope leaving the last comment on doesn't constitute being instrumental to encouraging hatred.
Good post. Hopefully, this could bridge differences.
Even if it were a deliberate provocation on the part of those who wish to build this Islamic center, which I highly doubt, then shouldn't be incumbent upon the Americans to rise above that and not fall into that trap?
Post a Comment