Michael Enright’s face betrayed fear and perplexity as he became the tabloid news embodiment of America’s sudden binge of Islamophobia after his arrest for attempting to murder a Muslim cabbie in New York. Mr. Enright had returned in April from a short tour of duty in Afghanistan as a videographer for an interfaith group. What demons he brought back with him we will never know, but he appears to have carried them to New York. After an afternoon of heavy drinking on Aug. 23, he hailed a cab, questioned the driver about his religion and then began slashing him with a knife.
Most of the voices that have spoken out against the proposed Park51 community center near ground zero in lower Manhattan will deplore Mr. Enright’s attack and then deny that their campaign had anything to do with it. Fair enough. No one will ever be able to say for sure what propelled Mr. Enright. But what the “no mosque” pundits cannot deny is the sour contribution they have made to respectful, rational dialogue in U.S. civic life.
Words have consequences; rhetoric is not disconnected from action. Mr. Enright may be unbalanced, and what little self-restraint he possessed may have been broken by alcohol. But civic leaders promoting intolerance and fear cannot offer even these excuses. The voices raised against Park51, formerly called Cordoba House, which would be run by precisely the kind of moderate Islamic leadership the United States should be encouraging, have stirred up an unpleasant neo-nativist brew across the nation.
Initial reaction to Park51 was generally positive. In December 2009 it was described by its founders as a push-back against radical Islam, and it even received a thumbs-up from the conservative personality Laura Ingraham on a Fox News broadcast: “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it,” she told a co-founder, Daisy Khan. “I like what you’re trying to do.” But in May the initiative was discovered by Internet provocateurs who have prospered on Islamophobia. It was not long before political opportunists and assorted talk-radio and cable-TV barkers joined in. “There is no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center,” Newt Gingrich said. “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington.” “Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America,” Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association wrote, “let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.”
In May a pipe bomb exploded outside a mosque in Jacksonville, Fla. In August a mosque in California was vandalized, and a suspicious fire broke out at the construction site of an Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tenn. The heated debate over Park51 has now made home-grown hate a national phenomenon.
A few weeks ago it might have been acceptable for people of good will to support the right of Muslim Americans to practice their faith freely while objecting to the location. But to suggest today, as many have, that this proposed facility is insensitive to the personal loss of so many survivors of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, diminishes the luster of freedom for which 3,000 men and women were killed that day and for which the first responders died.
There are valid rebuttals to the case for impropriety. Park51 is not meant to celebrate the triumph of terrorism, but to confront it; it is a community center, not a mosque; it was intended to promote interfaith relations; it is located blocks from the heart of the World Trade Center site, while businesses and storefronts that hardly honor the sacredness of the suffering and loss experienced at ground zero may be found close by.
But now the ugliness has become widespread. People are being assaulted because of who they are, and constitutionally protected attempts to build mosques are being thwarted out of fear and ignorance. America is beginning to look like the crusading enemy of Islam that Al Qaeda claims it is. Political and religious leaders must cease waffling on this issue and unequivocally support both the right of Muslim citizens to build a place of community and worship—open to all—and the appropriateness of building in proximity to a place where cunning and cruelty took the lives of so many. Park51 can be a counterforce here and abroad to a toxic nativism that is propelling a clash of civilizations most Americans find repugnant. If we allow our worst fears and suspicions to deny Muslim Americans associated with the Cordoba Initiative a chance to do the good work they propose to do at Park51, then we are resigning ourselves and our children to a future of testy relations at home and abroad.
Would that Archbishop Dolan would say the same. Perhaps he could state, " I withdraw my offer to be an arbitrator in this situation because I have a definite point of view. Those who wish to be a cultural center that contains a place of prayer - a mosque- should not be inhibited anymore than other relgious group. There is really nothing to mediate."
I believe the Golden Rule should be applied now more then ever. As Mr. Gingrich proposes, Let's do unto the Muslims as they would do unto us. - No, I don't think so. Ilk, like Gingrich pick and choose the worst, in their attempt to smear all Muslims.
Second, the golden rule to do to others as they do to us does not apply to reprehensible actions. To do so is a perversion of the golden rule. Would you use the golden rule to justify shoving Jews in ovens here simply because the Germans did it?First, its not all Muslims. Saudi Arabia may limit Christianity but other Muslim countries or societies such as Indonesia do not.
Third, why in heavens name would any decent person attempt to justify applying reprehensible rules that exist elsewhere? To do so is to lower our standard of freedom and morality to their level. And that is really un-Christian.
This is good article which succinctly points out there was no issue. But then reprehensible Islamaphobic trolls made it so. Sadly, so many get sucked in.Please. The Golden Rule is (more or less) "Do unto others as you WOULD HAVE THEM do unto you." That means to treat others as you would like to be treated, not as they have treated you. To twist it the other way is counterproductive and inaccurate.
"The proposed mosque near where the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed, along with thousands of American lives, would be a 15-story middle finger to America.
It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious, so it is not surprising that the intelligentsia are out in force, decrying those who criticize this calculated insult."
This isn't a legal issue or about bigotry, fear or Islamophobia, but about common decency, sensitivity, and wisdom to do the right thing in the shadow of and in light of a catastrophic event, 9/11. Yes, do unto others…
In this context, the mosque people have a word problem, Islam. As to their brand of Islamism, their acceptance would be helped by openly dissociating themselves from some specifics of the other Islam: the fatwahs, barbaric punishments, wife-beating permission. A general declaration of peacefulness would hardly suffice. It is appropriate to ask: who are on the board of directors? where is the money from? how would the center deal with unpeaceful types? Only naivite would hesitate to ask these and other questions.
As far as I'm concerned regarding the revered safeguards of the First Amendment, I'm not sure that the intent of our Founding Fathers and Mothers would agree that the uninhibited exercise of religion means being able to build a church, synagogue, mosque wherever one wants, even if nobody else does! Of course we must respect the rational sensitivities of one another, individually and collectively, in non-discriminatory, mutually reciprocal ways. Resect for the sensitvities of others is not a one-way street! But there are common sense limits. Let me give a simple example which may, or may not apply satisfactorily.
If I were the administrator of a Catholic Hospital and a Jewish or Muslim patient felt uncomfortable with a crucifix on the wall, I would remove it out of respect for the felings of my Jewish or Muslim brother or sister. However, as a Catholic in a non-sectarian hospital with no crucifix on the wall, I would not expect the hospital to place one there to honor my religious sensitivities. That would be irrational, I think.
At the same time, I would expect the Jewish or Muslim brother or sister whose sensitivities I honored would, in turn, honor mine when threatened by bigotry from any source. Bigotry against Christanity is pretty rampant these days, especially towards Catholic Christianity. But that another story.
You see, respect works both ways, and as far as I'm concerned is rooted in the teaching of Jesus who said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
Yes, by all means build that Community Center with Mosque,- contrary to what "Mosque Hysteria" asserts, "It is a community center NOT a mosque" it is in fact a community center AND mosque. But do so with sensitivity towards the feelings of millions of Americans nationwide. Do not build at the present proposed site which does carry an "in your face" message! The World Trade Center cite is for many a burial ground for almost 3,000 Americans, a sacred place. Let the dead rest in peace! Everyone should respect that. Build near the cite but not at the proposed place. Is that so hard to accept?
In synthesis, what this national dilemma needs is for another Francis of Assisi to emerge, a Saint who in 1219 won the respect of Sultan Melek-al-Kamil, even offering to the Moslem Sultan a peace proposal which he accepted, but which the Christians rejected! Even so, Melek-al Kamil and St. Francis of Assisi became friends and was escorted out of harms way protected by the Sultan with many gifts from the Sultan. Is there another St. Francis of Assisi out there somewhere to whom we can cry out trustingly, HELP!
Isn't the point of this center to promote dialogue, Igor? I sympathize with people who are still hurting over the loss of loved ones on 9/11, but Muslims died in the attack too. You cannot claim to want genuine dialogue on one hand and do everything to avoid being confronted with those painful memories on the other.
The surest way to defeat an extremist group is to erode its credibility from within. The terrorists' power lies in their ability to convince other Musilms that 1) America hates them and 2) the only way to be authentically Muslim is to hate America right back.
Moderate Muslim groups threaten extremists' grip on power. By asserting themselves, they risk criticism from both Americans AND terrorist groups. If they are willing to take these kinds of risks, we as a nation, should be able to wrestle with our grief and fear.
But what is to be made of the Moslem voices who call into question the sincerity of the proponents of Park51, the inconsistencies of explanation, the strange, no downright inexplicable, juxtaposition of their stated desire to reach out and dialogue and their absolute refusal to reach out and dialogue, fixating instead on the illusory benefit of some idealized cultural center in an idealized location? Something is simply not right about the Park51 project.
The Vatican statement characterizes the plan to burn the Koran as "an outrageous and grave gesture against a book considered sacred by a religious community." It also notes that "[e]ach religious leader and believer is also called to renew the firm condemnation of all forms of violence, in particular those committed in the name of religion."
I hope the ueber-orthodox who claim to hang on every word that comes out of Rome will open their ears and hear this valuable message.
I would like to respond to the folks who are chastising others about being more tolerant of Islam and in particular, showing tolerance for the "mosque" or whatever edifice the Muslims wish to erect near Ground Zero. I suspect few question that the Muslims have a "right" to erect their mosque at that, or any, location. However, having a right to do a certain "thing" does not make doing that "thing" the "right thing to do." Case in point: Pastor Terry Jones wants to burn Qurans. He absolutely has the right to do that, but the fact that he has the right doesn't make the action itself "right." Imam Rauf says he wants this mosque to be a beacon of peace and good will. Well, it certainly isn't promoting any peace or good will at the moment. And if he and his followers were as sensitive as you "preachers" would have the rest of the US be, he'd pull the plug on this thing or move it to a less contentious location. I hear a lot about how we should be more sensitive and more tolerant of Islam. So, just to get an idea of how "intolerant" we Americans are of Islam I took a look at the FBI web site and garnered some statistics on hate crimes with a religious bias committed over the past several years. The results are pretty interesting. It seems as if the vast majority of religious biased hate crimes are committed against Jews, that for 2008, the last year for which statistics are available, the percentage of anti-Islamic incidents have decreased from the year before, and that the percentage of incidents that are anti-Christian are pretty close to the percentage of anti-Islamic incidents. I don't hear very much preaching about tolerance of Jews or Christians. In any pluralistic society, tolerance and sensitivity must be multi-directional.
I seem to recall a Jesuit saying "consider the source". Please consider the source of the man who made this assertion.
A bit of a truth split into pieces, "located blocks away from...". Please! Yes 2 blocks are block plural but why not include the 'two'.
Jesus had more than just the Golden Rule to say about problems like this one. I find it "interesting" that the Gospel for TODAY'S Mass is Luke 6:27-38 (below). Isn't this a great opportunity for us to figure out what our primary principles are?
Jesus said to his disciples:
"To you who hear I say, love your enemies,
do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you,
pray for those who mistreat you.
To the person who strikes you on one cheek,
offer the other one as well,
and from the person who takes your cloak,
do not withhold even your tunic.
Give to everyone who asks of you,
and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
For if you love those who love you,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners love those who love them.
And if you do good to those who do good to you,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners do the same.
If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners lend to sinners,
and get back the same amount.
But rather, love your enemies and do good to them,
and lend expecting nothing back;
then your reward will be great
and you will be children of the Most High,
for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Be merciful, just as also your Father is merciful.
"Stop judging and you will not be judged.
Stop condemning and you will not be condemned.
Forgive and you will be forgiven.
Give and gifts will be given to you;
a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing,
will be poured into your lap.
For the measure with which you measure
will in return be measured out to you."
Thank you to the editors of America for giving us a balanced picture of the controversy over the proposed Park51 Islamic community center and mosque. At the end of the day, though, I was troubled by an internal contradiction in the editorial and cannot say I fully endorse the editors’ bottom line.
Acknowledging that “[a] few weeks ago it might have been acceptable for people of good will to support the right of Muslim Americans to practice their faith freely while objecting to the location,” the editorial asserts, only three short paragraphs later that “[p]political and religious leaders must cease waffling on this issue and unequivocally support both the right of Muslim citizens to build a place of community and worship—open to all—and the appropriateness of building in proximity to a place where cunning and cruelty took the lives of so many.”
If persons of good will can acceptably object to the community center’s location, why must religious and political leaders unequivocally support its construction? The answer the editorial suggests is ultimately a pragmatic one. Opportunistic politicians and religious bigots have made the conversation about Park51 so toxic that unequivocal support is a way to send a message to the world that America is not like its enemies.
Yet to ask religious and political leaders who, in good conscience, hold a particular position to abandon it leads to the kind of pandering we are all too familiar with in our political process today. The problem with the critics of the project is that the timing and content of their comments suggest that they are acting not out of conscience, but out of ignorance and bigotry or to gain some political advantage on the left or the right.
In my view, the City of New York has an obligation to consider only whether this project accords with local laws, and will violate the Constitution if it takes the religious affiliation of the sponsors of the project into account when doing so. Legally, then, the project may proceed, and the sponsors of the project must determine whether it will. In doing so, consideration should be given to the needs of the Muslim community and the wider community that will be served by the center, but also to any legitimate concerns that may exist about the propriety of the center’s location in light of the collective trauma that Americans experienced on September 11, 2001.
It is not the role of all religious and political leaders to endorse the project; their role is to foster a more civil and thoughtful discussion of the issues at stake than we have been hearing.
Some folks tend to forget that the soldiers we are training in Afghanistan, and Iraq are Muslims wanting to protect their own people from extremists.
The Enright attach had nothing to with the "mosque hysteria". That is a sick man, committing a sick attack. You equivocated your comparison but it still stands. I think that most people who are against the mosque being built there, would, if it were built, welcome their new neighbors with open arms. The good will generated by moving the mosque a block or two or three, rightly or wrongly, would go a long way. We are light years beyond Europe in our beliefs and practices when it comes to freedom of religion.
They should be the ones held accountable for creating a situation like this.
Quite apart from the sensitivities of the public who understandably regard this whole area as a sacred site, this decision lacks vision and common sense.
People are not perfect!
We need to recognize that this development has been poorly sited and should have been stopped before it got anywhere near this stage.
It smacks of bureaucratic inertia and buck passing to me.
I would be calling your town planning department to account not attacking religion.
As for quoting 'the golden rule' (sic) the dictum requires a sense of the other person as much as recognition of self - christianity does not focus on self as the deserving object of all good but rather points out our unworthiness and need to put ourselves in the other persons place before making judgement.
Mediation is required but more importantly - call to account the public officials who threw fuel into this fire by letting the development get this far.