Feisal Abdul Rauf has a nice column in the NYTimes today explaining his position in regards to Cordoba House. But he gets a few things screwy.
One is any empathetic understanding of why people might be unhappy with his decision to build the place in that spot and
I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, as are my fellow leaders of many faiths. We will accordingly seek the support of those families, and the support of our vibrant neighborhood, as we consider the ultimate plans for the community center. Our objective has always been to make this a center for unification and healing.
two is a threat of what happens if he doesn’t build it.
The wonderful outpouring of support for our right to build this community center from across the social, religious and political spectrum seriously undermines the ability of anti-American radicals to recruit young, impressionable Muslims by falsely claiming that America persecutes Muslims for their faith. These efforts by radicals at distortion endanger our national security and the personal security of Americans worldwide. This is why Americans must not back away from completion of this project. If we do, we cede the discourse and, essentially, our future to radicals on both sides. The paradigm of a clash between the West and the Muslim world will continue, as it has in recent decades at terrible cost. It is a paradigm we must shift.
In other words, if we don’t build this, the terror will go on.
Third is a bit of bigotry that I don’t think he meant to do.
Lost amid the commotion is the good that has come out of the recent discussion. I want to draw attention, specifically, to the open, law-based and tolerant actions that have taken place, and that are particularly striking for Muslims.
If law-based, tolerant actions are particularly striking for Muslims then doesn’t that make them all a bit of a threat? (no, I do not believe that Muslims en masse are a threat but that statement certainly makes it sound like they are!)
Mr. Rauf doesn’t mention why he has to build the Cordoba House where he’s going to build it and I suspect at this point in time it’s not only stubbornness, but hostility that is keeping it where it is. This column he wrote tries to brush aside all concerns and focus on things like tolerance and freedom of religion without having much to do with freedom of speech of those protesting.
Good for him for giving it a go, but….no – he didn’t change my mind or my objections. And yes – he of course has the right to do this just like the Reverend Terry Jones has the right to burn the Koran. (totally different. One to supposedly heal and the other purposefully hurtful – yes, I know)
I am getting soooooooooooo freaking tired of being lectured to, put down by, and being told I am a rascist/bigot for every belief or thought I have. I wanted Soledad O’Brein to ask the peacefull Imam if the murderers who slaughtered Daniel Pearl deserved to be scorned. Where was all the intelligenstia ( I love to hate that word: Cher) crying for Berg? If anyone doesn’t think this location wasn’t perfectly planned is incredibly niaive.
I would like to coordinate some thoughts and request a guest post. This is becoming a VERY big deal. As much as I think Mayor Bloomberg was wrong about the Mosque, he at least is consistent about the Koran burning. On the right and left, he’s about the only one that is consistent.
Not sure I would give Bloomberg that much credit…from James Taranto at the WSJ yesterday:
Maybe, though, we’re giving the mayor too much credit for consistency. He has a lot more respect for this crackpot pastor than for those who have exercised their First Amendment rights merely by criticizing the Ground Zero mosque. But of course Bloomberg needs to pretend the critics are unreasonable. Since the Koran-burning pastor actually is unreasonable, Bloomberg can make a pretense of tolerance instead.
I’m with JG. I wouldn’t give Bloomberg any credit based on what he really thinks of free speech.