Editor’s Note: This is in response to Nicholas Harrison’s column “Debate about Ground Zero mosque belittles American values” which ran on Monday.
Many are missing the point of the Ground Zero Mosque Debate.
Ever since the “Ground Zero Mosque” (less commonly known as the Park 51 project) became national news, tensions have risen on both sides of the debate.
On Monday, Nicholas Harrison wrote an article arguing that this debate “belittles American values.” In some ways he is right, however not for the reasons he states.
Many who support the building of the mosque argue that opponents of the mosque are infringing on the First Amendment rights of Muslims to practice their religion and worship freely, and are therefore un-American.
Harrison writes, “As a soldier, I must emphatically state I am not risking my life so that anyone can tell someone else they can’t worship freely in this country.”
Harrison means that he is willing to fight for American citizens’ freedom to worship. However, I hope that Harrison’s will to fight for the First Amendment also extends to the freedom of any person to openly express their hostility, disagreement, or even hatred of any and every issue, whether one approves of his opinions or not.
To turn the mosque debate into a debate over First Amendment rights is actually a straw man argument. Nobody that can be taken seriously in this debate has opposed Muslims’ rights to worship freely.
Nor for that matter are they opposing Muslims’ rights to build the Muslim center in lower Manhattan. If this were really a debate over Muslims’ Constitutional rights, then practically everyone would be in agreement.
Stop playing games. This debate is not about rights. Nor is it about Harrison’s statement that “a large portion of the public has bought into the idea that the West is at war with Islam.”
The heart of this debate boils down to one question: is building the Muslim center so close to Ground Zero really a good idea?
According to polls from Rasmussen, The New York Times, CNN, and Fox News, the majority of Americans and New Yorkers think it is not.
Americans do not oppose the building of this center because they are afraid of Muslims. They oppose it because, among other things, they are worried that such a center would take attention away from the significance of the Ground Zero tragedy.
Recall the Carmelite nuns who opened a convent near Auschwitz in 1984. Their intentions were noble: to pray for those who had perished, and, as the nuns believed, to help save the lost souls of the non-Christians who had died there.
Despite the nuns’ good intentions, many Jews were outraged and offended by the gesture.
Some even felt that the Polish government and the Catholic Church were trying to minimize the significance of the Jewish suffering at Auschwitz.
The dispute was crippling the relationship between both the Catholic Church and the worldwide Jewish community. It was not until Pope John Paul II intervened that the dispute was settled. He ordered the nuns to move, and they did.
Pope John Paul II realized that the nuns were doing more harm than good, regardless of their mission’s innocence or their rights to be at Auschwitz.
If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan truly wish to build a Muslim center that will foster healing, respect, and understanding, then they must understand that building the center at Park 51 runs the risk of burning rather than building the bridges that they so envision.
"If this were a dispute over the legality of building a Muslim center near Ground Zero, then I fully support the Rauf's right to build Park 51. Government has absolutely no business getting involved in that dispute."
Ultimately Rauf will have to decide whether the center will cause more harm than good. Whatever his decision, I hope it is the right one.
- Tucker Cross, letters senior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
roddack 1 year, 9 months ago
This whole issue with the Mosque is unfounded they have just as much as a right to be there as the next person and if someone doesn't like the location of the Mosque then they are free to not go to it. I mean seriously what arbitrary distance will quell the masses into accepting its location? The idea that it will take away from Ground Zero is ludicrous and no more valid then saying that the St. Joesph or First Church take away from the Oklahoma memorial
kdbp1213 1 year, 9 months ago
assuming zoning laws allowed, let's allow timothy mcveigh's family to build a mcveigh memorial or move mcveigh's tombstone next to the new murrah building and bombing memorial......... it's offensive and insensitive. think about it, folks.
build a mosque (or any place or worship) but not at ground zero. it's offensive and insensitive. imam rauf is unnecessarily creating a big headache for himself and the folks intending to use the mosque..........
normally, the politically correct crowd is sensitive, caring, and opposes offensiveness. why the change???
Gene 1 year, 9 months ago
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say most of the Americans opposing this mosque are doing it because they are afraid of Muslims. Good effort at making a respectable defense, but the real opposition to this does not deserve respect. It is outrage ginned up by demagogues and fearmongerers, with little basis in the reality of what this project is or who is sponsoring it.
Arafat 1 year, 9 months ago
I differ with both editorials. I think the real issue is about Islam being illegal under our constitution. Let me explain.
But first let me say they have the constitutional right to build the GZM. It is offensive and is typical of Muslims to do so, but legal. (As an aside it’s worth noting that it’s a rare Islamic country where we can build a church, synagogue, or other religious non-Muslim site, but that does not seem to get in the way of Muslims thumbing their noses at us as they build a mosque as close as they can get to where their brothers killed our brothers and sisters. This is nothing more than another example of Muslim compassion in action.)
But enough of that. If Mohammed were alive today he would be sitting on death row.
Wherever Islam has been practiced for a generation or more we find the laws/rules/values governing these barbaric people’s actions are clearly unconstitutional. Take Yemen as an example. Child marriage is common. This is nothing more than there emulating Mohammed who married Aisha when she was six years old, in Yemen this practice continues today. Or take Jordan, where honor killings are common and penalties for such killings are negligible. Or Iran where gays are killed for being gay. Or Saudi Arabia where it is illegal to build a church, carry a bible, wear a cross or be a Jew. Or Sudan where there is no punishment for rape, murder, genocide. Or Libya where the person responsible for the murder of hundreds in the Lockerbie plane crash is honored as a hero. Or Turkey where the open discussion of the Armenian Genocide (when Ottomans killed 1.5 million Armenian Christians in-and-around 1915) is punishable by jail. Or Afghanistan where blowing up ancient, one-of-a-kind Buddhist statues are considered heroic deeds.
I think you understand my point. The practice of Islam and its vile Sharia law and its vile customs, and its vile bigotry is unconstitutional. They can legally build their vile mosque if they want to. They simply cannot practice their barbaric religion once the mosque is built for their religion is both unconstitutional as well as barbaric.
dargus 1 year, 9 months ago
kdbp1213, if McVeigh's family can afford to buy property near the memorial, assuming anyone would sell it to them, and they comply with all local zoning laws, they certainly have the right to do whatever they wish with it. We let the KKK hold rallies because of the same principle. It isn't for the government to discriminate against ideas or expression. Giving the government this power to use against something you despise also gives them the power to use it against something you cherish. Besides, I can promise you if this situation did occur, OKC would be passing some new zoning laws to prevent it.
The real issue with the mosque is that there is nothing wrong with it. Not all Muslims are terrorists, no mater what some people want to believe. To hold every member of a religion accountable for the acts of a small number of nut jobs is asinine. If we do this, no religion will be acceptable. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that, but we must consistently apply this wonderful new principle. Unless this mosque is going to have murals celebrating the fall of the towers, I don't see what about it is offensive in any way.
Steven Zoeller 1 year, 9 months ago
I differ with this editorial. It claims that "Americans do not oppose the building of this center because they are afraid of Muslims." Having talked to some members of opposition, I know this is simply untrue. While there are a couple sensible people who are more concerned with its actual proximity and spiritual offense to Ground Zero, I know a larger amount is just plain intolerant.
Islamophobia is actually an immense issue, one that is apparent across the United States, as demonstrated by the opposition to Mosques everywhere these days. In the last town I lived in before Norman, a mosque was proposed and almost cancelled due to opposition. I know the same sentiment pervades NYC.
A straw man argument? Sure, but it's also the most common argument against the center right now. If it sounds stupid, that's because the vast majority of opponents employ that stupidity. I envy the writer, because he apparently has not come into contact with the most vehement opponents of the center. The previous editorial was correct in addressing this issue that way. It was trying to elevate the dialogue by sweeping the stupid stuff out of the way. This article says a significant amount of opposition isn't stupid. Again, I envy the writer.
And for the last time, the Associated Press has already insisted against calling it the "Ground Zero Mosque". In fact, it's not even a mosque by definition. It's a community center with a small prayer space. In Islamic terms, that's a big difference.
leftfield 1 year, 9 months ago
The problem with this is that virtually every senator who opposes this mosque today were also the ones who adamently proclaimed that the 9/11 attacks were not perpetuated by the Muslim religion; that it was the work of a few radicals. They also said that the war was absolutely not a war against Islam, it is a war against terror.
Despite all this rhetoric, it is very obvious that most Americans hold Muslims accountable. It is obvious that most Americans do not make a distinction between terrorist radicals and Muslims. Most Americans do not care that there are millions of American Muslims who deserve the right to pratice their religion. They only care about guilt by association. Should all Christians be banned more than two blocks from the site of abortion clinics because one Christian man killed a doctor and harmed staff on behalf of his God?
mythman 1 year, 9 months ago
I agree that the protesters have every right to oppose this falsely labeled "Ground Zero Mosque." They are, however, wrong. Those planning Park 51 were not involved with, nor sympathizers with, the 9/11 attacks. This mere existence of this building does not insult or "take attention away from" the significance of Ground Zero.
As for the issue of the Carmelite nuns, recall also that the NRA held a convention in Denver a few months after the Columbine massacre. Even though there was controversy, the convention went ahead as scheduled, and Charlton Heston Himself argued that we cannot let tragedy be an excuse to tread on our liberties.
Arafat 1 year, 9 months ago
Dargus,
I keep hearing this mantra repeated over and over again: "Not all Muslims are terrorists. Only a small minority are."
That's interesting.
Was Mohammed a terrorist? Did his battles against non-Muslims where he killed, raped and maimed people make him a terrorist? And, by the way, these were NOT defensive battles.
Did Mohammed's imprisonment of women prisoners for sexual pleasure make him a terrorist?
Or, did this make him like Christ? Funny I don't remember reading anything about Christ doing this sort of thing.
Did Mohammed's orders to his men to wage war against all non-Muslims until they were all killed, converted or agreed to live as subservient, second-class citizens make him a terrorist?
Or did this make him like Buddha?
I think you catch my drift. Mohammed is considered the perfect man in Islam. His example was the polar opposite of Christ's , Buddha's and all the other prophets of the major religions.
The Koran and Hadiths --if you bothered to read them -- are filled with examples of Mohammed and his men committing terrorist activities and when Muslims today commit terrorist acts they are lionized throughout the Muslim world. So do NOT tell me about how it is a minority of Muslims who are committing these crimes. Of course this is true, but the rest are either egging them on, quietly smiling when they commit their crimes, or looking the other way.
It's their religion. It's their prophet. It's standard operating procedure in Islam.
Quiz Question: Remember one year ago Scotland let the Lockerbie bomber go free because it was said he only had a few weeks left to live? Remember how he was given a hero's welcome in Libya? Remember how they continue to treat him like a king in Libya? Now they say he could live another two or more years.
Why do you suppose Muslims throughout Libya treat this cold-blooded mass murderer like a hero?
kdbp1213 1 year, 9 months ago
dargus, i agree with you that the mosque is okay to be built. build it; that's fine. i disagree with location. it's a matter of kindness, common sense, sensitivity, etc.
i don't believe all members of religion 'a' should be punished. i'm not espousing that. it's just that if a few 'a' members harmed me, my property, my home, etc., my family would be very offended if 'a' members as a whole (or a portion) proposed building an 'a' facility on or very near my land, home, property, etc. assuming zoning laws, etc., etc.......
think the german powers-that-be & citizenry would support a nazi, pro-nazi, or anti-jewish organization build a memorial at the grounds of a WWII concentration camp? we could assume outrage and nazi-phobia then, wouldn't we?
expect some disagreement if the KKK espoused building a pro-KKK memorial at the motel of mlk jr's assassination?? KKK-phobia??
again, it's kindness, sensitivity, caring, respectfullness, etc.: the politically correct's credo.
qwerty 1 year, 9 months ago
Generalizing the actions of a few Muslim extremists to the entire religion of Islam is comparable to saying that the Westboro Baptist Church represents the thoughts and initiatives of most Christians-- it just simply isn't true.
Seeing these comments online makes my heart break for the Muslim students at OU. I would hate to exist in an environment where fellow students think such vile, ridiculous thoughts about my religion.
I would really like for a Muslim group on campus to respond to this article and the comments above.
mythman 1 year, 9 months ago
bruno,
You have missed the point. What the Westboro Baptist Church does is not "okay," but we do not penalize YOUR church because of them. Imagine if you were trying to build a church, say a Baptist Church, but people started claiming your Baptist church isn't a great idea because Fred Phelps held a protest just down the street a few years ago. But wait, what do you have to do with him?? Your beliefs are different from his, and you would never behave that way!
And yet you are saying that these Park51 Muslims, who had nothing to do with 9/11, who actively preach peace and tolerance, shouldn't build where they want because Al Qaeda attacked the WTC. But wait, what did they have to do with them?? Their beliefs are different from Al Qaeda's, and they would never behave that way!
bruno 1 year, 9 months ago
qwerty,
The Westboro Baptists are protected by the First Amendment. Do you think that what they do is okay? Or, are their actions and statements offensive and injurious to others? If you say yes to the latter, then you must agree that there can be reasonable people that do not think building the Mosque near Ground Zero is such a great idea.
bruno 1 year, 9 months ago
mythman,
Let me get this straight: whacked-out Baptist protesters from Kansas and Muslims flying planes into buildings are morally equivalent in your economy. Interesting. Let me know the next time a group of Baptists of any type kills three-thousand innocent people.
If the Park51 Muslims "actively preach peace and tolerance," then they should realize what they wish to do is in poor taste, to say the least.
leftfield 1 year, 9 months ago
So let me get this straight. Whacked-out Baptists do not represent all Christians, but whacked-out Muslims do? And considering you lump all Muslims together regardless of their beliefs, then this "Christian" nation has already been responsible for killing more than 20 times the amount of civilians in 9/11. This "Christian" nation calls it war casualties, but in reality it's a few hundred thousand men, women and children who would still be alive if this "Christian" nation hadn't found an excuse to invade.
Man, these Christians are some of the worse mass murderers in recent history, and have killed more children than all of the Muslim terror attacks in the last thirty years combined.
Arafat 1 year, 9 months ago
Christ was a man of peace. Mohammed was a warrior.
Christ preached acceptance. Mohammed preached Islamic supremacy.
Christ turned his other cheek. Mohammed struck both cheeks.
When will Americans start learning about Islam before forming opinions about Islam. Islam is a totalitarian cult with a religious compenent attached. Mohammed was a murderous, greedy thug. Read the Hadtihs to learn how this IS the case. It is not some Islamophobe making stuff up, it is simply the truth as recorded in the Hadtihs.
Within 400 years of Mohammed's birth Islam had conquered lands spanning from southern Asia to all of the Middle East to all of north Africa and large parts of southern Europe too. Yet people tell me this is a religion of peace.
Get real people. Quit forming "strong" opinions about something you know nothing about. Islam is not like any other religion we know. Look at what is happening in Sudan today and realize this is not an isolated incident but is something that has been happening whenever we find Islam invade a new geographic region. This is the true face of Islam. Not the fairyland tales you're being fed by the New York Times and Muslim apologists found on college campuses throughout this country.
Arafat 1 year, 9 months ago
The following men are Islamophobes just like me:
Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria on Islam
"I am afraid that God has sent these men to lay waste the world".
Gregory Palamus of Thessalonica on Islam
"For these impious people, hated by God and infamous, boast of having got the better of the Romans by their love of God...they live by the bow, the sword and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil and not only do they commit these crimes, but even - what an aberration - they believe that God approves of them. This is what I think of them, now that I know precisely about their way of life."
Arafat 1 year, 9 months ago
Is John Quincy Adams an Islamophobe or a realist?
John Quincy Adams on Islam
"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."
dargus 1 year, 9 months ago
bruno, are you being intentionally obtuse? mythman isn't arguing moral equivalence, but rather he is holding an entire religion responsible for the actions of its biggest jerks. That is what the analogy is about.
mythman 1 year, 9 months ago
bruno,
You've missed the point again. This isn't about whose extremists are nastier, it's about who you conflate with the extremists. (However, if you want some "morally equivalent" Christian groups, try the KKK, the Army of God, the Hutaree, The Lambs of Christ, Jonestown, The Lord's Resistance Army, the NLFT, the NSCN, the Iron Guard, the Lăncieri, the Russian National Unity, or the multi-decade long "Troubles." And then throw in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre and the mass Witch Hunts. Moving on.)
My problem is your logic. If you say "All members of group X are the same as extremist group Y because they share trait Z," then you have to be consistent. If all Muslims are the same as Al Qaeda because they are all Muslim, then all Christians must be the same as the KKK because they all believe in Christ. Of course, both of these statements are false.
Now tell me, how can the Park51 Muslims be "in poor taste" when they aren't involved in terrorism, did not support Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11?
Arafat 1 year, 9 months ago
Mythman,
Methinks it is you who is missing the point.
Christ was a man of peace. That doesn’t mean all – or even a majority – of his followers live as Christ would want. Gosh knows Christians are borne no different than Muslims, Buddhists, Jews or Hindus. But that’s as far as it goes and that’s where you are entirely missing the point.
Let me reiterate. Christ was a man of peace. Mohammed was a brutish thug and warrior. Christ taught his followers to follow the path of peace. Mohammed taught his followers to follow the path of war until domination is complete.
Now you can spin this anyway you want, but it won’t make it any less true.
Let’s say my father raised me with his fists and taught me to do the same, while your father raised you with love and patience. Do you think it’s likely that I would behave differently than you? I do.
Muslims are no different than you or I. It’s just that they were raised to believe that if they kill you or I they are rewarded with 72 virgins in Paradise. I’m guessing that’s very different than what Christians, Buddhists, Jews and Hindus are taught from the cradle forward.
And, by the way, your reference to the Crusades illustrates your complete misunderstanding of history. The First Crusade began 400 years after Mohammed started the battles to take over the Arabian Peninsula; and after all of North Africa, all of the Middle East, large sections of Asia and southern Europe had been conquered. Yet you are blaming Christians for the Crusades. What would you have had Christians do if you were their leader? Would you let the Muslim hordes walk into Paris and Vienna as if they were no different than a convent of nuns coming to town for a knitting convention?
Four hundred years is a long time to wait before declaring war on a ruthless, aggressive enemy who has killed your people (and all other people) who stand in its way. Christian’s fault? I don’t think so.
thefederalist 1 year, 9 months ago
Alright,
First and foremost, this is gotten into a pissing match that has nothing to do with the original argument, which for this article, is nothing more than one of poor taste. Yes, the Islamic center (not a Mosque, more of a YMCA for Muslims) is certainly constitutional. That being said, there would be a few raised eyebrows if Toyota built a new factory across the water from the U.S.S. Oklahoma. Burning bridges before their built is not a way to quell the "fears" of the average American.
dargus 1 year, 9 months ago
Really? People should be mad if Toyota were to build a plant across from the U.S.S. Oklahoma? Why should someone be more angry about that than if Ford did it? Japan has been an ally for decades now. Can't we move past this stuff and stop holding entire cultures responsible until the end of time for horrible things done by members of that culture?
academon 1 year, 9 months ago
I just hope a church is never built next to a elementary school-- we wouldn't to trivialize the realities of child molestation.
Arafat 1 year, 9 months ago
The Muslim Game:
Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?
The Truth:
Because they don’t.
Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he said he was agnostic). At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God.
The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.
Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.
Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.
By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.
In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.
Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.