Using a mosque to prey on U.S. fears

People like to hear they’re right to worry. There will always be politicians willing to tell them that.

by Paul Wells on Friday, August 20, 2010 9:00am - 0 Comments

Mark Peterson/Redux

There are, by one count, 23 mosques in Manhattan. Four are south of Canal Street, in Lower Manhattan. According to the New York Times, the two closest to the site of the former World Trade Center have become snug fits for their worshippers in recent years as Manhattan’s Muslim community grows. People who want to pray are routinely turned away.

So if we were talking about, say, sporting-goods stores, the case for a new one would be pretty clear. Such things are not unheard of in the neighbourhood. There is a demand for more of them. So make some more.

But of course we’re not talking about a retail outlet. We’re talking about a proposed community centre, which would contain a mosque, two blocks north of the World Trade Center site.

Sarah Palin, who will run for president the next time she gets a chance, made a few false starts on Twitter before she came up with a minimally coherent case against the centre, which would be called Park51. “Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate,” she wrote, and then “Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real.”

However high Palin set the bar with those sorties, other opponents of the project have not managed to live up to her standards. Newt Gingrich, who may run for president the next time he gets a chance, had this to say: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.”

Criticizing the chain of logic that brought Gingrich to that comment would just give logic a bad name. Sept. 11 was like the Holocaust? All Muslims are like the 9/11 murderers? Really?

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stepped up with a plainspoken defence of Muslim New Yorkers’ right to do what New Yorkers of any faith can do. “Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.”

Barack Obama did the same, nearly two weeks later. Then he stomped on his message the next day, claiming that defending the right to a mosque did not mean endorsing the mosque. He might as well have saved his breath: within days Rick Scott, a Republican candidate for governor of Florida, was running ads calling the project “Obama’s Mosque.” Because he prays there. Because he’s Muslim.

Because he hates America. Get it?

Anyway, there’s not much point debating the details of the Park51 proposal. Part of the complex would be called “Cordoba House.” Is the reference to Cordoba a bloodthirsty vow to take Spain back from the Christian crusaders? Or an evocation of a golden era of relative concord among Muslims, Christians and Jews that lasted for centuries? The latter, I say. But I doubt I’ll change Newt Gingrich’s mind.

What’s worth saying is that the project stirs deep fears, including among people who are hard to write off as bigots. People have questions about the project, and simple answers aren’t always persuasive. (Why now? “Now” is nearly a decade after 9/11; just because the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation can’t get on with the rest of its life doesn’t mean the rest of the neighbourhood shouldn’t. Why there? Because these people live there. Not persuaded? Oh well. I tried.)

Deep fear that resists easy answers is, of course, catnip for politicians. People like to hear they’re right to worry. There will always be politicians willing to tell them that. But if any of them feel like showing a little responsibility, they should spare some thoughts about consequences.

That mosque is going to get built. The others that dot Manhattan and the rest of America are not going away. The people in them will continue to meet and worship. There may be some among them who wish their neighbours harm, but most don’t. No good can come from blanket assertions that the whole lot of them are a threat to the community.

As for Muslims, so for others. The Harper government had a genuine problem thrown in its lap when the MV Sun Sea landed on the B.C. coast earlier this week with 490 Tamil passengers. Their claims to refugee status can’t be taken at face value. They will have to be investigated. And queue-jumping shouldn’t be rewarded. Throughout the drama, the Harper government has made an effort to be responsible. This reflects, in part, the difference between the burden of government and the fabulous gravity-free romp that is Republicanism in the Obama era.

But the Harper government’s fondness for looking tough persists. Here too, they’d do well to consider consequences. There are already a quarter of a million Tamils in Canada. The situation for Tamils in Sri Lanka is so hellish that Harper’s own government accepts 85 per cent of proper Tamil refugee claimants. A few addled editorialists may have the right to pretend all Tamils are terrorists. The Harper government doesn’t. Once the crisis of the moment passes, we will all still need to get along.

Bookmark and Share
  • Dee

    It's a community centre with a prayer room Not a mosque. There is a difference.

    Rauf, the Imam, is a Sufi. Sufis are the most open minded sect. The shame of all this bigotry is Rauf did a lot to help the American government with their fight on 'terrorism'. There are some muslims who believe the war on terror is really a war against muslims. The bigotry will allow those muslims to say, 'I told you so'.

    It must also be noted that during the 1800's and 1900's when a large population of RCs were landing in NY some priests probably made provocative statements.

    • A_READER_

      Taqiyya baby!

  • Rich

    Some seem to forget that its American Muslims who'd be using this mosque, actual American citizens, not foreigners at all, though I'm sure visiting Muslims would be welcome. Besides the whole idea that one should react to terrorism by attacking everyone from the same religion as the terrorists defies logic. Treating Muslims as second class citizens, marginalizing them from the rest of US society, accussing them all of supporting terrorism, and discriminating against them because of their religion seems just like what Islamic radicals would want since disenfranchised youth are exactly what the radicals and terrorists need to carry out their beliefs. The US should have taken an example from Britain and continued on the same as ever in spite of terrorism, letting terrorists change your society to a more intolerant one only serves the interest of the terrorists. The British have faced more than their share of terrorism over the years yet they don't let terrorists change their society like the US did. If terrorists attack you in an effort to change your ways its very logical and sensible to not let them succeed by not changing your ways yet the exact opposite happened in the US after 9/11.

    • JamesHalifax

      RIch noted:
      "The British have faced more than their share of terrorism over the years yet they don't let terrorists change their society like the US did"

      Yes, Rich…there are a LOT of Muslim's in Britain. The regularly protest and riot. They attack the police, they burn cars (not as many as in France though) and they hold up signs stating that Islam will dominate Britain. In fact, Rich….in some areas of Britain, you would not be safe to walk the streets as you are not a Muslim.

      So in fact, you are again wrong with your assertions. Muslim's HAVE changed Britain…and not for the better.

  • Rich

    For those who claim 2 blocks away from ground zero is too close for a mosque to be built I would like to know just how far away would you consider it acceptable for a mosque to be built? Also please explain why that distance is acceptable to you but 2 blocks away isn't, I'm genuinely curious to know.

  • Tony N

    Your article is confusing and gets lost in the wrongs and the rights of this controversy.

    Simply, the Muslims hatred for America…and the mosque being built near 9/11. Not a good symbolic gesture. Ironic, mocking.

  • No NDP

    No concerns.

    Jihadist indoctrination in Nairobi's Somali enclave: "They tell us that al-Shabab hates Western countries like America … and that it is all right to cut the throats of every citizen of these countries."
    How many in Somalia, and in this Somali neighborhood, never thought it would get this bad? How many more deluded themselves that Sharia, once implemented, wouldn't include any of the nastier practices?

    Those who dismiss concerns about Islamization in the West are also those who would insist it could never really get so bad. The problem is, it does, and we have witnessed locales like Bosnia, Chechnya, and even Britain in the era of Sharia courts suddenly surprised at the number and power of the "extremists."

    • Viva_Vivian

      Ayaan Hiris Ali said this quite clearly in her book, "Nomad," in explanation to homegrown terrorism. The seeds of extremism are sown at a young age and need only be awakened by a man of influence. The fact of the matter is the bases Muslims need to turn their peaceful religion into a horror are already in place, and absent disentanglement of religion from state in their homelands and reformation from the bottom up, ignorance and hatred persists. I've seen from a lot of comments here people just cannot extricate themselves from their own ethnocentric viewpoints and even ENTERTAIN the notion that the hideous acts perpetrated in the name of Islam could be real. They can't even envision it.

  • bepele

    If I were an American and if I had some relative killed at the twin towers,. I would have no concerns about a group of other fellow Americans building a place of worship near the site. There are already Catholic and Protestant churches and maybe a synagogue in the vicinity.
    So if Americans, who happen to be of Muslim religion, wish to build there I would have no objection.
    This is not a Mosque. It is a community centre open to all faiths with a prayer centre on top and it's some distant from ground zero.
    One should not believe what the media and the Republicans and their supporters are saying.
    I hate to say this but I believe that judging from the preceding comments that there are a few racists here.

    • JamesHalifax

      bepele wrote:
      "If I were an American and if I had some relative killed at the twin towers,. I would have no concerns about a group of other fellow Americans building a place of worship near the site. There are already Catholic and Protestant churches and maybe a synagogue in the vicinity"

      Which, goes to show clearly you DID NOT lose anyone to terrorism. As for the other places of worship you mention…you forget the most salient point.

      It was not the CATHOLICS who carried out mass murder in the name of their religion. It was the Muslim's. There were no Catholics dancing in the streets of the world after the attack.

      • JamesHalifax

        It was not CHRISTIANS who carried out mass murder in the name of their religion. It was the Muslim's. There were no Christians dancing in the streets of the world after the attack.

        It was not JEWS who carried out the mass murder in the name of their religion. It was the Muslim's. There were no Jews dancing in the streets of the world after the attack.

        It was the Muslim's who carried out mass murder in the name of their religion. They were dancing in the streets in Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria, Indonesia, and sadly, in some areas of the United States, mainly Michigan.

        So you see, Bepele, it is understandable how the other places of worship are not a concern, whereas the place of worship for the culture that created these attacks…..is.

      • YYZ

        Actually several family members are supportive, several are opposed. They are a diverse group.

  • A_READER_

    70% oppose.

    Here are some reasons I think it shouldn't be built at ground zero.

    It's the close proximity.

    The persons specifically behind it – who is this wealthy media loving imam who puts down Americans to one audience and says something different to another audience? Why all the name changes first it's a Mosque, Then Cordoba(SP) HOUSE, and now a commuinity center…in a business district that has hardly any residents.

    The money behind it and why such a huge expense when other accommodations would do very well.
    Plenty of places to rent there – many places sit empty, why not occupy them?

    The insistence of this specific location as by design it towers over the site – this raises the concerns of the real agenda behind it or not. There may be one there may actually be not one. But insisting that it be 'there' is suspicious to me.

    But they can more easily build it just a little further away as it's obvious the grieving is not over nor done with.
    They can't even let the Americans grieve and put their own memorial up first?
    The push it to minimize the memory and desire of the living affected by it by this awfully designed building, might be the tipping point of an all out divide.

    Yes I completely understand that they have the legal right to.

    In Canada it's legal to have sex or marry a 16 yr. old BUT is it the right thing to do? AND yes I understand that it may not seem wrong to another 16 yr. old, but we're not all 16 yr olds.

    THEY originally called it a mosque and wanted to have an unveiling on Sept. 11.
    How insensitive, disrespectful and warped can 'ya be?

  • chet

    How about using a mosque as a symbol of victory over infidels, at the site of the greatest murder in the name of Islam in modern history?

    Nah, let's keep this "progressive" and only question those who "correctly" should be questioned.

    Glad to see Mr. Wells continuing with his lifting the centrist veil.

  • chet

    As for today's "progressive left's" continuing tacit (and far too often explicit) support for radical islamists?

    Well chapters have been written on that one. Not that such literature would ever get a fair reference on this blog.

  • chet

    In Canda it's legal to lie and cheat on my wife.

    It's legal to tell a person with a severe disability that their life is useless.

    It's legal for a Japanese militaristic group (one who favours expansionist Japan reasserting itself in the world) to build a center at or near Pearl Harbour.

    Yet, no would would claim these are things are right to do.

    Yet, here we are, with the fine, nuanced "it's legal" technicalities, ignoring substance and context, and plain old fashioned common sense.

    Oh, motives should be questioned alright. A good place to start is with those who'd put away the above exampled moral case when it comes to radical Islam against the West.

  • YYZ

    Myth.

  • Marie

    Why not build a Mosque and attach a Christian Church and a Synogogue on it as well – they could all have separate entrances but be part of one building – problem solved.

  • Harry

    re: No good can come from blanket assertions that the whole lot of them are a threat to the community.

    Sure only a few Muslims will take up the command in the Quran to fight, subdue, and kill the unbelievers but they are all taught these things and they all claim to believe the Quran if they are Muslims.

    Isn't it wise of us to be wary of them all ?

    Islam is a doctrine, not a race or ethnicity.. People can decide to not believe in a doctrine. They can decide to leave the organization that supports and pursues a doctrine.

    • Russ B

      Talk to a few Muslims. They will tell you this so called "doctrine" of Islam is as important to them as any race or ethnicity.

  • Harry

    In Europe there are calls to ban the Quran as hate literature and sedition.

    Should the writings be protected because they are 'religious" ?

  • Russ B

    We don't need a mosque to prey on U.S. fears. The mosque is only a symbol. Just listen to Geert Wilders, speech to understand what is going on in Europe and what will eventually happen here. This is not fear mongering. It's a wake up call.
    You may think this guy is nuts but I am willing to bet in about 10 years from now you'll will wish you had paid heed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI&fe…

From Macleans