I unfortunately haven’t been able to spend quite as much of my time following current events as I’d like to. In addition to working a lot, I’ve reallocated a lot of my news reading (and blog-writing) time to trying to learn Italian.
Anyway, sometimes I run into a news story that I should have known more about and think to myself “Wow, the media seems to be acting like this is an actual issue, surely it can’t be.” For example, when I first heard about the immigration law in Arizona, I assumed it was some loon state senator proposing something crazy that would be dismissed out-of-hand by any mainstream politician or commentator. Clearly, I was horribly wrong.
The same thing happened with the recent controversy surrounding the proposed mosque and community center a few blocks from ground zero in Manhattan. This seems like a zoning, land use and first amendment issue to me, but as is already clear, I’m wrong about a lot of things. I feel a bit silly wasting my time on something this obvious, but there are so many fish in this barrel that it’s time to start shooting.
First, let’s look at this apparently non-kidding statement from Newt Gingrich, which starts with this gem:
There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.
Yes, apparently he believes we should be modeling our religious liberties after Saudi Arabia. And since when is expecting rights explicitly granted to you in the constitution equated to demanding “weakness and submission”? The First Amendment seems quite unambiguous on this subject:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Saying that there’s a large zone of Manhattan where mosques aren’t allowed seems to violate the “free exercise” part.
The Anti-Defamation League released a statement on the issue:
However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.
The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.
(My emphasis) Basically, it’s saying, yes, these freedoms are important, but some issues and places are just to sensitive, and we shouldn’t upset/offend people. This argument reminds me a lot of one I’d heard before: Muslims outraged by cartoons of Mohammed.
I worry that I’m creating a straw man here, so I should clarify a bit. Those who oppose the mosque are generally being pretty vague about what they think should actually happen. If you read the ADL statement, it doesn’t say “the government shouldn’t allow this”, it just says that it “is not right”. Whom are they trying to convince here? As far as I can tell, they are either trying to convince the mosque’s organizers to change their minds or they are requesting that this plan be blocked on the basis of religion at some level of government. I’m objecting to the latter, not the former.
The name of the mosque and community center is “Cordoba House”, which Gingrich seizes upon:
It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.
Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to “symbolize interfaith cooperation” when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.
I haven’t talked with any Islamists about this, let alone “every Islamist in the world”, but I was in Cordoba last Summer and visited the mosque. When I first got to the city, I was confused by people who kept referring to the mosque as mesquita catedral (“mosque cathedral”), only to discover that it’s basically a cathedral within a mosque. Here’s a picture I took while there, with the mosque part starting on the right:

From the mosque looking in to the cathedral:

A brief history of the site:
It was originally a Christian Visigoth church. After the Islamic conquest, the church was bought and built into a mosque and expanded over two centuries. When Cordoba was conquered by the Catholic Kings, it was re-purposed and they added the nave of a cathedral as well as a chapel to its interior.
At the height of Islamic Spain, Cordoba was a regional political, cultural and religious capital (with the mosque being one of the largest in the world at the time). Despite this, the religious freedom in Cordoba was much greater under Islamic rule than Catholic (the Moors were slightly less “inquisitive”). From wikipedia:
In spite of the restrictions placed upon the Jews as dhimmis, life under Muslim rule was one of great opportunity in comparison to that under prior Christian Visigoths, as testified by the influx of Jews from abroad. To Jews throughout the Christian and Muslim worlds, Iberia was seen as a land of relative tolerance and opportunity. Following initial Arab victories, and especially with the establishment of Umayyad rule by Abd-ar-Rahman I in 755, the native Jewish community was joined by Jews from the rest of Europe, as well as from Arab territories, from Morocco to Babylon (Assis, p. 12; Sarna, p. 324). Thus the Sephardim found themselves enriched culturally, intellectually, and religiously by the commingling of diverse Jewish traditions.
Cordoba isn’t a perfect picture of religious tolerance, but at its best, it was a good model.
Islamists want to portray the US as being in a war against Islam. Let’s stop acting like they’re right.
1 comment
The Anti-Defamation League statement is saddening.
An organization establised to promote religious freedoms/acceptance declares that bigotry is okay “in some cases”…
-P
Leave a Comment