There is quite a furore going in in the US at the moment about proposals to build a 13 storey £100 million dollar "super mosque" in New York about two blocks from (180 m or 600 ft) away from ground zero (you can see the location here on Street View. The grotty looking "Burlington Coats" building in front of you is to be razed for the proposed centre.) . Many are up in arms about a mosque (it is actually proposed to be a community centre, auditorium and other stuff. The prayer room will not be classed as a mosque to give the developers more say over who can use it.) being built so close to a place devastated by Islamist inspired terrorism. Indeed some of the wording on articles hostile to the plans, is designed to make out that the "mosque" is going to be built on the site itself. (It isn't.) So what is going on here do we ask? Well let's rewind a bit to see how the whole thing kicked off.
On 9/11 the morning staff of Burlington coats were in the basement ready to start work. They never would. One of the landing gear from the hijacked planes fell onto their workplace and crashed through two floors (no one was hurt, it was empty on those levels.). Burlingtons closed down permanently, and eight years later a nearby mosque that was overfilled, used the building as an overspill prayer room. The imam of that mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf - a Sufiist who had founded a group promoting understanding between American Muslims and their non Muslim countrymen saw the irony in using a place damaged by terrorism to be used to promote a more stable situation. No-one seems to have batted an eyelid at this, as like many of these kinds of stories - a single quite innocuous story gets mega coverage out of the blue. This time a right wing blogger who founded the "Stop the Islamification of America." got wind of Raufs plan to develop the site of his prayer room to create his centre. A thereonin all hell broke loose. Sarah Palin started twittering. Newt Gingrich got quite cross. Glenn Beck. Well just acted like Glenn Beck.
On one level the reaction is unsurprising. It would have been difficult to have justified building a thirteen storey mosque at ground zero itself. The sad truth is that those towers were destroyed in the name of the most radical elements of that faith. I must emphasise that I don't think all Muslims were complicit (they weren't.). But it would be [a bit] like building a tribute to the RAF in Dresden. Both these organisations are mainly composed of upstanding people, but the unpleasant links are there. I do understand why the families of the victims (but some others have more questionable motives.) were alarmed. But on the other hand, the proposed centre is being built by Sufi Muslims, who have no links to Al-Quieda (how could they?) which is an important distinction. I doubt anyone would object to a Methodist community centre near Manchester's Arndale Centre (attacked by the supposedly Catholic aligned IRA.) That is a distinction that has not been mentioned much. Also Rauf himself seems an impressive figure. I am always wary of these religious "centres", but the guy seems legitimate in wanting to promote harmonious relations, and we need that now more than ever. He seems the kind of prominent moderate who may be able to do that. Lastly geographically the street is quite concealed (you'd hardly give it a second glance). From street view, ground zero is not visible, screened by the surrounding streets. The existing building is surrounded by large buildings, and I doubt even a thirteen storey structure would look conspicuous there. It certainly isn't right in the noses of people wanting to go to ground zero In fact had this story not received so much coverage, the new centre would likely have gone unnoticed to the greater world. In the end it is really an issue for Rauf and the victims to come to an accommodation with. It would be churlish for me to go one way or the other. But that hasn't stopped a few people, who I think have less than admirable reasons to nail their colours to the mast.
Littlejohn has done an article covering this story. The article focuses on the effects of the story on Barack Obamas popularity. There isn't really much to say about the story (insults out of touch lefty's, who hate normal people.) but he takes Obama to task for saying
On 9/11 the morning staff of Burlington coats were in the basement ready to start work. They never would. One of the landing gear from the hijacked planes fell onto their workplace and crashed through two floors (no one was hurt, it was empty on those levels.). Burlingtons closed down permanently, and eight years later a nearby mosque that was overfilled, used the building as an overspill prayer room. The imam of that mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf - a Sufiist who had founded a group promoting understanding between American Muslims and their non Muslim countrymen saw the irony in using a place damaged by terrorism to be used to promote a more stable situation. No-one seems to have batted an eyelid at this, as like many of these kinds of stories - a single quite innocuous story gets mega coverage out of the blue. This time a right wing blogger who founded the "Stop the Islamification of America." got wind of Raufs plan to develop the site of his prayer room to create his centre. A thereonin all hell broke loose. Sarah Palin started twittering. Newt Gingrich got quite cross. Glenn Beck. Well just acted like Glenn Beck.
On one level the reaction is unsurprising. It would have been difficult to have justified building a thirteen storey mosque at ground zero itself. The sad truth is that those towers were destroyed in the name of the most radical elements of that faith. I must emphasise that I don't think all Muslims were complicit (they weren't.). But it would be [a bit] like building a tribute to the RAF in Dresden. Both these organisations are mainly composed of upstanding people, but the unpleasant links are there. I do understand why the families of the victims (but some others have more questionable motives.) were alarmed. But on the other hand, the proposed centre is being built by Sufi Muslims, who have no links to Al-Quieda (how could they?) which is an important distinction. I doubt anyone would object to a Methodist community centre near Manchester's Arndale Centre (attacked by the supposedly Catholic aligned IRA.) That is a distinction that has not been mentioned much. Also Rauf himself seems an impressive figure. I am always wary of these religious "centres", but the guy seems legitimate in wanting to promote harmonious relations, and we need that now more than ever. He seems the kind of prominent moderate who may be able to do that. Lastly geographically the street is quite concealed (you'd hardly give it a second glance). From street view, ground zero is not visible, screened by the surrounding streets. The existing building is surrounded by large buildings, and I doubt even a thirteen storey structure would look conspicuous there. It certainly isn't right in the noses of people wanting to go to ground zero In fact had this story not received so much coverage, the new centre would likely have gone unnoticed to the greater world. In the end it is really an issue for Rauf and the victims to come to an accommodation with. It would be churlish for me to go one way or the other. But that hasn't stopped a few people, who I think have less than admirable reasons to nail their colours to the mast.
Littlejohn has done an article covering this story. The article focuses on the effects of the story on Barack Obamas popularity. There isn't really much to say about the story (insults out of touch lefty's, who hate normal people.) but he takes Obama to task for saying
"As a citizen and a President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as anyone else in this country."
I know that may not go down well with a lot of Americans, but it is from a constitutional point of veiw correct. But in practice Obama can't really do much to stop it (assuming he would want to anyway.) It is a private venture on private land. Sarah Palin, and Gingrich and whoever always like to nail their libertarian, small government; colours to the mast on every occasion possible. Wouldn't Obama cracking down on a private building on private property, be an example of the most heavy handed statism any horrid property hating socialist could only dream of? Or does libertarian principle only apply to certain things. (hey it is them who bang on about this all the time.)
The article highlights the barmy "theories" that Obama is a Muslim because err.. his middle name is Hussein, or something. Apparently in the wake of this, a quarter of Americans believe this to be so. (Yikes!) This emphasis on Obamas "otherliness" has been a recurring theme. As well as all Muslims being perceived as fith columnists ("Muslim Obama" being a sleeper is a popular conspiracy.) It all has the air of some very murky rhetoric being chucked about. For all Littlejohn may berate the US president for not condemning the "mosque", I find it rather admirable he is trying to ride the storm a little, not giving some of the more extreme sentiment a platform. It does however highlight the lengths that the ultra conservatives will go to attack their president. At once tawdry, depressing and rather scary. These people are sore losers to say the least. I hope Obama knows what he really is up against.
PS Littlejohn comes out with this corker:
"In so doing, he displayed an ignorance of history which made David Cameron’s recent confusion over the timing of America’s entry into World War II look like a minor clerical error.
Obama’s words would have come as a surprise not only to the Founding Fathers, who established the United States on concrete Christian principles"
Didn't they do all that freedom from religion as well as of it too? They were strict in stipulating the divide between religion and the state. Looks like Cameron isn't the only one who needs to do his homework.
*This link below highlights the origins of the "mosque" in greater detail.
*This link below highlights the origins of the "mosque" in greater detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment