Let's demand equal building rights from Saudi Arabia, others.
I want a federal moratorium on building new mosques until we verify Saudi Arabia and other arab countries allow Christians and jews to build in their lands. There seems to be a hostile placement plan, insensitive to 9/11 and confrontational with opponents, Christians and jews.
Some of my concerns are illustrated in a Facebook exchange with a local lefty (http://www.facebook.com/Jamie.Delton).
Visit http://www.facebook.com/JamieforStateRep for my current positions. Visit http://www.deltondigest.com/, and http://www.jamieforstaterep.blogspot.com/ for past positions.
Read about the GZ Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf in this interview with Walid Shoebat :
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/08/14/video-ground-zero-mosque-imam-faisal-
abdul-rauf-seeks-shariah-law-in-america
Charles Krauthammer reminds us why we must follow through on the immediate issue at hand. Very simply - the developer's intransigence is sacrilege.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html
Sacrilege at Ground Zero
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 13, 2010
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous
or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of
great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the
indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).
When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to
those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the
living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be
forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.
That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near
Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of
the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm
in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of
Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to
Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be
offensive.
And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had
established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to
pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is
not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let
silence reign.
Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-
story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom,
asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation."
Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business
telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show
"special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently
conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that
Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern
what can be done there.
Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by
"insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not
support its construction.
But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what
right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter,
there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious
institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't
one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and
the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two
of the 9/11 terrorists?
An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at
Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same
First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and
exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?
Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the
greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular
Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.
Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more
intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary
Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German
cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal.
This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11 and,
when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, "I'm not a
politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."
America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not
anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip
malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet
community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound
reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over
Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.
Build it anywhere but there.
The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A
mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure,
would accept the offer.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
I want a federal moratorium on building new mosques until we verify Saudi Arabia and other arab countries allow Christians and jews to build in their lands. There seems to be a hostile placement plan, insensitive to 9/11 and confrontational with opponents, Christians and jews.
Some of my concerns are illustrated in a Facebook exchange with a local lefty (http://www.facebook.com/Jamie.Delton).
Visit http://www.facebook.com/JamieforStateRep for my current positions. Visit http://www.deltondigest.com/, and http://www.jamieforstaterep.blogspot.com/ for past positions.
Read about the GZ Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf in this interview with Walid Shoebat :
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/08/14/video-ground-zero-mosque-imam-faisal-
abdul-rauf-seeks-shariah-law-in-america
Charles Krauthammer reminds us why we must follow through on the immediate issue at hand. Very simply - the developer's intransigence is sacrilege.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html
Sacrilege at Ground Zero
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 13, 2010
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous
or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of
great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the
indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).
When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to
those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the
living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be
forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.
That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near
Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of
the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm
in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of
Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to
Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be
offensive.
And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had
established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to
pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is
not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let
silence reign.
Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-
story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom,
asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation."
Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business
telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show
"special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently
conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that
Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern
what can be done there.
Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by
"insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not
support its construction.
But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what
right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter,
there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious
institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't
one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and
the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two
of the 9/11 terrorists?
An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at
Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same
First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and
exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?
Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the
greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular
Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.
Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more
intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary
Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German
cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal.
This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11 and,
when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, "I'm not a
politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."
America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not
anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip
malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet
community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound
reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over
Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.
Build it anywhere but there.
The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A
mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure,
would accept the offer.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
