the ground zero mosque that is neither a mosque nor at ground zero: discuss
I’ve been following the “ground zero mosque” controversy for some time now, and every time I have wanted to blog about it, it occurs to me that pretty much all that I’d want to say about it has already been said. Let me just summarize my thoughts with some bullet points.
- Islam did not attack the WTC or Pentagon; al-Qaeda did
- If folks are upset about a supposed lack of sensitivity of an Islamic Cultural Center being built several blocks out of sight from the WTC site, then why aren’t they similarly offended by Christian churches near the site of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that was blown to bits by the Christian fundamentalist Timothy McVeigh. BTW, two churches are across the street, one on either side.

- There are Muslim prayers held in the Pentagon and have been for many years
- There is a mosque near the WTC site already and no one cared about it before, so why now?
- The Imam who has spearheaded the Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero is not a radical terrorist sympathizer. He’s a Sufi who has worked for years to build interfaith dialogue and understanding. The US already sends him out as an emissary to Muslim countries for just that reason.
- We’re a democratic republic founded on religious tolerance. If we don’t allow the Cordoba Center (now called Park51) to be built, haven’t the terrorists already won?
- No one cares about the various adult theaters and video shops near “hallowed ground,” so how is an Islamic center such an offense?
- How far away is sufficient, were the Islamic center to be moved? Is Iceland too close? Judging from the anti-Islam rhetoric and growing violence against Americans of the Islamic faith, it would seem Tunguska, Siberia is still too close to lower Manhattan for some folks.
- Mayor Bloomberg has integrity, at least as far as this issue is concerned. President Obama had integrity then became wishy-washy. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Pamela Geller, all of whom are inciting anti-Muslim feeling, are beneath contempt.
PostCage (premiere recording of dharmachakramudra)
rangzen quartet recording of mf
ImprovFriday CD (includes virtual music 2)

I’m all for freedom of speech, however odious it may be. And I give Rachel Maddow a ton of credit for enduring what had to have been a painful discussion/debate with Pat Buchanan on the Sonia Sotomayor nomination. But given Buchanan’s known antisemitism, misogynism, racism and, frankly, clear hatred of anyone who isn’t a white Christian male, why do networks like MSNBC continue to hire him as a commentator and give his idiocy a prominent TV pulpit? Just consider his hypocrisy: he rails against Sotomayor as an “affirmative action appointee,” yet it never occurs to him that it could be argued that the Republicans took the same tactic when Miguel Estrada was nominated to a Federal court appointment. He argues that Sotomayor is not qualified for the Supreme Court. Given the facts of her education, performance and very substantial judicial experience (the most in 70 years for any Supreme Court nominee), this is at best intellectually dishonest, at worst racist and sexist. I am very comfortable stating my opinion that it’s the latter. Pat Buchanan is racist. He hates women. In the past he’s made it clear he’s not a fan of Jews either. Let’s stop giving him credibility by providing him with a TV pulpit and instant credibility. He has no reason to be hired as a TV commentator or “expert.” Trust me, there are more than enough jackasses on the right to put on the air, so do we also need to include someone who so blatantly gives comfort and support to all angry white male Christians out there?
Paul Muller 8:53 pm on Friday, September 3, 2010, 8:53 pm Permalink
The argument about a mosque a few blocks away is telling; a healthy culture would have already rebuilt the towers – or something higher – on the site.
Mosque or no mosque – all we have from our leadership is the same hole in the ground.