Religious Leaders on Islam in America
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-08-16/religious-leaders-islam-america
Organizers of a planned Islamic center near Ground Zero say they want to repair the breach caused by the nine-eleven terrorist attacks. Opponents consider the location insensitive. Leaders of different religions discuss attitudes toward Islam in America.
Guests
Akbar Ahmed
chair of Islamic studies at American University, the first Distinguished Chair of Middle East and Islamic Studies at the U.S. Naval Academy, and former Pakistani high commissioner to the U.K. His latest book is "Journey into America."
Rabbi Bruce Lustig
Senior Rabbi of the Washington Hebrew Congregation
The Rt. Rev. John Chane
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington
Dan Senor
Former Bush Administration foreign policy advisor, based in Iraq (2003, 2004)
Currently founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a global private equity firm; and Fox News Middle East Analyst
Barry Lynn
executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and author of "Piety & Politics" (Harmony Books)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Bo - I understand your confusion. We live in a country where murder is illegal and if you murder someone, we murder you. I know, right? Is that hypocritical or what? I think the right thing to do is follow the law and not discriminate based on religious beliefs. Isn't that the principle on which this great nation was founded? This IS the greatest country on earth. We've done what no other has done. We practice democracy with ALL races in America. Be proud of your country and the principles on which is was founded. Sometimes it's had to do the right thing but in this case, the right thing was to hold tight to this great country's principles and that's EXACTLY what Obama did.
mhartsock wrote: This turmoil over the building of a mosque is blatantly political and fueled by the conservative right, period. That influence has indeed spurred other anti Muslim efforts - like in Kentucky.
I AM NOT A CONSEVATIVE AND I AM AGAINST THIS MOSQUE
Don't allow it until all Fatwas are lifted and apologies are made on to all victims of Muslim fanatics such as Salman Rushdie and the European cartoonist.
Actually the more I think about the issue the more I want freedom FROM religion. What about us? Most people here don't want what they're selling-any of them.
>By giving credence to the people opposing the mosque, one is basically
> saying that yes, this was an attack by all Muslims on the United States,
> something I thought we all understood was false.
But we do NOT yet understand this to be false. If we had successfully separated Islam from terrorism, then this would not be such an issue. Indeed the reason it is an issue is precisely because Islam is associated with violence and terrorism. Terrorists claimed it as their motivating source. And our collective minds haven't yet "excommunicated" all terrorists from Islam.
For goodness sake, why is this even an issue? This is AMERICA.
What better opportunity to prove to the world that we are truly a land of freedom than to allow this mosque to be built?
Remember after 9/11, the mantra of, "Don't let them win..."?
Well, the fear-mongering and vindictiveness of the anti-mosque arguments follow the same illogical extremism that led to the WTC attacks.
If the mosque plan is rejected, "they" win.
And we are hypocrites.
You are making the point for us that are against the building of the mosque.
Why do you suppose it is that they cannot have religious plurality? Because Muslims are in control and it is a theocracy. We cannot allow any steps towards that here. It is totally 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the plurality we enjoy here and have fought for here.
If they can get away with this offense then watch out.
This is controversial due to September 11th survivors understandably raw feelings being manipulated by right wing media and politicians who often exaggerate, lie or abet intolerance. The mosque in a cultural center would be a 5 minute brisk walk away from the site of the World Trade Center's North Tower in what will be one of the most densely built neighborhoods in the most populous city in the USA. It is 2 blocks from 7 World Trade Center (not one of the Twin Towers) which fell on September 11th but has since been redeveloped.
There are other churches in the immediate neighborhood. In the near future memorials and museums devoted to the memory of the 2,750 who died will be completed on the actual site in New York City and this proposed building on Park Place would be easy to miss and not seem at all out of place. 51 Park would be a positive reminder of the importance of religious freedom to Americans as well as a monument to the wisdom of our founding fathers who included the freedom of religion in our constitution.
There is a dichotomy in public opinion and in the President's recent comments which is understandable. I heard about a poll this weekend that two thirds of respondents believe that the property's owner has the right to build an Islamic community center there but two thirds felt that it should be built elsewhere. Opponents criticism that this should be built elsewhere is appropriate and should be addressed by the developers and others. I accept the argument that this center would be an important part in the fabric of a community partly devoted to remembering the heinous acts of violent Muslim zealots whose actions obviously did not reflect the views of most who coincidentally share their faith.
Interesting viewpoints.
Yes, freedom of religion is what this country is about - compared to Islamic countries - where Christians are being persecuted.
However, courtesy and decency towards the families who have lost members at Ground Zero should be a matter of fact. There is no reason whatsoever why this Muslim congregation cannot build somewhere else, and show the respect New Yorkers and all Americans are asking.
While we have freedom of religion, please keep in mind Islam's treatment of women all over the world: child brides, stoning, no education in many Islamic countries, covering under veils and large 'sacks', and much more. I am sorry that none of this was adressed in today's program. But, of course all the guests were men.
Please read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book 'Nomad'.
I don't understand why people continue to use the term "sensitivities" here (as in, "let's take into account the 'sensitivities' of people who oppose the mosque").
It seems to me that "sensitivity" here is little more than a code word for racism or prejudice. I find it terrible that the Anti-Defamation League, which has devoted its institutional energy to preventing the bullying intimidation of religious and ethnic groups, would use such a rationale to oppose the building of a mosque.
People can have all the "sensitivities" they want. I'm sure some people have "sensitivities" about a synagogue or a mosque or a church being built in their neighborhood; in fact, Jewish people (like my wife and her ancestors) have experienced these "sensitivities" for hundreds of years. But the point of living in a country like the United States is that even though people are entitled to have various prejudices, they should not expect others to be cowed by their intolerance.
And they shouldn't expect us to coddle their "sensitivities" when those "sensitivities" simplify and disrespect an entire global faith.
Why not think big?
Make it a mosque, a church, a temple, an ashram.
Make it more than either.
Make it a place of tolerance, sharing, joining, learning, a place to grow and heal.
Don't make it a place where the Muslim is separated from the rest of us.
Make it a place for all of humanity to come together.
Make it a light to the world.
i suppose that a christian church can't be built in oklahoma city. or an nra office? get over it
by the way -thank you nobo
The dark side of religions was just discussed. It was stated that their is no dark side of Judaism. I think this highlights the perspective issue in this conflict. From the Christians perspective the point in history when the Jews killed Jesus could be seen as a dark side. My point being that it is a waste of time to constantly compare religions in this manner because ultimately every one has their own perspective of history. This applies to the current conflict as well. Why is Islam being singled out in this situation? I understand it is due to the context of 9/11 and the location. However that is simply our perspective at this point in history. Fast forward fifteen years and we will probably find this conflict silly with the wonderful benefit of hindsight. Rather than squabble about this political move of the Obama administration we should utilize our intelligence and view the situation through our inevitable hindsight.
To Bo Jones (posting August 16, 2010 - 7:35 am):
Whether correct or not, what you wrote is irrelevant! We don't live under Sharia law, and American Muslims don't want to either. Furthermore, in the past Christian nations were run along much the same lines. Remember, our nation was created in rebellion against the notion of "the divine right of kings" - guess what faith came up with that idea.
My ancestors came to this country precisely because it promised they could practice their religion (Judaism) as they wished. We would be allowed to build our synagogues without interference by the government, or popular opinion. Those same rights must be extended to everyone, or else they exist for no one!
To Bo Jones (posting
August 16, 2010 - 9:26 am):
What a stupid, evasive, uninformed, ignorant comment you posted. How typical of (some) conservatives: you prattle of your love for America, the "rule of law", and the Constitution (when it serves your purposes), and then do everything in your power to evade and destroy those very things.
You, sir, are the precise reason Obama's statement was both correct and necessary. But, hey, if you don't like his words, try these (from another President):
". . . I have often expressed my sentiment, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
Letter to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia (May 1789), printed in George Washington Writings, (The Library of America, 1997), page 739 (emphasis added).
"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island (August 18, 1790), Op. Cit., page 767 (emphasis added).
Get it! It doesn't matter what "70% of Americans" think. At one time, I'd bet, an even larger number would have opposed building a synagogue anywhere.
To Bo Jones (August 16, 2010 - 9:26 am):
Oh, and as for Muslims "building mosques over or real close to the site of their victories", I seem to recall Christians doing exactly the same thing.
By the way, you are aware that porn shops and strip joints already exist directly across the street from the 9/11 site, while the mosque won't even be visible from there. I guess naked women doing pole dancing is okay by you.
You, sir, are precisely the reason this mosque must be built, so that ignorant and bigoted people, who would betray every principle this nation was founded on, cannot prevail. You are un-American!
To Jay Douglas (August 16, 2010 - 10:13 am):
What about the Hispanic "beachhead" being created as part of their "invasion"? In that case, literally, "if we give an inch a mile or more could be taken within a generation."
There's a book all you idiots should read: The Alienist by Caleb Carr. Among other things, you'll discover that ignorant anti-foreigner attitudes are nothing new in the country. Set at the end of the 19th Century, the story includes many examples of "immigrant bashing". Back then there were voices raised against "invading hordes" coming to America and bringing their foreign customs and religions to "sully" our "pure and perfect land". Then, too, the loyalty of the immigrants was questioned. Of course, back then, the targets for such bigotry were the Irish, Italians, etc.!
By the way, Jay, you seem to forget there are plenty of Muslims citizens. I don't recall the Constitution limiting its protections to Christians (or even, to use that abominable phrase, "Judeo-Christians"). Try learning something about the principles and ideals of America, before pretending you want to protect this nation!
To David in Toledo (August 16, 2010 - 10:14 am):
Well said, sir. Now there speaks a true American!
One small quibble: no one actually knows the true name of the god of Israel. "Yahweh" is a bit of speculation by scholars. When Jews pray we pray to "Adonai Elohenu", which translates as "the Lord our god".
To SeanFHeneghan (August 16, 2010 - 10:16 am):
Excellent points. Thanks for the links.
To Lisa Heaton (August 16, 2010 - 10:18 am):
Funny, I don't recall too many non-Jews complaining about the "bad taste" of the Church when a group of nuns set up shop inside Auschwitz (instead of two blocks away). But let a mosque be built two blocks away from ground zero, and despite the fact the building won't even be visible from that area "the usual suspects" are raising a stink.
You want to prove religious bigotry (or political opportunism) aren't the main motivating factors? Fine. Let's ban all houses of worship within two blocks of that site. Of course, that means Trinity Church (dating from before 1776) will have to go. But hey, any sacrifice to "honor" the dead of 9/11 is worth it. Right?
Or, how about this: the terrorists despised America and everything she stands for. What better way to "dishonor" them than by standing true to our principles and ideals, and building the mosque!
To C. Cantu (August 16, 2010 - 10:20 am):
Reciprocity! reciprocity! reciprocity!
I don't recall the Vatican allowing any synagogues within its territory. So, on your "principle", let's ban all Catholic Churches!
There's a little thing that prevents your dumb idea from being implemented. It's called the Constitution!
To kaitlynlw (August 16, 2010 - 2:53 pm):
Aside from the fact that "the Jews" didn't kill Jesus - the Romans did, I agree with you that singling out any religion is wrong, and unconstitutional.
Besides, if we set the clock back a bit (say to 1492) we'd find the Jews fleeing Christian Spain (where they were being persecuted and finally expelled) to Muslim lands (where they were treated far better than in Christian Europe).
Any religion or ideology can be abused, distorted, and turned into a tool for evil. That's one of the reasons we have separation of church and state!
To jmiggins (August 16, 2010 - 10:31 am):
Historically Christians have raised Cathedrals and erected Churches over areas that they have conquered, Spain, Jerusalem, Turkey. The opposition to the mosque is an underhanded attempt to allow Christians to conquer our holy place of capitalism, the World Trade Center, by allowing no other house of worship there. WAKE UP IT IS SO EVIDENT.
See, sir, I can post nonsense too.
By the way, Muslims don't build Cathedrals, only Christians do. Just another drop from your deep well of ignorance.
Lawrence M. Ste... (August 16, 2010 - 10:32 am):
When one considers that Christians celebrated the killings of Doctors, attacks on gays and lesbians, and bombing of medical clinics, would preventing the building of this mosque not give them food for laughter at the US's policies? Can we not take advantage of seeing what is happening in this country with Christians committing murder and making death threats? And as far as "sensibility" is concerned - remember what happened when the New Yorker had a cover of a crucified Easter Bunny? It seems that Christianity is becoming a Nazi type idealistic political movement rather a religion. Or, it is becoming a religion which is transforming itself into a political movement. Whichever way you look at it, it is a sad state of affairs.
See, I can post nonsense too.
To Olie (August 16, 2010 - 10:34 am):
Your analogy to Dr. Laura is utterly false, as is your argument.
First, as far as I know she's still got her job.
Second, if she loses her job it will be her private employer who fires her. News flash: the Constitution only protects our freedom of speech from interference by the government!
Third, if she is fired, it will be for something she did, not something another talk show host did, or another "Doctor" did, or another Jew did (I believe she and I are of the same faith). Therefore, to make your analogy more exact, because a Jew (Dr. Laura) used the n-word, all Jews should be penalized. Of course, this also demonstrates why your argument is false.
By the way, I believe one of the purposes of the mosque is to promote peace, tolerance, and understanding between all faiths (including agnostics and atheists). What could be a more fitting tribute to the victims of 9/11!
P.S. - only the mosque's opponents claim it's purpose is to honor the terrorists. Just one of many lies these "good Americans" are telling!
Three points:
To sgolden431(August 16, 2010 - 10:39 am):
The answer to your question about Saudi Arabia is no, precisely because they don't have separation of church and state. Why should we surrender our most precious freedoms just to "mirror" them? Do you also think America should become a monarchy?
To justsayin (August 16, 2010 - 10:41 am):
What's "wrong", sir, is to suggest that the "feelings of so many" should be allowed to decide the rights of anyone. Especially when those "feelings" are based on misinformation and lies spread by bigots and political opportunists.
As another person pointed out, unless you are willing to tear down every church built "near" the Federal building in Oklahoma City (blown up by a man who professed to be a Christian), you have no business objecting to this mosque. What's sauce for the goose . . . .
To d-Arcy (August 16, 2010 - 6:40 pm):
True, religious freedom does not justify every act that can be done in the name of religion, but if you can't see the difference between murder and building a house of worship, then you are a moral imbecile whose opinion is worthless!
As for your slander about the people who want to build the mosque, how come no links to "prove" your claims?
Instead of deciding issues based on what you "suspect", why not try facts and reason? The people building the mosque have already stated their reason: to promote tolerance and understanding - something comments like yours prove are in short supply.
Oh, and the mosque is not being built "across the street from" ground zero, but two blocks away. It won't even be visible from the 9/11 site. Also, last time I checked no one could seriously contend the KKK was interested in tolerance or understanding. Another example of moral imbecility on your part!
To jrwondra (August 16, 2010 - 10:42 am):
The reason we have a First Amendment is so that in matters of religion the only one who can decide "what's appropriate" is each individual, and they can only decide for themselves. You don't like the mosque? Fine, don't attend services there. You don't like Nazis marching in Skokie? Don't watch, or form a peaceful counter-march.
What you want is known as the "heckler's veto". You object to something, therefore it shouldn't take place. That was the argument used to stop Civil Rights marches in the 60's. It failed then, and your version of it should and will fail now!