RT @dmataconis: Hitch says what I think. It’s not that I’m for the “Ground Zero” mosque. I abhor the rhetoric of the opposition. http://slate.me/dfqzFa
RT @dmataconis: Hitch says what I think. It’s not that I’m for the “Ground Zero” mosque. I abhor the rhetoric of the opposition. http://slate.me/dfqzFa
I understand Hitchen’s argument, and it is the more elegant form of opposition, but I still have no problem with the the more crude forms as well. Whether or not we see this as a clash of civilizations and/or a religious war, our enemies do, and building an Islamic center at Ground Zero would be nearly as big a symbolic success on their part as destroying the original WTC. I mean, imagine Germany set up a landmark or museum that celebrates Germanic Bavarian culture right next to Dachau. Would that not be wholly inappropriate?
First of all, contrary to the propaganda of the project’s opponents, which you are echoing, the cultural center would not be “right next to” (still less at or on) Ground Zero. It would be two blocks away, which, in Lower Manhattan terms, is worlds away. The gay bar proposal is illustrative of this point: there are undoubtedly hundreds of bars, restaurants, offices, apartments, stores, etc. etc., all as close or closer to Ground Zero as this cultural center. This is a side note, admittedly, but let’s not distort reality: to call this the “Ground Zero Mosque,” or to analogize it with a landmark or museum visibly “right next to” Dachau, is simply not accurate.
That smallish point aside…
Would you concede that “the more crude forms” of opposition, which you “have no problem with,” include appeals to rank anti-Muslim bigotry? I’m not saying that it’s impossible to oppose the project from a non-bigoted standpoint, but if you’re going to argue that it doesn’t matter whether opposition is “elegant” or “crude,” can you at least do the English language a favor, and acknowledge that by “crude” you actually mean “bigoted”? And, having done that, can you then explain how on earth you can justifying having “no problem” with that bigotry, given your later statement that “[w]hether or not we see this as a clash of civilizations and/or a religious war, our enemies do” — and to promote (or “have no problem with”) outright anti-Muslim bigotry is to give our enemies precisely what they want, namely a clash of civilizations, pitting Us against not just “them” (the terrorists) but “Them” (Islam)? I mean, how the fuck can you honestly think that some of the hateful rhetoric out there is okay? What the hell? Oppose the cultural center on “elegant,” justifable grounds if you feel that’s the proper position, but for fuck’s sake, if you don’t condemn the bigotry, I’m going to have to get all hippie on you, and invoke that nagging “…good people do nothing” quote. I know you’re all Machiavellian and whatnot, but at some point, if you won’t make even the slightest effort to stand up to the out-and-out bigots on your side of an issue, then why should your contributions to the discussion be distinguished from theirs?
Whatever symbolic harm you think this cultural center would do, the failure of its opponents to distinguish between legitimate arguments and bigoted arguments — which in turn creates (quite reasonably) the impression that the entire opposition is based purely on the very sort of anti-Muslim bigotry that no less of a left-liberal hippie than George W. Bush condemned unequivocally less than a week after 9/11 — does FAR greater harm, by helping facilitate the very clash of civilizations that our enemies want.
P.S. By the way, if you think the ferocity of opposition to this project, almost 9 years after the attacks (whose immediate aftermath actually produced far less anti-Islamic activity than feared) … as well as the sudden resurgence in ferocious opposition to illegal immigration … as well as the extent of “birther” sentiment vis a vis Obama … are unrelated to the basic historical reality that human beings always increase their hostility toward Outsiders during times of economic strife… you’re deluding yourself.
Again: not saying you can’t oppose this cultural center, or support a crackdown on illegal immigration, or oppose Obama, on non-bigoted grounds (obviously – especially the latter two cases). But there is most assuredly a causal relationship between the salience of these issues* and the economic situation of the country, and that causal relationship most certainly involves xenophobia, and it is the moral responsibility of those who have principled, non-bigoted positions that align with the xenophobes and bigots, to expose and condemn the xenophobes and bigots, and clearly distinguish your position from theirs. This is what the Right demanded of the Left with regard to, for instance, anti-war protests involving scumbags like A.N.S.W.E.R., and it was right to do so, and now you guys need to hold yourselves to your own standards.
*In Obama’s case, by “these issues” I don’t mean opposition to Obama’s policies, I just mean the birtherism strain of opposition to him personally, as well as perhaps the broader belief that he’s some sort of evil interloper trying to “destroy the Constitution” and so forth.
Slow down there turbo. First show me where Palin or Foxman are being bigoted. I’m not going to react to the rest of your rant other than with a roll of my eyes. My basic take on this is largely along the lines of what McGurn wrote in the WSJ last week: The Islamic center is incredibly counterproductive and inflammatory, and I’m not going to apologize for people who are offended when they respond with remarks and emotions that are less classy than we might prefer.
As far as the location, I plead ignorance; I have not seen a map of exactly where the Islamic center will be vis-a-vis the former WTC. I would need to see that on a map to have a more fully formed judgment — my remarks above assumed a location very near Ground Zero.
The above was typed before I saw the PS at #3, which I call major bullshit on. The reality is, a dysfunctional immigration system (among many other cultural and social problems) is easier to overlook when your house value is rising and you can take out home equity to buy that new Bimmer. Yet even then, when I worked for a congressman in 2003, do you know what the #1 issue we received calls on was? That’s right — illegal immigration. And while we got more calls from Republicans on that issue, plenty of Democrats were incensed, too. This is not about xenophobia, it’s about communities in border states feeling helplessly overrun by illegal immigrants and the very real and obvious negative side effects that come with that.
As for the birther issue, that problem could’ve been nipped in the bud if the birth certificate was publicly released right away, but I suspect that the Democrats correctly foresaw a political advantage to letting some parts of their opposition work themselves up into a froth and look silly.
PS — And let me remind you what kinds of things were going on in 2003. There were Bush tax cuts, there was the Medicare Rx bill, there was the war in Iraq and Afghanistan — IOW, there was a helluva lot going on, and yet despite all that, for our constituents, illegal immigration was the # 1 issue hands down. And if you think Northern Orange County, which is one of the most ethnically diverse places on the planet, is xenophobic, you’re deluding yourself.
“As far as the location, I plead ignorance; I have not seen a map of exactly where the Islamic center will be vis-a-vis the former WTC.”
Right, you have no idea what you’re talking about. So how far away could they build an Islamic center? Is anywhere below Chambers St off-limits? Maybe south of Houston? 14th St? Should we just draw a line at 59th St and declare it a mosque-free zone?
If you think our enemies see the construction of a mosque “very near” Ground Zero as some kind of victory, then you have already conceded that the enemy’s worldview has merit and that we should engage them on their clash-of-civilization terms. I choose to ignore it and tout this center’s construction as a victory for a free country, not a defeat for a scared, cowering nation that actually dignifies a fundamentalist position with faux outrage. God knows, there are far more important things to be outraged about, and you’d be far more justified in whining about Obama’s so-called socialist tendencies than anything of this sort.
As a New Yorker, I wish others would stay out of this. It’s a local issue and the residents of downtown don’t need outsiders ignorant of the basic street layout telling them where anything can or cannot be built.
Brendan’s side note is not just smallish, but plain silly. A mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero is not “worlds away” in Manhattan or anywhere else. AML’s analogy to a landmark or museum not at or on top of but “right next to” Dachau is thus perfectly apt, just as McGurn’s analogy to the Carmelite nuns’ convent “on the edge of” Auschwitz is completely valid in every meaningful way.
Moreover, it’s still not clear to me what “bigoted” forms of opposition are under discussion. Hitch certainly didn’t cite any, except to quote Foxman’s statement that 9/11 victims’ “anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.” Hitch also invoked the names Gingrich and Palin, which I suppose is OMG!!! RACISM!!! to some.
If someone has a sign that says “No Mosques [at/on/near/next to/whatever] Ground Zero!” that may be crude, but it’s not bigotry just because it may “appeal” to anti-muslim bigots any more than Jewish protests against the Carmelite nuns’ convent exemplified anti-Polish bigotry because some Jews who revel in telling dumb pollack jokes might have looked on approvingly.
But hey, at least Brendan conceded that it’s not impossible for non-bigots to oppose the mosque … how friggin’ gracious.
First, as is well know, I’m no fan or supporter of organized religion. Primarily for the propensity of those in power to abuse that position. Sometimes cynically sometimes not. Either way I see it as leading to irrational behavior. And to me, any generic religion is a) no different from another and b) should not be treated substantively differently from any business (The tax exempt status of churches does indeed piss me off to no end). Thus every church is to be treated, before the law, as though it were any other business entity with business before the, in this case, zoning commission in Manhattan.
So to be deeply annoying with the logic, are we saying that two blocks is too close for any religious / cultural center, or any business for that matter? (We know the answer to this is no, we are ostensibly building an office tower directly adjacent to where the Twin Towers stood. Further, there were people of every faith murdered that day. To say a shrine to those who were murdered who happened to be muslim should be treated differently than Jewish victims, or christian victims, or hindu victims is absurd. Though I think it is also absurd to treat the victims differently based on religion full stop, and recognize this is also not specifically what this debate is about. But does go to a broader point. All religious ideas are to be treated with out preference or prejudice before the courts, zoning boards, etc. of this country.
Is the area zoned commercial? If so, there can be little rational argument against a business that owns a particular plot of land doing whatever it wants with that plot so long as it is in accordance with the general zoning ordinances of the area. To do otherwise would to be to act contrary to the Constitution. To say this is not contrary to the Constitution is to support judicial activism.
If the area is zoned residential than it is up to the people of the community to grant or deny a zoning variance as they see fit, based on whatever personal criteria they see fit to act upon that request for a variance. As that is how zoning variance work. But it is not a matter for those of us outside of that community to concern ourselves with. To do so would be in violation of the tenets of federalism.
Too me this sounds like the classically conservative and federalist (Small F in this case still as students of early American political history should appreciate. Also, small C, which I trust will require less explanation.)