Jewish High Holidays and the Mosque Near Ground Zero

This piece is another example of what passes for "reasoned" civil discourse these days. Start by claiming that both sides have "powerful arguments" (and just what are those "powerful arguments" by the mosque opponents?), and then "compromise" by letting the irrational side have its way.

And here's how Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker handled the false Auschwitz convent analogy:
1. The convent at Auschwitz was to be a purely Catholic institution, with none of the interfaith aspects or broad community-serving purposes that mark the Park51 project.
2. In their fundraising appeal, the convent’s sponsors
described the convent as “a spiritual fortress and a guarantee of the conversion of strayed brothers from our countries as well as proof of our desire to erase outrages so often done to the Vicar of Christ.”
Whether or not “the strayed brothers” requiring “conversion” is a reference to Jews—it might refer to fallen-away Catholics—it’s hard to interpret the reference to “outrages” supposedly perpetrated against the “Vicar of Christ” as anything other than an allusion to the well-documented charges that Pope Pius XII was, shall we say, less than fully engaged in trying to prevent the Nazi slaughter of the Jews of Europe.
3. The institutional context is decisively different. The Catholic Church is a “continuing body,” way more so than the United States Senate. The Church is a hierarchical, even authoritarian institution, with a self-perpetuating bureaucracy and, via the Vatican, the diplomatic and political status of a state. The papacy that failed to struggle against the horror of Auschwitz is the same papacy (though not the same pope, of course) that exercised ultimate authority over the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz. There is no such authority structure within Islam and no such institutional connection between Al Qaeda and the sponsors of Park51. Nor is there even an ideological connection. To demand that an Islamic cultural center run by Muslims opposed to terrorism not be built two blocks from the WTC site is like demanding that a Unitarian church not be built two blocks from an abortion clinic bombed by the “Christian” murderer of the late Dr. George Tiller.
4. The geopolitical context is decisively different. When the Carmelite/Auschwitz controversy surfaced, the Shoah was forty years in the past. The struggle over lethal anti-Semitism within Christian Europe is over. The struggle over lethal terrorism within Islam is not. In that worldwide struggle, the conflation of 9/11 terrorism with Islam per se—a conflation that is at the heart of the anti-Park51 campaign—is a huge, unearned, dangerous strategic gift to Al Qaeda. (And the American politicians and pundits who are busily giving the breath of life to this so-called issue are the biggest givers.)

By the way, Indy headline writer, the proposed mosque is not at ground zero, but in a neighborhood in lower Manhattan that already has the usual big-city mix of businesses. You shouldn't be introducing a controversy by repeating a lie put forward by one side.

ps
As part of his attempt to show that both sides are worthy of blame, the Rabbi constructs the vilest false equivalency--between Gingrich and Bloomberg--that I have ever seen. Here's some of what Bloomberg actually said: "There are people of good will on both sides of the debate… I understand the impulse to find another location for the mosque and community center. I understand the pain of those who are motivated by loss too terrible to contemplate. And there are people of every faith – including, perhaps, some in this room – who are hoping that a compromise will end the debate." So please show me where he's saying that only bigots are against the mosque.

PK, it seems that you have bent over backwards to pick a fight. And, in doing so, you have demonstrated the central thesis of the rabbi's commentary - that Americans have lost touch with the most basic expression of common courtesy - civil discourse. You may be right and the rabbi may be wrong. However, when you describe an element of his commentary as the construction of "the vilest false equivalency", you vilify him personally. Why can't you just say that you think he is wrong?

Also, PK, I find one of your statements particularly frightening - not because I think you are wrong on this point (though, I do think you are wrong on this point), but because I think that a great many people agree with you. You say, "The struggle over lethal anti-Semitism within Christian Europe is over." I wish that you were correct. However, I believe that you are terribly wrong. Anti-Semitism among European Christians is growing - perhaps, no more than other subsets of hatred - but it is growing nonetheless.

In truth, hate is on the rise.

A really disturbed (and disturbing) person once asked a really good question: "Can't we all just get along?" More and more, it seems that the answer is "No".

Brett

First, I didn't say anything about anti-Semitism in Europe. In an attempt to give a full and fair account of his remarks, I quoted Hertzberg's view. In any event, one could argue that what one is seeing in Europe is anti-Israeli expansionism being characterized by neoconservatives as anti-semitism, but that's another issue.

In an attempt to show that both sides are to blame, Rabbi Youdovin casts Mayor Bloomberg as implying that opponents of the mosque are bigots. The fact that this is the precise opposite of what the Mayor has said makes Youdovin's comment indecent, and the fact that Youdovin uses this grotesquely false charge to draw a moral equivalence between Bloomberg and Gingrich is vile. Nothing is served by trying to find a milder way to characterize what the Rabbi is doing in this supposed attempt to restore "civility" to the discussion.

This is all about people fighting over a piece of dirt in New York.

As the song goes "All we are is dust in the wind".

Blah Blah Blah, religion, in all its forms, is the muck and sludge that continues drag down the common sense of humanity. Santa Claus doesn't come down the chimney and religion is irrelevant nonsense.

I imagine Pol Pot and Josef Stalin where also fine men.

@billclausen - Since one irrelevant comment deserves another, I guess I'll just confirm Godwin's Law...

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

As much as I'd love debating the virtues of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, I'm afraid I'm already busy with plans to burn some Qurans in the name of Jesus...

Not irrelevant at all: Read the *entire* statement and don't pull things out of context. The operative word is "also".

I was merely reminding people that nominal Christians are not the sole cause of problems on planet earth. Then again, those who make it their raison d'etre to bash Christians in these blogs are reluctant to acknowledge the sins of Left/secular leaders where I have a history of applying the same criticism to both sides.

Once again, emotion and biased agenda trump reason.

EatTheRich:The problem is we are pack animals and as such we like to attach ourselves to people who think as we do. High school sports is an example of this when you see one high school making fun of the other high schools mascot and so forth. High school plays out in adult life when people decide that they are either liberal or conservative. The analogy carries over when the cheerleaders jumping up and down with pom-poms are replaced by various spokespeople such as Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhodes, and so forth.

Now we have some clown in Florida named Terry Jones who has the country hushed in silence eagerly awaiting whether he will...or won't...burn the Qur'an.

What I see in you is that you are where I once was: you have the view that one side or the other must be right so you go with that. I finally realized that human beings are fallible, evil by nature, and as such to put all my belief in one political side or the other is foolish. Consistent to that end, I recently posted something to the effect of "who died and put Al Sharpton and Glenn Beck in charge?"

To get so riled up over Terry Jones, or some people in New York who have decided that "Ground Zero" is sacred soil, is a waste of your time and energy. To blame Christians for life's problems ignores the fact that Christianity has almost entirely lost it's hold in the U.S.--save for a few Republicans who pay lip service to naïve constituents who think these politicians actually care about them.

I don't know what your background is, but clearly (as your screen name shows) you have a biased agenda that precludes the ability to see the fact that people on both sides of the Left/Right polemic are to blame for the worlds' problems. If this means anything to you at all, my Mom's ancestors who were Christians escaped from Iran and Turkey because they got tired of being killed and seeing their girls being kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery. That having been said, there were those Muslims who intervened on their behalf just as there were Righteous Gentiles who intervened for the Jews during the Holocaust.

So shoud I go on bashing Muslims for having killed my Great-grandparents and driving my family out of their homeland? Should Jews hate all Germans for what happened in WW2? Should you keep putting down conservatives and Christians for what some of them do? And do we look at "our own" and not criticize them when they do wrong? Most importantly: are WE perfect?

The only thing I know for sure about this entire debate is this:

1) The rabid, irrational anti-Muslim sentiment in this country right now is indeed similar to all rabid and irrational hatred of one group of people throughout history, this is inclusive of Jews in Germany.

2) It would have our country's forefathers rolling over in their graves so see America, the land of the free, behaving as if "free" means "white, Christian."

Pretty much everything Native1 said is dead on.

@billclausen - It's pretty hysterical that you accuse me of being provocative with my screen name when you name drop Stalin and Pol Pot as if that alone makes a point.

When you have a far right-wing pundit claiming to be the vessel of the voice of God (is Glenn Beck Latin for Metatron?) in a speech purposed to "reclaim" (when it actually entirely distorts) the message of Martin Luther King, Jr., the idea that I am somehow faulty for thinking a great much of this religious piety on part of the Religious Right is utter crap is not misplaced. By all means, if you want to waste your time finding middle ground with THESE people, knock yourself out. I think they should be ridden out of town on a rail.

Just to be clear, my family is of many different religious persuasions, and my wife's family is mostly Catholic (her father almost became a priest) - and she, and her family, thinks a lot of what's happening under the guise of "Christianity" is crap as well. It's not the "religion" to which I object (unlike your ENTIRELY unnecessary dig on atheism) - it's blatant use of it to suppress others while these fools (Hannity, Beck, Palin, etc) line their own pockets. If you can't see it for what it is, well, then I don't know what to tell you.

Now I'm off to read Stephen Hawking's book to get some sanity before someone decides to burn THAT for a photo op.

EatTheRich: You've put me in my place. I can sleep much better knowing that you recognize that zealots can come from both the Left and Right, and can be religious or atheist.

Sorry I ever doubted you.

Native1 – Really? “The rabid, irrational anti-Muslim sentiment in this country right now is indeed similar to all rabid and irrational hatred of one group of people throughout history, this is inclusive of Jews in Germany. And. It would have our country's forefathers rolling over in their graves so see America, the land of the free, behaving as if "free" means "white, Christian."?
Get a grip, all people are saying (and a majority of liberal New Yorkers at that) is that they can build a mosque anywhere else but there. It is deemed an insult and a provocation. I personally do not care that they add one more mosque to the existing 140 that already exist in New York City. But if they want to build it there just be prepared for the additional relational damage that will transpire as a result.
Especially since this is a culture that most Americans feel has failed to condemn the barbarous acts performed by those Muslims in the minority. It is obvious that you have no experience, outside of redundant far left talking points, with the Muslim culture and the historical importance it has in the placement of mosques. Too bad, because you have totally missed the point.
Build it, but just don't build it there; and if they do, they need to understand that their stated goal of inclusion and understanding will never happen. Maybe that's the goal. Eh? Daniel Petry

We can all breathe a sigh of relief since Florida's version of Torquemada has called off his burning of the Qur'an.

However, the conspiricy theorists can still hold to their convictions that we have a Taqiyan sitting in the oval office being entertained by his flock of Whirling Dervishes.

All joking aside, Petry's line about people who have no experience outside their biased talking points is right on the money. These folks either hate the U.S., or they feel guilty about the nice lifestyle they lead.

I know this much: I would rather be having this argument here than in Saudi Arabia.

Here is a nice article that just popped on on the news feed: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39118941/...

Complaining about a mosque at ground zero is like complaining about a German deli next to a synagogue.

Even my relatives who live in Manhattan, likely opponents of the community center, think this thing has been blown out of proportion by those who would seek to politically cash in.

Just as anyone who hates Japanese or Japanese-Americans because Japan attacked the US during WW2 cannot be considered rational, so too are opponents of the mosque.

Sure, some of those whose loved ones perished on 9/11 may forever harbor hatred towards anything Islamic. But should they get a pass on irrational thinking because they personally suffered? Of course not. We can understand and we can comfort, but we don't need to approve.

Or to put it another way, what if Denmark unilaterally invaded Indonesia and slaughtered thousands? Would you understand if Indonesians harbored a hatred of Christians? Well, Denmark is primarily a Protestant nation. Sure. But would it be right to blame all of Christiandom for the attack? Of course not.

That is the fundamental flaw of those who say its "inappropriate" for the "mosque" to be "near" ground zero. The logic simply isn't there.

By the way, in a salute to Galileo's "Dialogue" ...

I'm sure someone is going to say, "Yeah, but how would you like it if anything Japanese was near the Arizona memorial?". Well I have news for you buddy, there are Japanese restaurants, hotels, etc. plus descendants of Japanese all over Oahu! All the retail clerks speak even Japanese. Such an insult!

But then that person would probably say, "Yeah, but how about right at the Arizona memorial?". Well, the Islamic community center isn't planned to be at ground zero, the site is a couple of NYC blocks away (even workers at ground zero have noted this in recent news interviews). And for those who have been to Manahattan, two big city blocks can seem like a long ways away, especially with tall buildings preventing line of sight.

The Mosque will not be built at the proposed site. If you want to waste your efforts in denigrating those who oppose it's construction at that location then go right ahead but you would be better served picking a battle that you have some possibility of winning. Daniel Petry

"The Mosque will not be built at the proposed site. If you want to waste your efforts in denigrating those who oppose it's construction at that location then go right ahead but you would be better served picking a battle that you have some possibility of winning."
-- jcrdan

Rationale debate is never a waste of time. Denigration you say? Quote a line and tell us why!

As I said, we can understand and we can comfort, but we don't need to approve. Some of those survivors will harbor a hatred, no matter how subdued, of anything Islamic for the rest of their lives. In that sense, they are damaged victims too.

Its up to the rest of us to not allow our collective emotions to get the best of us. I'd like to think Martin Luther King, Jr. would feel the same way (as well as his new Tea Party fans).

"Islam is ...poorly defended by apologists with their unrealistic denial of any connection between its teachings and the atrocities committed in its name on 9/11."
-- Rabbi Ira Youdovin

While I agree with the author on many points, his closing paragraph reveals a subtle bias. Are we to understand that fundamental teachings of Islam motivated the violence of 9/11? And make no mistake about it, he refers to all of Islam, not just some misguided adherents, when he uses the pronoun "its"? Is there is something systemically evil about Islam?

Well, any casual read of the Bible will reveal tales of extreme violence and pure revenge performed by its adherents. And anyone familiar with the history of Christianity will know that many wars and acts of inhumanity have been waged in the name of God. Does that mean Christianity is systemically evil?

Had Rabbi Youdovin lived during the reign of the Spanish Inquisition, would he be tempted to claim a connection between Christianity's teachings and the atrocities committed in its name on 9/11/1501?

My view is that adherents of the major religions interpret their religious texts and traditions through the lens of their own individual needs and desires. It is therefore a subjective interpretation. Fortunately, most practitioners are level-headed and emphasize those aspects which make us all stronger - love, compassion, thou shalt not kill, etc.

But there are those who would use religion for selfish and destructive purposes. Its those people who are directly to blame, not their religions. To do otherwise castes the net too wide.

EastBeach - "Denigration you say? Quote a line and tell us why!"

"Blah Blah Blah, religion, in all its forms, is the muck and sludge that continues drag down the common sense of humanity."

Bottom line, the Mosque will not be built. Daniel Petry

Ah, jcrdan, you were referring to someone else's post. Next time you do that, try using their handle instead of the pronoun "you" so we know who you're talking about. Otherwise, its just so much shouting into the wind as opposed to debate.

BTW, "the mosque" is really a community center that won't be visible from the old WTC site. Per Wikipedia, it includes:

" ... a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, culinary school, and a food court ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_51

Good people of moderate views should decry the politicization of this community asset by intolerant and fear-mongering extremists.

Doesn't matter, as the onion is pealed on this huge PR mistake we are finding more and more negatives about the individuals and entities involved. The Mosque will not be built there, period. Daniel Petry

I suggest that Rabbi Ira Youdovin’s September 9th essay in The Independent falls short of an invitation to discourse that would best benefit Santa Barbara or our nation. More than just the Park51 community center project deserving a different conversation than ‘supporters’ and ‘critics’, we each deserve the highest level and type of inter-religious dialogue. We owe it to our neighbors and to ourselves to begin exchanges that at least recognize the shared humanity and connections of experiences, and regard the complexity and diversity of religious traditions.
To the specific content of Rabbi Youdovin’s piece, I would counter that two opportunities were lost for the essay to enlighten the Park51 discussion. Firstly, he writes that “there are powerful arguments for both sides” but fails to offer any of them instead only citing poor or hurtful statements from either side. From the camp of ‘move the Park51 community center’ he cites an unnamed columnist who appealed to Pope John Paul II’s moving of a Carmelite nunnery away from Auschwitz. Connecting this event to the potential Lower Manhattan development, the unnamed columnist writes that they see an applicable lesson being: “This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.”
The enrichment of dialogue participants’ humanity will be mutual when the shared memory of that day does not erase the experiences of Muslim’s deaths, grief, and acts of heroism. This columnist’s statement is hurtful in its exclusion of American Muslims from grieving as other Americans may and closes the door to Muslims’ equally sharing American identity.
Unfortunately representing the supporters of the present location, Youdovin cites Michael Bloomberg’s dismissive and judgmental statements, which have been tantamount to calling the project’s detractors guilty of bigotry. I believe that with these two examples the September 9th article missed a chance at modeling positive arguments for others to emulate.
A second missed opportunity was the recognition of faith traditions’ robust diversity, complexity, and contextualization. Youdovin writes that apologists of Islam poorly defend their faith “with their unrealistic denial of any connection between its teachings and the atrocities committed in its name on 9/11.”
This statement confuses the way a faith tradition in one sense may have a singular ‘name’ by which it is appealed to, and in another sense have many traditions of teachings. While Islam was the faith of the terrorists, Islam has a plurality of distinct voices and teachings. This being the case, reasonable minds may not prejudge or assume any possible ‘connection’ between a Muslim and the perpetrators of 9/11. In effective and healing interfaith exchange, we will do well to respect the specific teachings, sects, prophets, and traditions of those with whom we are relating.