There is no ground zero mosque
I asked a simple question earlier this week about the issue over the Ground zero mosque. Keith Olbermann, at about 5:45 in, does an excellent job of asking the same questions and giving answers.
I don’t agree with everything he says (Olbermann is often a blowhard), but I sure agree with the core points.
The quote he mentions comes from here.
Excellent rave. Thanks for posting it. When I volunteered for military service in the US, I took an oath very seriously…
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960
According to the first amendment (which is part of that constitution), you can build a place of worship in any lawful place. I don’t understand why this is so hard for some people. Public opinion DOESN’T MATTER when it comes to rights. That’s what a “RIGHT” is. Something you don’t need permission to exercise. People have a right to say they don’t like it… but no right to stop it.
Payson:
Thanks for that. I thought the mention of the war in Iraq and the freedom we are being told we are fighting for there was particularly interesting.
I think you’re right – we confuse our right not to like something, with other people’s rights to do it anyway. Freedom guarantees there will be things that are legal and allowed that we don’t like, especially on private property, in a large, multi-cultural city.
This is a fantastic summary (don’t let the fact that it’s on Cracked.com fool you): http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/
“There is NO way to say that an individual has a protected right to do something and simultaneously criticize your government for not suppressing the execution of that right.”
I’m tired of the Ground Zero Mosque spin. Of course the first amendment protects the government from silencing religious speech. Of course. Even religious speech I don’t agree with. However, that does not require that a building permit be given to anyone at anytime for anything. If the cleric cared about diversity and peace he would take his mosque and move elsewhere. There is no need for it to be there.
Does anyone else think the fact that the WTC Memorial isn’t even built yet is a factor here? Politicians and cable news celebrities are going to pick fights no matter what because that’s just how it is these days. But I have to wonder, if the public was used to a memorial at ground zero honoring the victims of 9/11, perhaps then would they be more comfortable with a building a few blocks away that honors Islam? Personally I believe there’s room for both, but I can understand some of the frustrations on both sides.
Lisa:
> However, that does not require that a building permit
> be given to anyone at anytime for anything.
Actually I believe it does. Not anything, but there is nothing illegal about about a place of worship or a community center on a city block.
I don’t know if you watched the video. If you did, it makes pretty clear it’s mostly just another city block in what is currently a lousy neighborhood.
> There is no need for it to be there.
The NY Times reports that the two nearest mosques are dramatically overcrowded.
The people who actually live there seem to think there is a need.
Buddy:
> Does anyone else think the fact that the WTC Memorial
> even built yet is a factor here?
I think this is a much better target for outrage of all kinds. Forget the memorial – the entire area still looks mostly the same as it did after the initial clean-up.
Scott, I will take the bait. I will leave the right or wrong argument to the side for now. The near or far question is just as interesting.
I believe the question of near vs. far can be put into perspective based on where you grew up or where you live. As someone who grew up in Texas and still lives here … the 2 blocks (4 blocks for Olbermann) is some people’s back yard in Texas. This is all the more why this conversation is so nuanced. Red states, fly-over-states etc have people that visit New York and San Francisco and are more than willing to walk 4 blocks. Why? Because 4 blocks is near. If I can walk to a point with little to no effort… it is “near”. This perspective is purely based on my upbringing. If you have never lived in Texas or Alaska and thought about flying or driving across the state you may never really get a sense for the perspective of a Texan or Alaskan.
I work in Dallas but work with people from New York and Seattle and they often want to fly down to Dallas for business and go to Austin for the weekend. Why? Because as they put it; Austin is near Dallas. To be clear, Austin is a 4 hour drive from Dallas. They have never been to Texas so when I tell them it is a 4 hour drive they often say… well that is too far.
Recently, I observed a debate over the oil reserves in Northern Alaska, Arctic Refuge. The refuge is 19 Million acres (Manhattan Island 14,500 acres). An attorney argued the areas target for drilling are near a group of caribou and would disturb them while supporters of drilling said they would not be “near” the caribou because they are only using 1.5 Million acres.
In short, near or far are words ready for use by anyone willing to use them. Usually these words are used to make an argument and persuade those who already have their minds made up. Rarely do the words make a difference in the minds of independent thinkers who must first put them into perspective.
Monte:
I take your point, but it suggests to me it’s a local issue. Let the people who actually live in NYC, and actually call this neighborhood home, or where they work, decide what is too near or too far.
Yes, Trust the locals and their elected officials. The only counter to that is that if the decision had gone the other way and plans had been rejected … the conversation would quickly turned to a federal issue with even more cries for constitutional justification. People frame hot issues around whatever serves their worldview. IE it is a local issue as long as it works out the way I expect or federal when it works to my advantage see arizona and border protection, Alaska and oil.
Thank you Keith. Nothing to add because you’ve said it all. Brilliant.
Well let’s start with facts perhaps we can agree on:
(1 ) Ground Zero is a point where America was attacked by 19 “Radical” Islamists and while this painful act was borne mostly by New Yorkers, it is a national cemetery similar to Gettysburg and Pearl Harbor — it is a place of important historical significance.
(2) Just because we have a right to do something that doesn’t make it right. For example, protesting a war at a funeral where someone is burying their dead son or daughter is wrong. We have the right to freely express ourselves but their are somethings as a matter of decency and self-restraint vs. constantly having the government retrain behavior. The folks sponsoring this building may have the right to build at this site but that doesn’t make it right or respectful of those who have suffered tragic loss at Ground Zero.
(3) Except for a few fringe elements I think the majority of folks who are opposed to the GZM are not Islamaphobic. There are probably hundreds of Mosques in NY and since 9/11 there have been very few cases of aggression against Muslims in this country. These 2 facts point to an American public in general not opposed to Muslims but opposed to this center at this location.
I think reasonable folks can agree on my three points above and in light of those I think Keith Olbermann comes across as an intellectual lightweight. Citing anything remotely similar to Nazi Germany and this situation is dishonest. We have nothing approaching what happened at the death-camps of Germany and Poland to what’s happening in New York. Here we have people who still have an open wound of lost family and friends, people who object to this building in this location–not to all Muslims in all locations. Apparently it’s too much work for Keith to notice the differences but luckily he has such a small audience I doubt what he has to say matters much or even be noticed.
Kelly:
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Olbermann is noise, I have no interest in defending him. I would have rather shown an op-ed video from someone I liked more, but haven’t seen one. Bloomberg’s speech was excellent, but there is no video for it.
I think it’s reasonable to ask anyone against this if they’re a) been to Manhattan b) Been to the WTC site. For anyone who has seen a and b, 2 blocks is really quite far. Hard to imagine for most people how far that is. And the WTC site itself is *enormous*. People don’t really understand exactly how large an area is comprised by the “WTC site” It wasn’t just 2 buildings it was acres of space.
My first post asked: if 2 blocks isn’t enough, how far would be? I don’t think there’s a good answer for it, which I think makes arguments against the mosque weaker.
> (2) Just because we have a right to do something
> that doesn’t make it right
I agree. But simply because someone is offended by something doesn’t make it wrong. Right and wrong on matters of respect are highly subjective. The closer anything is to the WTC the more sensitive people are likely to be, but two blocks in a major American city? That distance equates to way more respect than nearly anything else in those cities ever receive.
The complete failure, so far, of the WTC site (it’s still mostly an empty space) to provide a memorial, a decade after the event is a big unsaid part of the story and a more worthy target for outrage and protest. I think the mosque is an easy an convenient target for expressing various kinds of unresolved (but valid) feelings people have.
Amazingly eye opener. Great job. I wish my fellow citizens see/listen to this on prime time.
You really do like to talk past ppl and hear yourself blather, don’t you. (note, not a question)
“it’s reasonable to ask anyone against this if they’re a) been to Manhattan b) Been to the WTC site. For anyone who has seen a and b, 2 blocks is really quite far. Hard to imagine for most people how far that is. ”
Keep talking past ppl. I lived w/in a few blocks of WTC & worked in it for 3 years in the late ’90s. My vertical commute took longer than my horizontal one. I’m not esp against the mosque but I know plenty of ppl w/ my exact background who ARE. They know the distances quite well. They know the reality far better than you. You don’t seem to know downtown Manhattan well at all.
“And the WTC site itself is *enormous*. People don’t really understand exactly how large an area is comprised by the “WTC site” It wasn’t just 2 buildings it was acres of space.”
Your point is meaningless. I worked IN the WTC for 3 yrs. I’ve wandered the whole site numerous times. So, are you saying that someone who LIVES just NORTH of the site (& has to look at it each day) has a right to protest the mosque but someone who lives just SOUTH of the site (& has to look at it each day) has NO right to protest the mosque, b/c they’re on the other side?
“if 2 blocks isn’t enough, how far would be? I don’t think there’s a good answer for it, which I think makes arguments against the mosque weaker. ”
Actually, MANY ppl think that makes arguments against the mosque STRONGER. Did the latest mosque going up in White Plains cause an uproar? What about in Yonkers? THIS mosque on THIS site caused an uproar but you’re unable to even begin to comprehend what that means. You just talk past it.
These Americans are very racists because they do not want to build an Islamic center. These Americans are fascists because they are against tolerance and religious freedom. All Muslims are shocked because of this racism. Muslims respect any American who supports the idea of building an Islamic center in any site in America. The American people is wonderful, so they must stand against this racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Khaled
Thus is almost ridiculous! Kelly, Joan thank you. Can I play on the opposite side of the coin for a mintue. Khaled how can it be that this act is Racist? I feel that I could speak for many of MY fellow Americans in saying it is not Muslim that we find fault with nor it’s Mosques merely the hurtful placement of this one at this place in time. How well would it come across for me and a small contingent of MY fellow American-Christians to produce plans to build a cathedral/temple in Mecca. I think that we could call it an inter-faith center. In fact, let’s even put in a pool cause we are very concerned about our youth today. This act and those who blatantly support it are hypocrites. In the one hand toting the constitution while attemptig to crush with the other all of the values and standards that it was predicated upon. We are Americans! We are tolerant, we are obliging. The mere fact that this proposal has ever gotten off the ground at all should stand as a testament to that. But we will not be walked on, we will not be triumphed over. That site does not belong to any religion it belongs to the American dream, the patriotic spirit, and to those who had to lose their lives so we would pull our heads out of the sands of “political correctess” and be woken up before it is too late. Separation of church and state, give me separation of US soil and Sharia Law.
” I feel that I could speak for many of MY fellow Americans in saying it is not Muslim that we find fault with nor it’s Mosques merely the hurtful placement of this one at this place in time.”
So, this particular Mosque is hurtful because it’s too close to the site, where some lunatic Muslims have hurt us? But it’s just a religion! Get a grip people. Should we declare Catholic Churches built too close to schools hurtful, because lunatic priests molested so many children? Should the reasonable religious (and I use those two terms together loosely) suffer for the actions of extremists? If so, let’s just ban religion altogether. Because most of us are guilty of despicable crimes (except Scientologists – although the damage they’ve done to Tom Cruise does border on vile)