On
December 08, 2009, The New York Times
published an
article regarding the plans to build an Islamic cultural center two blocks
away from Ground Zero in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory. Controversy
sparked as the nation began taking sides on whether or not the building of an
Islamic cultural center so close to Ground Zero would be disrespectful to those
whose lives were taken as a result of September 11, 2001 and the family members
who survive them. Blogger Pamela Geller’s anti-Muslim views and hostility
towards Muslim causes played a large role in bringing controversy into the
limelight of mainstream media with the posting of an article a few hours after the New York Times’, and another article
a few weeks later.
The
Islamic cultural center is referred to as Park 51 after controversy arose due
to its original name- Cordoba House. Some relatives of the September 11 attacks
are speaking out in opposition to the cultural center, saying that building
there is insensitive and a “stab in the back” to the family members of those
who were killed. One woman referenced Ground Zero as her mother’s grave site,
and stated that although she realized that it may seem like an irrational and
emotional argument, she doesn’t want an Islamic cultural center so close to
that “sacred ground.” The Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero is often
compared to building a Japanese cultural center near Pearl Harbor.
Many
of those in support of the Islamic cultural center view it as two-fold. By
moving forward with the cultural center not only is the Muslim community able
to exercise their constitutional rights, but the nation as a whole is sending a
message to the extremists. The extremists would be delighted if the United
States banned the building of an Islamic cultural center, it would put the
power back in their hands and show the world that the United States doesn’t
back what it says about equality and freedom.
The
Pentagon, another building attacked on September 11, has built a chapel as part
of a memorial to those who were killed when American Airlines Flight 77 flew
into the west side of building. The nondenominational chapel, opened just a
little over a year after September 11, holds prayer groups and weekly worship
service for Muslims, in addition to providing services for Jews, Hindus,
Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, and Episcopalians. It’s reported that no one
has protested the chapel or the services it holds.
At
the end of the day it seems that this is more of an emotional controversy than
anything else. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA) is a federal law that “prohibits the imposition of burdens on the
ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other
religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on
their property use.” Denial of the cultural center would violate RLUIPA, and
when it’s all said and done when do we let emotions veto constitutional rights?
Sources:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/mosque-at-ground-zero-adding-insult-to-agony.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec10/groundzero_08-10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_51#Opposition
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-6786911.html
I think your question about letting emotions veto constitutional rights makes for good discussion. First of all, I don't think our actions should be influenced to any degree by what other countries think. Personally, I could care less what the terrorists are going to think about what we do.
ReplyDeleteI maintain that it is their constitutional right to build there, but I can't help but try and put myself in the position of those more personally affected by the 9/11 tragedy. I imagine that for many this would feel like a slap in the face for their nation to allow the construction of a building that is at least partially a muslim mosque. On the other hand, this doesn't have to be viewed as an acceptance of the religious group that caused the tragedy( it is my understanding that terrorism is an extremist thing and not necessarily a muslim belief).
I can't really imagine why anyone would want to build such a building there, considering the implications. I don't think this decision was made in good sense; however, I don't think that they should be denied the right to build there based on the muslim affiliation. Considering our belief in religious freedom, I think it would be wrong to deny building privileges based on religion.
Aren't there certain boundaries to constitutional rights, i.e. disturbing the peace? If so, perhaps this could be viewed as a disturbance of public peace. I may be way off here, as I am not that familiar with laws.
I agree with Chad. While yes, the right to assembly and freedom of speech are both protected under the constitution, thereby allowing for the creation of a mosque near ground zero, The issue must be examined from a social standpoint as well. There is a time for religious freedom to be celebrated, but this, mosque, despite it's true intentions, appears, at least to many americans, as a spit in the face fro 9/11. The fact that islam as a whole has nothing to do with the tragedy, which as CHad said, was carried out by radical extremists, is lost on a vast number of people, who through either active or passive ignorance, cannot differentiate between the two. I wouldn't stop the building of the ground zero mosque, but I do think that the muslims working for its arrival should reconsider the reasons behind its creation. The sentiment attached to the project may be incongruous with the message that islam is trying to spread across America after 9/11.
DeleteOur country was built on religious freedom and I think that needs to be upheld by allowing Park 51 to be built. As a country we have overcome many stereotypes that have formed over the years to restore equality and freedom to all. I think that the Muslim religion has been blamed a little too much for the September 11th attacks. The terrorists that carried out the attacks were Muslims and so is/was the organization that they were associated but that isn't what defines them. The majority of Muslims are not extremists that want to kill Americans and they should be respected and given the same amount of freedom that everyone else has.
ReplyDeleteWe do need to be sensitive to those who lost loved ones in the attacks but I feel like they need to stop blaming Muslim people as a whole. It has created a horrible stereotype in our country that has started to deny a certain group of people the freedoms that are granted in our constitution. I think Park 51 would be a place where people from all walks of life and religions can come together as human beings to realize that we all hold similar values. We shouldn't allow a small group of people to define a whole religion. I feel that if this stereotype continues it will spread through generations and cause a problem that will take generations to fix.
Um, you had the one on schools.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the miscommunication, I thought that because I signed up first and because it says "or" that I could post on the topic I planned on writing about since the first day of class.
DeleteI think it'll be fine, I was paying attention to the location of the names on the sheet
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBy allowing our emotions to dictate our laws and the distribution of rights and freedoms, we are perverting the very principles upon which this country was founded: "rule of law." In essence, by denying the rights of a religious group to congregate and worship - no matter the offense others might feel by them doing so - we become what we are so adamantly fighting against - authoritarian, terror-driven societies. In doing so, the very people who complain about Islamic society and views which undermine jusitice engage in the exact same practices, establishing unfair doctrine which grants preferential treatment to those belonging to certain groups and eliminating equal protections within our judicial system. Aristotle famously stated that "the law is reason, free from passion." No where do his words apply to a greater degree than in this scenario.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Chad's comment about not caring what the terrorist think, I definitely care what they think if they act out on it. I would not want to give them cause for another attack. I also agree with Hannah that although they are said to be Muslim, they do not act like all other Muslims. I have heard that Islam is a peaceful religion, although I know little about it so I may not be right. These terrorists do not show peace in their ways. I think we should stop looking at this situation as if Muslims are responsible for the attacks. We need to see this as a certain group that is responsible. They just happened to be Muslim. I also do not think we should be punishing other Muslims for the actions of a few by not letting them worship where they like. It is constitutionally acceptable to let them build Park 51 so they should be able to. I do not know how the issue of disturbing the peace would fit in, but I would like to find out.
ReplyDeleteI am fairly confident that no matter what anyone in America or this blog thinks, there are still extremists more than willing to embark on a second 9/11 - and thus as Chad said it is a moot point to be concerned about the thoughts of irrational extremists. I will refrain from repeating my comments posted on Joe's blog. I think innocence would be the only allowance one could claim in thinking Park 51 is purely and truly at its core a cultural center or non-denominational chapel like the one all religions worship at in the Pentagon. It is difficult to imagine a major Christian religion holding a service at Park 51. I doubt that the bias in the American public regarding Islam is causing the supposed denial of legal rights, if so there will soon be litigation. I have some good Muslim friends in Bosnia that (in all likely hood, knowing them as I do) would find the need to build Park 51 so close to 9/11 a controversy that American Muslim's should not have embarked upon (or the groups pressing for Park 51's construction). I feel the hurt America suffered is not something that can be patched with an obvious bandaid, if anything if needs slow and natural recovery. I am starting to think that the damage feared by many posting, that of further bias towards the Muslim religion in America, has already occurred - something I would expect those of most average intelligence to have seen coming when they proposed the construction of Cordoba. If this controversy fell on those proposing the project out of no where, then why not quietly and apologetically move Cordoba to a different location. Like it or not, they knew that American's in general where not overly supportive of Islamic religions post 9/11 - and sometimes one must humbly apologize and accept the blame of actions that one has not done to speed the rebuilding of trust (something personal experience has taught me). If those proposing Cordoba had humbly agreed to move the building (whether or not it was constitutional), it is more than likely that what followed would have been general appreciation and the beginning of building a nation that was more accepting of Islamic religions. Lastly, purely and matter-o-fact enforcing of rules and liberties without proper reason, judgement and human intelligence would more closely adhere to the dictionary's definition of authoritarian. The entire judicial system we have been discussing in class the last several weeks has aimed to avoid this authoritarian implementation of strict law, and instead gives judges the ability to use reasons, judgement, and intelligence.
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't matter where the Park 51 center goes. It could be right on the doorstep of Ground Zero, for all it should matter. The acts of an extremist sect of a religion (in this case, Islam), do not and should not reflect on the religion as a whole. Would we tell a community of Germans that they couldn't build a community center near a Jewish school because the Nazis were German? No, that would be ridiculous. We as a society need to learn to stop perceiving every group that is different than us as a threat. If we're going to continue to live peacefully in this increasingly global society, we need to be accepting of each other's differences, and start giving people the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeleteWhile I completely believe it is the right of the group to build whatever they please on that area of land I don't think it would necessarily be wise. I like that you spoke about the non denominational chapel at the pentagon. I think that a similar project that could be used by one and all would be a really savvy and respectful way of using the space. I don't question the legality of the issue, I feel like that it pretty straight forward yet I think that there are more mutually beneficial ways of proceeding.
ReplyDeleteI think an intersting point to note is that previous to the 9/11 attacks there were already two Muslim mosques in close proximity to the world trade centers. This area of Manhattan hosted a muslim community that worshipped in the area- it is not as if a group of Muslims decided to come to the area after the fact to rub it in the faces of 9/11 victims. This group of people were already worshipping in the area, and I feel that opposition to a Muslim center or mosque in the area would be a way of saying that Muslims are no longer welcome in the community because of the terrorist actions of a radical few. Constitutionally, I believe the planners have every right to build the center in this location. We are a country based on religious freedom and the protection of minorities. It is important that these rights be protected even when the majority is in oppostion to the minorities rights.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is not as if the center wants to build on ground zero itself. It is planned to be build 2 blocks away. If there is a "more sensitive" place for it to be built than how far away would be "sensitive" 10 blocks, outside of Manhattan, outside of New York City?... I don't think that we can ultimately alienate a certain group of innocent people from their community in an attempt to be sensitive and nuture discrimination. The people that would frequent the center, the people in charge of it and the doctrine of their religion did not plan and execute the 9/11 attacks (a group of terrorists did). The large scale fear and discrimination that has stemmed from the horriffic actions of the radical few should not prevent Muslims from worshipping where they please and creating a community center in hopes of promoting the values of peace and coexistence.
So, I am reading your brilliant blog post and I'm thinking to myself "why is this happening, why the double standard, what makes Muslim terrorists so special, why is so much time and energy going into this; time and energy that could be put toward fixing things?"
ReplyDeleteBut then i realized what the problem was, we want them to be different. All this essentializing and sensationalizing of this event was design to make us feel comfortable - to make us feel like we aren't like "those people". We want to feel fundamentally different from the people that participate in terrorism. But of course that's not the truth, the truth resists simplicity.
We, as Americans in general, should never let hateful prejudice be what deprives us of our rights. But, by fighting the construction of this Islamic cultural center, we are doing just that. Many of those who protest Park 51 fail to realize the difference between the extremists who caused 9/11 and the religion Islam. Associating Al Qaeda with normal Islamic Americans would be like associating the KKK with Protestant Christianity. They are just Americans who needed to utilize their freedom to worship at an awkward place and time in our history. We cannot punish them for that. As it is stated above, the more we as Americans become polarized in regards to Islam, the more we fulfill our attackers's goals. Let them build it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think building an Islamic community centre near Ground Zero is a good idea at all. I imagine that many Americans would be offended by such a thing. But in reality the building of such centre would violate no laws, therefore the group responsible for the centre should have full legal right to build it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Americans, especially those who feel offended by this community centre, should ask themselves these questions: "To whom are we angry?" "Who was responsible for the September 11th attacks?" The religion of Islam did not attack the World Trade Centre. The real reasons behind the attack were not religious ones. To think that Muslims are against the United States is ridiculous. The blame should fall on the Taliban, who acted out of political reasons, not religious ones.
Though people may disagree with the message that the project developer is conveying, they should defend his right to expression.