Kevin Foley (8/17):
Wes- It is a community center that houses a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. Rauf is trying to promote a moderate, Americanized version of Islam that will compete with the intolerant Wahhabi brand. It's a worthy objective.
But those condemning the center can't get past the word "Muslim" to find out what's really happening and that's what I find dangerous. As I noted nearby, if we're going to blame the world's 1.5 billion Muslims for 9-11, then let's be fair and blame the world's 2.1 billion Christians for McVeigh's attack.
Wes Pedersen (8/17):
I don't condemn the center, I don't condemn Rauf. I do condemn the Rauf inisistence on creating the center there. It's a thumb in the eye to the victims of 9/11. There is no rational reason for it to be there.
Veep (8/17):
If you're going to cite polls, how about the one that shows a majority of Manhattan residents support it. In my book, that's the only poll that matters. There's a legal right to be there, the zoning is kosher and there is no good reason to stop this project other than people who can't seem to separate Islam from Islamic terrorism.
It's not at Ground Zero. Most of the arguments against the project -- including the one above -- now start out acknowledging this fact before making the case that the center is being built on the WTC site. Slippery logic at best.
Also, by logic of most of the criticism leveled at the this project, don't you think the pending shopping mall AT the WTC site is more offensive than a mosque two blocks away? I do.
Wes Pedersen (8/17):
Veep, I said it was two blocks from Ground Zero. And no, I don't think that a shopping center at the site is more offensive than the mosque. The victims were business people; most would understand that. I doubt that many of them would understand the need to put a mosque so close to the scene of their murders.
Wes Pedersen (8/17):
Veep, other polls show 60 percent of New Yorkers oppose it.
Veep (8/17):
You'll notice the poll I cited and place credibility in queried residents of Manhattan, where the Islamic center would be based. "New Yorkers" includes Staten Island, the Bronx, etc...
The Islamic center would be in Manhattan so I think their opinion matters much more than someone in, say, Ohio, Alaska or S.I.
Joe Honick (8/17):
For all your good intentions, Kevin, and I believe they are, reality is that the mere sense of dissent has been shredded by proponents of what turns out to be more a commercial facility lacking the unifying aspects being claimed. What is more unfair than anything else is that the temerity to disagree has been branded as hate, racism and worse. That is both antiintellectual and worse. When I recommended a parallel concept of the same kind of facility to be developed in Ryaddh, I knew it could not occur for reasons of what could also be termed intolerance The government of Saudi Arabia undemocratically bans any religion but Sunni which is what the services would be in the proposed "facility." Is there not some innocent reason to suggest understanding of these concerns without raising the extremist commentary of Newt Gingrich.
Kevin Foley (8/18):
Joe Honick - You keep going back to Saudi Arabia, as though there is some corollary between what they do and what we Americans do. I don't follow you. They practice an intolerant brand of Islam. Does that means we should be intolerant and betray our principles?
Joe Honick (8/18):
Kevin Foley, I will not tolerate being suggested as intolerant, religiously or otherwise and will stand on my record in such matters. What I am trying to point out here is that the mosque is vittually an afterthought in what is planned and promoted and how it is used. This willb e my final comment to pointout it is as much a commercial facility with its swimming pool, restaurant and theater, a 13 story operation .
What I one more time point out is the intoleranceby those who favor the facility of anyone with a differing opinion that does ot even approach the profanity of Newt Gingrich and his ilk. I have said not a thing that would prohibit a mosque and have offered to make a contribution. You have leaned on my rerference to the Saudis, and I have done so for a reason.
Amid the welter of obviously professional PR activity, the cocnerne 9/11 victims' families have been totally shut out fromm public attention to their longstanding massive suit, against the Saudis. I submit the heqvy handed promoters of the mosque who condemn the slightest opposition have helped to eliminate even the slightest attehtion to those victims' families. the ethods employed are every bit as intolerant, using ghe legitimate idea of a mosquw in New York that fgew would object to(certainly hot me). I doubt I will find many supporters on this issue because you have not even considered how this has been handled.
I will say that being branded as intolerant for having the nerve to express an opinion that never once called for prohibition of a mosque is in itself no less intoleraant, period.
Kevin Foley (8/20):
Joe Honick - You are personalizing things. If there had been no announcement about the center and it had just gone up, I really wonder if anyone would have noticed or cared. The opposition here seems to assume that American Muslims didn't care about 9-11 or that they were somehow complicit in it, so therefore they should be refused the opportunity to build a center dedicated to peace, tolerance and understanding near Ground Zero.
I find that the real abomination, not unlike rounding up Japanese Americans and sticking them in camps because Japan attacked us. If we're going to tell Cordoba they can't build their center, then let's tell those Christian churches near the OKC memorial (see nearby column) they need to move while we're at it. We can't have it both ways. We can't call America a safe haven for the practice of any religion (or no religion) and then put up barriers because we don't like this or that religion.
Kevin Foley (8/17):
Wes - what is a "safe" distance? Five blocks? Ten blocks? One hundred blocks?
Wes Pedersen (8/17):
Kevin Foley, I do not recall referring to a "safe" distance. Governor Patterson is looking at a possibly appropriate locatiom with the developer and presumably the imam. Their decision, should they come to one, would answer your question.
Wes Pedersen (8/18):
No, Kevin,it's not all about choice and democracy. It is about reality. Placing a mosque there is an affront to the 3,000 men and women who were murdered so close by. Who were mMurdered, mind you, not who just "lost" their lives. They did not lose those lives, they were taken from them by radical Muslims. There are people like the relatives of those victims who will never forgive or forget. If the imam wants to build a bridge between cultures, let him build it elsewhere.
Kevin, I take exception to your notion that running against the herd on a topic like this akin to blasphemy.
Kevin, I strenulously object to your statement that, having offered a commentary the opposite of your views, I am intolerant and a betrayer of American principles. I would suggest that you consider that, by making such a charge, you are exhibiting an intolerance that is most unbecoming. As for not supporting American principles, I spent decades actively defending those principles as a soldier and as a Cold War combatant. I should perhaps add a line of identification to this complaint: Disabled American Veteran.
Kevin Foley (8/20):
Wes - Like Joe Honick, you're making it personal. This is a forum for the exchange of ideas. You don't like my POV, that's fine, but don't put words in my mouth. As Mayor Bloomberg pointed out when he said he supported the center, Muslims were among the 3,000 murdered on 9-11. Muslim Americans across the country grieved along with everyone else after the attack. I don't blame all Muslims for what a small number of psychopaths did any more than I blame all Christians for what McVeigh did.
Fed Up In NYC! (8/18):
Mr. Foley- While I have no doubt you are well intended and a decent man and American, it is a bit odd that you can't see the problem with putting the Mosque there. In all due respect, you seem a bit naive and a pollyanish. But your feedback is always appreciated.
Kevin Foley (8/18):
Fed Up- What you call "pollyanish" I call principle. You do know that freedom of religion is protected in the Constitution, right? That's what this about. We either stand up for our principles or we become like our enemy.
Fed Up In NYC! (8/18):
Mr. Foley- you could not be more wrong. This is NOT about freedom of religion. This is about common sense. I deeply-yet respectfully- disagree with your premise that the very core of who we are is at stake here. Good luck building that Church or Synagogue ANYWHERE in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia et al. Point is very simply- it's not the PLACE to do it.
Kevin Foley (8/20):
Fed up - Very well. Can we sign you up to demand that all the Christian churches in proximity to the OKC memorial move because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist and their presence is an affront to the families of the 192 people who died there at his hands? Let me know.
Fed Up In NYC! (8/20):
Mr. Foley- Timothy McVeigh did not blow up buildings in the name of christianity... he did so because he disagreed with the government. Certainly not justifiable- but not in the name of christianity.
As you know the Arab Middle East is built largely on imagery. Building the mosque there will have the "unintended" consequence of being seen as a "victory" not for "freedom of religion" but as a victory for Islam as it is at the heart of where many Muslims and certainly the terrorists wanted to eliminate. It is undeniable. That is why your view is pollyanish. Identity: Fed Up In NYC!
One other thing... McVeigh did not receive, to the best of our knowledge, financing from other governments to blowup and kill Americans... many of the Muslim terrorist organizations do... it is a concerted effort on the part of much of the Muslim world to have the likes of Bin Laden, Hammas et al SUCCEED! You must understand that!
Kevin Foley (8/20):
Fed Up - McVeigh was an adherent to the racist Christian Identity movement, so we most definately committed his crime in the name of Christianity. You are painting all things Muslim with a mighty big tar brush.
Wes Pedersen (8/18):
Governor Paterson is trying to set up a meeting with the developer to discuss the center's relocation. He has already offered to try to help the developer and imam find alternate space. The governor is acknowledging the sensitivities involved, and did so before the president spoke. That should have been a clue for the president.
Joe Honick (8/19):
Mr Foley has deigned to judge the morality of anyone and everyone who differs on this sensitive issue, and I reject such judgment and any questioning of my ideals, values and religious respect. I would now challenge Mr Foley to know if he can answer the following:
1 who is the recorded developer
2 where are the plans filed and available
3 where have the renderingts and plans been published for the public
4 who is financing the venture and for how much and under what terms
5 who is directing this massive venture and what staff is engaged
6 who is handling the obvious public relations effort and lobbying 6 what special energy related aspects relate to this multi use facility
7 who is the immdiate information contact and how is that person paid
8 what if any foreign backers are involved in this effort
9 will non moslem contractors be permitted to bid on any of the work, the restaurant etc
10 who is on the Board if there is one and what are their roles
These are routine minimal inquiriies for anyone covering such a major newsworthy story that has been mostly discussed on moral and political grounds. Why is that?
Kevin Foley (8/20):
A response to Joe Honick's list of questions: Nancy Pelosi has said she wants to see a list of contributors, both to the proposed community center and where the funds for the opposition are coming from.
Joe Honick (8/20):
To Kevin Foley and others who think this is all personal, it is not. My sense is that the extremists of both the left and the right have so muddled the matter beyond understanding.
Kevin, there are legitimate questions in regard to the information I asked about. Had the entire array of information I pointed to been played out as with any important facility, likely there would have been considerably less discussion. It is legitimate to ask those questions which any professional journalist should have asked.k There is also some sense(you no doubt will call it personal)that much of this has been trumped up in order to create the furor which could have been avoided. There is also a certain arrogance that framed any sense of discussion that might include dissent as something monstrous, and I do very much take that personally.
I state for the last time my record in the area of civil rights, religious tolerance and the rest is quite available, not only in this terrible discussion but in many articles I have written in these pages for some time.
The extremes of both left and right have managed to libel legitimate commentators, and I also take that quite personally for good reason and for good people. Why are any of those questions not legitimate? You did it again by linking me to someone else.
In the end, the judges of one side(Mr Foley et al)and those of the far right have merely sullied the whole concept of free exchange.
Kevin Foley (8/20):
Joe Honick - By adopting a stand different than your own I have sullied the debate??? I am well aware of your record. You have your reasons for being against it and I have mine for being for it. Let's try to keep things real.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (8/23):
It would do Mr Foley et al good time if they would Google up today's FT op-ed page that explains how this matter has been unnecessarily screwed up and opened doors to fanatics of left and right.
As to getting real, Kevin F, the headline of your original piece fairly screamed that opposition revealed or betrayed American ideals and values. Please take another real look. And the saddest reality is: none of this garbled controversy had to happen if simple, routine reportage had been done. And that is the "real" reality.
Wes Pedersen (8/23):
Over the weekend, the Washington Post published a study of the imam that indicates that is quite different from the stories we have read to date. The imam, says the Post, is a dreamer of sorts and the mosque may be more dream than progress. He is pictured as the religious head of a small mosque now that is pretty much a solo operation. Also, says the newspaper, he has had little religious training, though the State Department has him visiting countries in the Middle East and discussing religion in America. If the Post's findings are correct, one has to wonder why none of the other major papers, or the imam's sponsor, the U.S. government, discovered the same information. Ironically, the Post earlier gave the new mosque proposal a generous push.
Kevin Foley (8/25):
Wes - Whether the project ever sees the light of day or not remains to be seen, although a lot of great things start as a dream as in "I have a dream."
You hit the nail on the head, however, in your op ed next door. This entire affair has been a lightening rod for political pandering, with candidates racing to condemn Muslims and Limbaugh, Hannity and beck cheering them on.
Wes Pedersen (8/25):
Thank you, Kevin. I certainly do hope that other readers will check out "the op-ed next door" on the rally some are trying to organize for 9/1.
[email protected] (8/27):
Hey, guys, do you think that just maybe all this frenzy feeding is egged on by the cable TV shows looking for ratings (which are down) and politicians looking toward November. As a person whose co-religionists were relegated to living in "zoned" areas of Europe before being taken to the death camps during WW II, I can't condone placing some areas off limits because of religion. My position echoes Mayor Bloomberg's, let 'em build it. This is America. As a PR person, I believe all this anti-mosque chatter plays right into the hands of our enemies, just as the cry to change the Constituion by the anti-immigration crowd does.
Kathy Lewton (9/07):
Wes, I'm sure no one will read this because I am so late to the story (been out of town), but are you aware that AMERICAN MUSLIMS (as in American citizens who practice the Muslim faith) were killed in the WTC? So when you say it's OK to put a shopping mall there b/c people in WTC were business people . . . . And are you aware that there was a mosque IN the WTC? And there is now a prayer site IN the Pentagon? And that not all Muslims are radical terrorists? I'd be horrified if anyone wrote that because of the behaviors of some Catholic priests, that means Catholic churches can't be located near schools. Or that because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, there can't be any Christian churches near the federal building in Oklahoma City. But that's just one person's opinion.
Wes Pedersen (9/07):
Kathy, I didn't write a book, full of details, and I have no apologies for what I did write. You are mixing times and situations. The idea of a mosque at the World Trade was fine for its time, but get real, the world changed mightily with 9/11. A mosque nearby will be a target for people who want some kind of revenge. Thanks for writing.
Joe Honick (9/07):
Well meaning Kathy has missed a huge point. This entire matter never needed to become what it has if those proud to be developing the facility and the supporting pols had done what is always done with something that will alter the skyline of a major city(see my earlier questions no one can answer.) Any beginning real estate editor would have asked those questions, and the developers would have poured out renderings, architectural texts, interviews and the like. This was not done. Secondly, the mosque should never have been the question because the mosque here is incidental to the massive 13 story facility with theater, restaurant, swimming pool and all the rest. Those who thrust this proposal and those who so casually and politically supportive were insensitive to potential questions and failed basic journalistic practice have practically invited in the kids of crap we have gotten from the litigious preacher and Newt Gingrich. And finally, the CAIR organization hardly represents the mass of Muslim of everyday life.
|