Obama Defends The Ground Zero Mosque...Then Grows Timid

Luke Sharrett/The New York Times

Obama does the right thing, but in a detached, matter-of-fact manner.

14obama1 span articlelarge sVIIc 19672

President Obama, hosting an Iftar dinner (breaking of the fast during Ramadan, finally made a statement about the proposed plan to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. This project has been erroneously dubbed by its opponents, and a label uncritically accepted by the media, as the "Ground Zero" mosque. But this is absurd. It is two blocks away and in Manhattan this is the equivalent of miles away in a rural area. Ground Zero cannot even be seen from the proposed site (currently home to an empty and honorable Burlington Coat Factory) and to call it a Ground Zero mosque is akin to saying that someone's apartment on Park Avenue is really a Fifth Avenue condominium, because these two locals are also two blocks away. Think about it. Two blocks in Manhattan is quite a distance. Not, of course, that there is any problem - legal or moral - with building the mosque closer to Ground Zero. But, if distance is the real problem, two blocks is far away.

But for these anti-Islam and anti-Muslim zealots, which distance will be acceptable? Ten blocks? Clearly that will not be enough. Because this is not about so-called "Ground Zero" zone, but about Muslims building Mosques and publicly exercising their faith. There are simple Islamophoboes who are opposing Mosques in Tennessee, Wisconsin and California. So this is simply about their bigoted opposition and hate toward Islam and not about so-called sensitives concerning September 11th.

And what about those sensitivities? It is the height of ignorant prejudice to state that Muslims be prohibited from building near Ground Zero - for it is to tie a noble faith and 1.5billion Muslims (one out of every four people in he world, 1:4!) to a fanatical and fringe group of terrorists whose members can all fit in a cave and who speak for Islam about as much as the zealots of David Koresh speak for Christianity or Timothy McVeigh for American nationalism.

This righteous rhetoric about 9/11 families is non-sense. Victims are not entitled to prejudice. Are Palestinian victims of Israeli occupation, which is a constant pain as opposed to the one-day terrorist acts, entitled to be anti-Semitic? So what's the difference? And, more importantly, dozens of Muslims died on 9/11 as well. Do their sensibilities and their rights not matter? And many non-Muslim 9/11 families support the project. Why should one group of 9/11 families who have, to their regret, channeled their grief in horrid manners be given some deference all because they self-righteously exploit their status as victims? They are no more victims than the Muslim 9/11 families and other 9/11 families supporting the Cordoba House. No group is entitled, by virtue of being a victim, to toxic views or a special deference over others.

There is not legitimate opposition to this project. To deny Muslims is to tarnish and hold responsible all Muslims for the horrors of al-Qeada, which is more a consequence of decades of American foreign policy than of Islamic texts.

It is nice to see Obama (after initially refusing under the silly pretext that what had become a national issue was really just a local matter) take a honest stand which reflects the best of America:

President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that "as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country" . . . .

"I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground," the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.

But, he continued: "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are" . . . .

This was nice to hear, but short-lived. Obama - seeing the polls showing heavy majority opposition to the project - got cold feet, naturally, and has offered a detached support that really makes it irrelevant, is no longer a courageous stand, and does nothing to damp the bigots in America. It raises the question of: why bother? if one is going to make it simply a legal question (not even the bigots deny that Muslims have the legal right to build private property) and then seem to endorse the legitimacy of bigots that building a Mosque near "Ground Zero" is not a morally correct and therefore Obama goes from making a courageous standing in defense of tolerance in front of a Muslim audience to adding credence to the view that somehow a Mosque near "Ground Zero" is an offense so as to say that Islam itself and Muslims in general are held responsible for the acts and nothing Islamic should be near the site because Islam is the culprit (all of its bigoted non-sense). Nice, Obama, nice...and decent.

The last word to Digby.

Who's this supposed to impress exactly?

Speaking to reporters today, President Obama drew a sharp line under his comments last night, insisting that his defense of the right to build a mosque does not mean he supports the project.

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding," he said.

Obama's new stance is logically consistent with his words last night, if a bit less "clarion," as Mike Bloomberg called the first remarks. And there are certainly two possible stances here: Bloomberg's, that the Cordoba project itself represents the best of America; and Obama's, that the freedom of religion is an important American value.

Obama's new remarks, literally speaking, re-open the question of which side he's on. Most of the mosque's foes recognize the legal right to build, and have asked the builders to reconsider.

Oh well. It was a nice gesture for the president of the United States to unequivocally recognize the constitutional right to religious freedom. It's probably too much to expect that he might unequivocally stand up for religious tolerance too. Common ground and all that.

I'm fairly sure these folks are questioning the wisdom of building their mosque on the hallowed ground of Texas. As are other mosques throughout the country. Just so you know, Americans have every right to be Muslim in America. Let no one say anything to the contrary. I'm not going to comment on the wisdom of them doing so.

Chris in DC has written a nice essay on why this "debate" over the wisdom of building the center is balderdash. Here's an excerpt:

[T]he Cordoba House is deliberately, expressly, and unequivocally intended to stand for the diametric opposite of what the 9/11 attackers believed. It would stand for inclusion, reconciliation, and understanding across faiths and cultures. In fact, in many ways, the Muslim founders of the Cordoba House (and its imam) are the sorts of Muslims that bin Laden and his adherents hate most. They are cosmopolitan and modern. The Cordoba House itself will contain many earthly luxuries and pleasures. Its founders (and location) actively embrace multicultural, multi-sectarian, quintessentially modern New York City, and many of its proponents have happily lived in Southern Manhattan for decades.

The Cordoba House, in other words, is not only separate and distinct from the identity and ideology of al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists, it is a direct repudiation ("refudiation," for Sarah Palin) of them. So the only way that someone could ever confuse the Cordoba Initiative with radical, militant Islam is if that person thought that Islam itself was inseparable from terrorism or terrorist sympathies. That, to me, is highly illuminating. And if a very small handful of radicals who call themselves believers in a religion can hijack that entire religion to stand for the terrible things the radicals do and believe, then, well, Christianity apparently stands for the murder of doctors, the preachings of David Koresh, the beliefs and deeds of Tim McVeigh, the goals of the Huntaree militia....