An important Cordoba distinction

August 1, 2010 By
NEW YORK - MAY 25: People and police stand outside of a community center in lower Manhattan before a meeting to debate Cordoba House, a proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, May 25, 2010 in New York City. The plan to build the Islamic cultural center -- which is so close to the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that debris from one of the hijacked planes smashed through the roof of the existing building there -- is surrounded by controversy, and politicians and activists are preparing on both sides of the debate. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

You can oppose something and still think it shouldn’t be opposed by the government. Many people seem to have trouble with this distinction and its corollaries. The media tend to have trouble with this distinction because many journalists consider the provoking of government action as a good metric of success for their rabblerousing or reporting. But it’s true — you can oppose things and still think they should be legal.

I thought of this while reading the Anti-Defamation League’s statement that both supported the right of Muslims to build an Islamic Community Center at the edge of Ground Zero and yet opposed its construction. Here are the concluding paragraphs of the Anti-Defamation League’s statement:

In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one.

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain — unnecessarily — and that is not right.

Most of what I have learned about the mosque and community center I’ve gleaned from months of reportage in the New York Times. While most people discussing this topic have focused on the politics, the hometown paper has actually reported a bit on how the proximity to Ground Zero is not coincidental but was, in fact, a key “selling point” to the somewhat mysterious investors of the $150 million project. We could use more information on who, exactly, is behind the project in addition to the media spokesmen, but it’s actually difficult to get this information, as the ADL noted. I suspect that the New York Times reporters — and others — are working overtime to find out more about this project that has generated so much interest and controversy worldwide. The Times report this weekend, written by Michael Barbaro with reporting by Paul Vitello, did a good job of explaining how the ADL opposition fits into the growing conflict over this mosque project. And it did so without hiding the heated emotions on all sides but also without biasing the piece one way or the other. I was impressed:

The complex’s rapid evolution from a local zoning dispute into a national referendum highlights the intense and unsettled emotions that still surround the World Trade Center site nine years after the attacks.

To many New Yorkers, especially in Manhattan, it is a construction zone, passed during the daily commute or glimpsed through office windows. To some outside of the city, though, it stands as a hallowed battlefield that must be shielded and memorialized.

Those who are fighting the project argue that building a house of Muslim worship so close to ground zero is at best an affront to the families of those who died there and at worst an act of aggression that would, they say, mark the place where radical Islam achieved a blow against the United States.

The story quotes Newt Gingrich but also local figures:

Several family members of victims at the World Trade Center have weighed in against the plan, saying it would desecrate what amounts to a graveyard. “When I look over there and see a mosque, it’s going to hurt,” C. Lee Hanson, whose son, Peter, was killed in the attacks, said at a recent public hearing. “Build it someplace else.”

Those who support it seem mystified and flustered by the heated opposition. They contend that the project, with an estimated cost of $100 million, is intended to span the divide between Muslim and non-Muslim, not widen it.

It’s got great quotes from both sides and it seems to accurately convey their arguments. I do wish the report better distinguished between people — on both sides — who are talking about legal remedies and people who are talking about propriety.

The Associated Press report on ADL opposition was able to distinguish these ideas. It also did a good job of treating opposition to the mosque as something that can be based in something other than bigotry. And, if you’re interested, there are many more things found in various media outlets.

This story might have some of the best unexplored angles we’ve seen in a religion story this year. I hope we see some more good stories soon.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Godbeat, Islam, Journalism, Judaism, People, Politics, Religion
  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Peter Robinson asks why the New York Times is so incurious about the name of the proposed center.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    In reading the whole Times story, it does seem strange that it never once gave its proposed name: “Cordoba House”–especially at times in the story where the project seems to beg to be named.

  • http://n/a jt

    How is building a mosque near ground zero going to give Islam a positive image???!!! Muslim terrorists destroyed the twin towers. I’m from Spain. We have many Muslims in southern Spain that would love nothing more than for Spain to be under Islamic rule once more, and their numbers are growing very quickly, so I find the “Cordoba House” phrase insulting. Think about this – they want to open the Cordoba House on 9/11. will that also promote a positive image of Islam?????? You people need to wake up to certain realities, and do it quickly!

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com Bob Smietana

    There’s a huge hole in this story – and in all the coverage about this mosque on Park Place in Manhattan.
    What do the families, relatives, and friends of American Muslims who were victims of 9/11 think.
    What about people who knew Rahma Salie and Michael Theodoridis, the young married couple who were expecting their first child, and who were murdered when American Airlines flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center. By some counts, dozens or hundreds of American Muslims were at the WTC on 9/11.
    Doesn’t their religion count?
    The Muslim folks here in Nashville sure think so. They feel like the death of Muslim Americans doesn’t matter–and they are not really counted among the victims.

  • http://bit.ly/d969sA+ Abigail Esman
  • Jerry

    The voice that is little heard is the voice that says we need to build the Mosque there as a demonstration of the finest qualities of America as expressed on the Great Seal, E Pluribus Unum, as well as in the Declaration of Independence; those qualities which demonstrate what America stands for in the world.

    Instead we’re treated to the usual cast of characters attempting to use this for political purposes and those that don’t understand the real import of being a “City on a Hill”.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Jerry,

    But is that voice not heard? Most stories I’ve read, including those I’ve highlighted here, definitely include that voice.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Bob,

    You say that there’s a huge hole in the story because it doesn’t talk about Muslims who died on 9/11. I’m not sure if it would be a “huge” hole if it didn’t. But it did, at the end.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    BTW, I’m having to delete quite a few comments. This is not a thread to discuss your political or theological opposition to Islam. Keep focused on the journalism issues.

  • Passing By

    This story keeps reminding me of another, and sure enough, I’m not the only one:

    Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, defended his position.

    In a phone interview, he compared the idea of a mosque near ground zero to the Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns who had a convent at the Auschwitz death camp. In 1993, Pope John Paul II responded to Jewish protests by ordering the nuns to move.

    Not all Jewish voices agree with the ever-present Abe Foxman, though.

  • Michael Pettinger

    You can oppose something and still think it shouldn’t be opposed by the government. Many people seem to have trouble with this distinction and its corollaries. The media tend to have trouble with this distinction because many journalists consider the provoking of government action as a good metric of success for their rabblerousing or reporting. But it’s true — you can oppose things and still think they should be legal.

    Your opening, Mollie, reminded me of a question that I’ve been asking myself — is the inability to make the distinction you described somehow linked to a “secularist” bias (scare quotes to remind me not to confuse reality with my fantasy)?

    If you come from a clearly defined religious tradition and live in the U.S., you have plenty of opportunity to reflect on the difference between what your religion tells you is right and what should be legal under civil-law in a plural society. Not to say that many “religious” persons spend their time doing this, nor that they all necessarily like it, but if you want to get along in a world with different people…

    On the other hand, my fantasy about “seculars” is that they might not have as easy a time distinguishing what they think of as “right” from what they believe should be “legal”, precisely because they do not see their moral beliefs as “religious” and therefore somehow “separate” from affairs of State. In effect, their notions of “right” tend to get translated directly into “what the law should be,” with little thought of the impact on those who disagree with them (who might also be just as “secular” in their outlook — just of a different ideological persuasion.

    I have no objection to building the Islamic Community Center in the proposed location, though I can see the point the ADL is trying to make. My question is — do journalists, have a hard time getting a nuanced religious position like that of the ADL because of their “secular” bias?

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com Bob Smietana

    Mollie:

    Muslims victims of 9/11 are mentioned at the end of the story.

    But there’s no sense of what the families, relatives, and friends of American Muslims who were victims of 9/11 think. They’ve been completely absent in the coverage of this proposed mosque. That’s a big journalism problem.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Bob,

    I’m totally on board with this being a ghost. I don’t know if it’s a particularly huge problem compared to the many other unexplored angles. But sure.

    The big hole I always wonder about is how Muslims in America and abroad — whether or not they had any direct tie to 9/11 perps or victims — interpret this mosque. I’m sure there’s a wide variety of views. I’ve read of some Muslims who support it and some who oppose it. I’d like to learn more about the varieties of support.

    How do Muslims interpret the Cordoba name? Many Jews and Christians view that name as provocative or offensive – if they have any knowledge of the history of Cordoba. What does that name mean to Muslims?

    Or how a mosque being built on this type of site compares to previous mosque constructions. We all know of the mosque constructions on battle sites where Muslims won — is there a precedent for this type of mosque? Etc. etc.

    I just think this is a huge opportunity to explain a bit more about how Muslims may or may not interpret what this site means.

    And, of course, there are all those unexplored angles about who is financing this and why and where the money is coming from, etc. Lots to write about. Should keep religion reporters busy for quite some time.

    I just hope they focus as much on domestic and international Muslim views as they do political figures here in America.

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com Bob Smietana

    Mollie:

    The two objectives I’ve seen to the NYC mosque is that it somehow dishonors the victims and that the mosque will be a sign of Muslim victory over Americas.

    ADL’s opposition, which is the main point of the story, is based on the first argument, which doesn’t take into account the Muslim victims of 9/11. Huge hole in the story.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Bob — and anyone else who knows –

    Have there been any good (or bad, whatever) stories about the second objection — that the mosque will be a sign of Muslim victory?

    That’s actually the angle I’m most curious about but haven’t really seen any stories about it.

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com Bob Smietana

    Hi Mollie:

    I’ve seen mostly op-eds or essays on the mosque as a sign of victory, like this one.

    The argument often goes like this one, made in the Trentonian:

    Islam began as a warriors’ religion. Beginning in the 7th century, Islamic armies burst out of Arabia and conquered much of the known world. Among their practices: to raze the houses of worship of those they defeated and build mosques upon the ruins. This was a way of sending a message.
    The al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is built on the site where the First and Second Temples of the Jewish people once stood.

    A self-described expert on Islam came to our offices on Friday and made this argument, pointing to the Dome of the Rock as an example.

    The problem with this argument is that it ignores history.
    The Muslims didn’t raze the Temple in Jerusalem. The Romans did – in about 73 AD, or about 500 years before Islam existed. Oops. And when the crusaders took over they used it as a church.

    And then there’s the fact that the World Trade Center was not a church.

    This does raise a question– who gets to determine what Cordoba means?

    The folks running the Cordoba Initiative say it points to Christians, Jews and Muslims living together in peace in Spain. There’s some merit to that claims. Jews certainly fared better under Muslims than under the Inquisition.

    Opponents of the mosque claim it stands for Muslim conquest.

    So who gets to decide what that name means?

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Yeah, I have seen plenty of interesting op-eds — just no mainstream media treatments.

    But why do you talk about “who gets to decide” what a name means? Isn’t it better to talk about what the name means to different people?

    Also, your argument against that op-ed seems to be that the Muslims didn’t raze a Jewish temple — they razed a Christian church after conquering Jerusalem.

    I’m not sure that rebuts the claim of the excerpt. Particularly since your excerpt doesn’t involve a claim that Muslims razed the Temples. You mischaracterized his argument.

    Perhaps the op-ed writer should have used the example of Hagia Sophia?

    Actually, I just looked — he did. And he also noted this about Cordoba:

    As for the allusion to Cordoba: Proponents of this project say they mean to hearken back to a time when Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in relative tranquility under the rule of a Muslim caliph. But others believe it is intended to refer to the mosque built atop the remains of a church in Cordoba after Soldiers of Allah conquered Spain.

    In this regard, it’s not a bad “Got News?” type op-ed — just wish we saw more of these types of discussions in the regular media treatment, too.

  • Jerry

    Mollie,

    I re-read the story and did not see historical links to the specifics I mentioned. Yes there was a “this is America” point made, but I wanted more direct links to America’s founding along with specific discussions of the Great Seal etc.

    Mollie and Bob, thanks for the very interesting discussion.

    I ran into another story today and wonder how those who are seeking to build the mosque would address the points about how Jesus is seen in Islam. In fact, if there’s one under-reported facet of Islam, it’s how Jesus is really viewed. I did not know, for example the following:

    … the role of Jesus in Islam is underestimated even by Muslims because the Qur’an states clearly that Jesus, and not Mohammed, will lead Muslims to judgment on Judgment Day.

    http://www.dnj.com/article/20100801/NEWS01/8010319/1002/Book+draws+link+between+religions

  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat Nicole Neroulias

    Cordoba House is not a proposed mosque, unless you count any building with a Muslim prayer area set aside as a mosque. (In which case, many hospitals would be churches.) It’s also not at Ground Zero, unless you consider the McDonald’s, Banana Republic, gentlemen’s club and thousands of pricey apartment buildings – etc. etc. etc. – a few blocks away as Ground Zero establishments, too. Lower Manhattan is a busy, crowded place; two blocks might as well be a dozen.

    While there are legitimate concerns about the proposal’s funding and the outrage of some (not all) of the 9/11 families, much of the opposition seems more generally Islamophobic – as in, the protests of mosques elsewhere in the USA these days – than specific to Cordoba House. I suspect that any Muslim organization that proposed building a 13-story community center anywhere in the country would prompt heated opposition.

    (I tried to address this in my own coverage of this issue recently, for Religion News Service and over at Beliefnet and The Huffington Post.)

    I agree that the story needs more voices from the Muslim 9/11 families and the people who live and work in lower Manhattan — not just the national politicians and pundits and a subset of the 9/11 families. Let’s get on that.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    much of the opposition seems more generally Islamophobic

    Could you define ‘Islamophobic’?

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Nicole,

    I think the point about this being a Muslim center more than a mosque is an important one. I’d like to learn more about what that actually means in doctrine and practice, too. Yet another great story idea.

    I think the idea that this is not a “Ground Zero” location laughable and odd.

    The investors claim they chose this site because it was as close as they could get to Ground Zero as possible. The strip club, etc., you refer to predate the 9/11 terror attacks.

    I mean really — is the claim you’re going for actually “This isn’t Ground Zero. It’s TWO BLOCKS AWAY.”?

    Yes, and if it were one block away from Ground Zero, it would be even more controversial. If it were on top of Ground Zero, even more so.

    But if the organizers claim they chose the site in order to be as near to Ground Zero as possible, is there really a reason not to take them at their word?

    Anyway, link to the RNS treatment?

  • Dave

    Michael, it is perfectly possible for a “secular” to, eg, oppose hate speech but still oppose, on First Amendment grounds, government attempts to suppress hate speech. One might even find both sentiments reflected in the products of largely secular newsrooms.

  • http://matdonna.shawwebspace.ca Donna Farley

    I don’t know enough about this story to weigh in at all, but those so inclined may want to look at the Got Medieval Blog’s response to Gingrich’s assertions about the significance of the name Cordoba House:

    http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat Nicole Neroulias

    My RNS story:
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/7131001.html

    My extended interview with 9/11 firefighter Tim Brown on his opposition to the project:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-neroulias/tim-brown-interview-not-a_b_660122.html

    As a New Yorker, I’ve tried to explain that “two blocks” in Manhattan is a bigger distance than it sounds and looks on paper. You can’t even see the structures or pedestrians from one side of a block to the next, because of the narrow streets, high-rises and congestion. Since this isn’t going to be a mosque (I’ve been told) with loudspeakers blaring calls to prayer, visitors to Ground Zero wouldn’t even know it’s there, unless they deliberately sought it out.

    But in the end, if the “two blocks” is the problem, at what point — and who gets to decide, if not the community board and the mayor? — is there enough physical distance from Ground Zero?

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com Bob Smietana

    Hi Mollie:

    How does this statement not link Muslims to the destruction of the Temple.
    ” Among their practices: to raze the houses of worship of those they defeated and build mosques upon the ruins. This was a way of sending a message.
    The al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is built on the site where the First and Second Temples of the Jewish people once stood.”
    The first example the writer used of Muslims razing houses of worship is the Temple in Jerusalem, which was razed by the Romans. This argument is worse that the “three examples makes a trend” problem.

    The idea that this is a “Ground Zero Mosque” is ludicrous. It’s not on the site of the World Trade Center. It’s near that site–no one disputes that. But it’s not on the site, which is the claim made by opponents, who say a mosque or Muslim center would somehow disturb the hallowed ground of the former WTC site.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Bob,

    Yeah, I see your point about the Temples.

    But if you all think that the idea that this is the Ground Zero Mosque “ludicrous” — take up your beef with the Cordoba project spokesman. They’re the ones who have said they chose the site because of it’s proximity to Ground Zero. That they couldn’t get any closer than two blocks. That the site was ideal because a portion of the wreckage fell on it.

    Do you think they’re lying or something? Why would you say their claims are ludicrous? Or are they only ludicrous if non-Muslims repeat them? I’m confused.

    Also — relative to what Nicole writes above — a Muslim friend tells me that mosque means “house of prayer” so that there is no distinction between a prayer place and a mosque. Trying to see if that’s just his opinion or something else.

    But he said that Mohammed referred to mosques — including al Aqsa — as “houses of prayer.”

  • Jeffrey

    Now that the ADL has chimed in, it seems another important story for the media to tell is the transformation of religious liberty advocacy in the U.S. This is a religious liberty story and the fact that ADL is giving cover, in some ways, to trump minority religious groups and their speech is an interesting facet of this story. When did religious liberty become so specialized? Where are the voices advocating for religious liberty in this case? Who speaks for the religious liberty of Muslims in the U.S.?

    I also wonder how far journalists need to go chasing down comspiracy arguments. Who is funding it seems like a legitimate story, but do journalists need to chase down every story about the name “Cordoba”?

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Nicole,

    Did you see the question asking you to clarify your claim about “Islamophobia”? I’m curious for a definition of that, too.

    Jeffrey,

    I’ve wondered about the funding issue, too. I think it’s newsworthy as a local and national and global issue. You might recall that Mayor Guiliani refused relief donations from Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of 9/11. I’m honestly not sure what all this means except that I’d be curious to read a story about what other people think it means.

  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat Nicole Neroulias

    Islamophobia: Fear of Islam/Muslims. (In general, not just of specific people/projects.)

    There are protests against mosques across the country these days; a Staten Island proposal was just nixed, due to the outcry. If a 13-story Islamic anything — community center, school, mosque, charity, etc. — were proposed anywhere in America tomorrow (not just within walking distance from Ground Zero), there would be people strongly against that, as well. That’s why coverage of the opposition to Cordoba House needs to clarify whether critics are against this specific Muslim organization and/or location, or any organization/location.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Nicole,

    You should probably pick a better word for “fear of Islam/Muslims” since phobia means an irrational fear.

    Unless you wanted to make an editorial judgment on what is or is not a rational fear, I think a better word choice is probably in order.

  • Jeffrey

    Anti-Muslim or anti-Islam may be better.

    I think the funding issue is interesting, but is a Catch-22 because regardless of who is funding it, people who are anti-Muslim are going to find reasons to criticize it. I can already see the “unindicted co-conspirator” smear being dragged out because anyone who has the money to pay for something like this is probably tangentially connected to groups on such lists.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    Islamophobia: Fear of Islam/Muslims. (In general, not just of specific people/projects.)

    There are protests against mosques across the country these days; a Staten Island proposal was just nixed, due to the outcry. If a 13-story Islamic anything — community center, school, mosque, charity, etc. — were proposed anywhere in America tomorrow (not just within walking distance from Ground Zero), there would be people strongly against that, as well. That’s why coverage of the opposition to Cordoba House needs to clarify whether critics are against this specific Muslim organization and/or location, or any organization/location.

    Hmmmm. I would suggest “Islamaphobia” isn’t the best term. Phobia suggests an irrational fear. Since we spend so much of our time being told to be scared pantless over those Christian theocrats wanting to conquer our country because of such unthinkable measures as prayer in school or abstinence education (with continual references to the Crusades and Salem, MA to underscore why we should be worried), I’m having a hard time seeing concern about Islam as irrational given the not-too-long-ago slaying of thousands of innocent people and the destruction of world famous structures in the name of that religion.

    As for the millions of protests all over the country. I see plenty of protests of Christian churches and ministries just the same. Comparing what folks say publically about Islam vs. what they say publically about Christianity seems to be a matter of ideology, political views, and theological views. Because sometimes they sound a lot alike. It appears that the problem is various sides don’t mind using the same techniques and tactics as long as they fall in line with their own agendas and world-views.

    Just an observation.

  • http://facebook.com/wlinden Will

    Whatever the intentions of the planners are or are said to have been, if the “protesters” are saying “build it somewhere else!!”, then it is a legitimate question where they consider “somewhere else”. Foxman made an offhanded “a mile away” comment. Do the other “protesters” agree? What about in Staten Island? Ooops, it looks like that is not acceptable.
    This being the case, we can not help suspecting that the “almost at Ground Zero!” cry is only an excuse.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Keep comments focused on journalism, please!

  • http://www.mormoninmichigan.blogspot.com John Pack Lambert

    Mollie,
    You are the one who incessantly defends the description of this as “at ground zero” which has lead some people to think it is.

    Nicole,
    In most of the country a 13-story anything would be vigorously oppsed. In my city there are no structures that high.

    In fact though, mosques all over the country have been opposed on all sorts of phony grounds. The office of Chris Christy (now Governor of New Jersey) when he was US attorney for New Jersey filed a brief in favor of a mosque where the city was trying to take its land through eminent domain.

    The Staten Island case is interesting because it involved the sale to the Muslims of property by a Catholic parish and the parish board voted it down. Although I think this was unwise, it was entirely legal. Individuals or religious groups can refuse to sell land that will be used to build a place of worship. What you can not do is use the law to stop such buildings.

    Mollie, I would agree that this is an undercovered story. There is too much focus on what Palin, Gingrich and Foxman say and too little on the real plans for the structure and who is behind it. Also the fact that I have seen $100 million and $150 million thrown out as cost figures tells me the basic facts are lacking as well.

  • Dave

    John, whatever Mollie’s impression might be, I find persuasive the testimony of actual New Yorkers to the effect that two blocks’ distance in Manhattan is as good as being on the other end of the island.

    As to the 13 stories, again we’re talking about Manhattan, which has buildings equivalent to seven or eight 13-story buildings piled onto one another.

    Are journalists to be expected to make these points? I should think it would be self-evident to anyone who’s seen skyline shots of Manhattan on TV, but perhaps a sidebar to put such points in context would be in order out here in Flatland.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    It’s called the Ground Zero Mosque because that’s what the group behind the mosque called it.

    Yes, they’ve backtracked on that in recent weeks. But their plans were riddled with the phrase until then.

    If you don’t think that the group should consider the location important, that’s your beef with them. But as a journalistic issue, it was the billing of this mosque as the Ground Zero Mosque — even more than the close proximity — that got some folks riled up.

    And if New Yorkers don’t think it’s close, they sure have an interesting way of claiming otherwise.

    As for the height — I think the important thing is to mention how tall the memorial will be. The orthodox church that preexisted at Ground Zero (or, sorry, a full 1.5 blocks away, or whatever) was told it can’t rebuild to a certain height.

    What is that height? That type of context is more important than what the general skyline looks like.

  • http://www.acupuncturebrooklyn.com Karen Vaughan

    Mollie,

    The zoning code determines heights and setbacks. Under zoning, a pre-existing nonconforming use cannot be rebuilt if it is over 85% destroyed but the Orthodox church was probably not nonconforming as to height. St. Nicholas Church on Cedar Street, seven blocks away from the proposed cultural center (as an easy Google map check would confirm), abuts the 14 square block Trade Center site. They were offered a larger parcel to build a much larger church on, with $40 million in security measures and $20 million cash, but told that the dome could not be higher than the 9-11 memorial. Apparently they kept asking for increasingly costly concessions and the Port Authority refused. They can rebuild on their original parcel in conformity with zoning (and I don’t think they were higher than zoning originally.)

    There has been a Muslim prayer space in the six story Italianate building on 45-47 Park Place for years. A 13 story building there is basically nothing. That is small for lower Manhattan where 50 story buildings are common and where the rebuilt trade center will probably go over 100 stories, as did its predecessor. And it is quite true that you cannot see Ground Zero from the site. I suspect that once built it will be a non-issue.

    I’d be curious to see some coverage of the plans. Will there be separate pools for men and women? Or will women be expected to wear full coverage swimwear? If it is to be something like a Muslim YMCA, what kind of membership is expected and will there be preferential membership fees for Muslims?

    And there is a religious ghost in the financing. The iman says he will ask his “richer brothers” to contribute, which fits into the Muslim charity model (and unique forms of real estate financing.) This would be an interesting religious perspective to explore.

    His Sufism is also an unexplored topic.

    We have a sizable Muslim population here who have limited recreational services and mostly tiny storefront masjids for worship. Many came here for freedom from oppression in their homelands and appreciate American freedom. Many of our Muslim neighbors were killed during the Trade Center attack and some were involved in the cleanup/rescue effort. They have a constitutional right to a place of worship and recreation in their own property and it conforms to the zoning statute. Frankly it is good to see moderate elements of Islam take a stand for peace and this will be their monument to it.

  • http://newmedianewmexico.blogspot.com/ Mustafa Stefan Dill

    Great discussion. Mollie, since your article mainly focuses on the ADL angle, will you update this story or perhaps do a brief follow to reflect the development of Newseek editor and host of CNN’s ‘GPS’ Fareed Zakaria’s return of the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize back to ADL?

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Mustafa,

    We don’t cover the news so much as cover the coverage of the news. And we do this with a particular focus on the religion angle. So if you saw a particularly good or bad treatment of that update — with a strong religion element — feel free to submit it for review.

  • http://newmedianewmexico.blogspot.com/ Mustafa Stefan Dill

    fair enough :) If I find anything that fits for you on it, I’ll pass it on…