'Yes Mosque!' vs. 'No Mosque! Or the Debate over the Essence of Americans' Identity

by Adrienn Kácsor

The symbol of religious freedom on one side, or simply a victory mosque for 9/11 killers on the other side – just two examples of how politicians and the media have interpreted the “ground zero” mosque during the last few weeks. The Muslim Cultural Center, planned to be built only two blocks away from the former Twin Towers, can be considered from many different angles, as one could see. While for some people the mosque (also known as Park51 Project) could mean the representation of the essence of American democracy and tolerance, others view it as an absolutely unnecessary provocation against the 9/11 victims' memory.

After researching and analyzing the media representation of the political and public debate over Park51, it seems to me that this enduring story has an essential moral for American citizens to learn. Not only is it the limits of democracy and constitutional rights what they can rethink now, but also their own history and identity. In the long run, the main question could be: what does it mean to be American?

Intense disputes in public life

According to the latest poll conducted by New York Times, “the debate over the religious center has captivated much of the city”, since two-thirds of the questioned New York residents thought that they had heard a lot about Park51 project, and many of them also pointed out that they had been absolutely focused upon the topic.

One should not be surprised by this result, as politicians – just as well as the media - really did their bests to keep the topic alive. Both political side has taken part in the struggle for and against the legacy of the mosque, with a series of performative political acts.

One of the most important action was made by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, on 3rd August. “It would betray our values if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else”, he said in his speech delivered on Governors Island, with the view of the Statue of Liberty behind him (cited from New York Times' article, 'Mosque Plan Clears Hurdle in New York'). With this statement, he made it clear that the disputes around the mosque had deeper meaning for the society– just as the nature of American democracy and freedom of religion.

The same idea was declared in President Obama's speech, given on 13th August at a White House Iftar dinner. “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country” (cited from Voice of America News). Once again, the Ground Zero mosque was defended in the name of religious freedom.

Even if one can see Barack Obama's speech as negligible, since one day later he clarified his statement's meaning (about this see WNYC News' article), it still had been extremely needed, considering the opponent views on the Muslim cultural center. When speaking about Park51 Project, some loud Republican politicians, like Sarah Palin or Newt Gringrich, and also the Jewish civil rights group, the Anti- Defamation League have been trying hard to emphasize the insensitivity of the planned mosque (article about this in New York Times here). For example Newt Gringrich, as an effort to prove his moral victory, has often been aimed to draw analogies between 9/11 terrorists and German Nazis. By doing this, he rather has became ridiculous, as it turns out from many journalists' and bloggers' immediate reactions (one good argument by Steve Krakauer here).

Recently, it has became almost impossible to avoid the argument around the building of the 'Ground Zero' mosque – that argument which has been mostly generated by the media itself. “There has been a lot of shouting and screaming on cable news about the mosque or Islamic center in lower Manhattan. And if you're looking for that here, you have come to the wrong place. I want to have an intelligent conversation with intelligent people” - that is how Fareed Zakaria started his weekly conversation on the 22nd August's GPS Show. He invited Peter Beinart, a contributing editor at "TIME," and Bret Stephens, a columnist for "The Wall Street Journal". One point became perfectly understandable by the end: that respecting and understanding the constitution and the religious freedom does not necessarily mean respecting the Park51 Project...

“Wake up America!” - Pro and Con Groups Muttering at the Two End of Park Place

„Well, this is just not the best time to visit Ground Zero” - starts Erich Storm, a tall man in his thirties, as because of my accent, it immediately turns out that I am not local. He might be right: there are around 20 to 30 annoyed women and men on this Sunday afternoon, holding protest against the building of Park51.

Erich and me, we are standing immediately next to the cordon which aims to separate these people, who seem like never want to stop shouting. “No Mosque!”, “Shame on Obama!”, “Shame on Bloomberg!”, “Shame on New York City!” - these are the most common words raged by the protesters.

In the crowd, there is a loud man, holding an enormous placard to tell everyone to “REMEMBER 9-11-01! WE WILL NOT SUBMIT!”. “He has been here for two weeks now” - Erich tells me, who has visited Park Place every weekend since the protests started. “Me, personally, I absolutely have no feelings about this project. I mean, I don't mind if they build this mosque here! Not at all! One thing, that I can totally not understand is why now?! I mean, I am here each and every year during the memorial ceremony, and it is always about remembering and respecting each other. The City used to be calm on anniversaries. Why isn't it the same now?”

At the other end of the block, there are two ladies, holding placards about “Peace, Love & Tolerance!”. Both of them are Muslims, as it turns out. One of them, Mona Eltahawy, an American Muslin, as she introduces herself, has been also here for two weeks now. “ Generally, we are not separated from each other, but this Sunday the policemen decided to keep the two groups apart from each other” - she says.

When explaining her feelings about the debate, she strictly points out two things. “First of all, this is our constitutional right to have an Islamic cultural center here. This is simply about the freedom of religion, what people do not seem to respect in this case. Secondly, I personally feel sad about those families, who lost their loved ones in the terrorist attack 9 years ago. But do not punish me instead of the terrorists! It was a group of crazy al Qaeda terrorists who committed this terrible attack! So for me, this is now all about the future of Muslim people living here!”.

The debate over American Identity

With her last sentences, Mona has some strong points in this whole argument – this is what might has become the most essential aspect of the debate by now- the growing islamophobia.

Mayor Bloomberg stated the same as Mona in an Iftar dinner last week, when he said: “Islam did not attack the World Trade Center — Al Qaeda did.” (cited from New York Times' article). With this sentence he made an extremely important political step toward the clear understanding of 9/11 attacks.

Not only it is vital in the debate over the 'Ground Zero' mosque, but also in the long run – as the understanding of what happened 9 years ago on 9/11, and the avoiding of islamophobia can play a key role in forming the Americans' identity as well.

‘Mosque’ Near Ground Zero: Distortion of the Public Opinion

The possibility of Islamic Cultural Centre’s existence near the site of the old World Trade Centre in New York has brought an ongoing debate of whether the Centre should be build at the site. The issue has become one of the main focuses of the media and political scene across the United States.

Media has a leading role in the creation of public opinion. The main objective of reporting should be accurate, updated and objective display of an issue. If a reporter fails to account for these objectives, it contributes to distortion of public understanding and perception of a situation.

In Slate Magazine, William Saletan confutes the arguments against building of the Centre, attempting to gain the readers’ support for his own stand regarding the Centre. He writes that “ The arguments against building the project at its planned site are wrong, fallacious, and self-destructive.” http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2264046
The subjective reporting must not pass unnoticed, as reporting should be a reliable source for costumers who should be allowed to form their own opinion.

However, it is important to mention some actors in the media who handled the role of presenting the idea of building the Centre remarkably wisely. Taking no clear stand on the issue, the media attempts to objectively analyze the issue.

CNN displays the arguments for both, supporters and opponents of the idea. It quotes Pamela Geller, leader of a group named Stop the Islamization of America, who believes that building “ a 13-story mega mosque on the cemetery, on the site of the largest attack in American history,…, is incredibly insensitive." However, CNN continues by asserting that “Some Muslim community leaders say the mosque could provide an opportunity for improving interfaith relations.”http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-14/us/new.york.ground.zero.mosque_1_landmark-status-landmark-preservation-commission-mosque?_s=PM:US

At the other hand, the political parties are supposed to declare their stand on an issue, so that an individual can choose whom to fallow.
The way in which the political parties in the US have dealt the story displays the general political scene of the country. It shows not only the clash between the leading ideas of the two political parties, but also the inter-party disagreement of the Democrats. Rising disputes created exploitation of public opinion in a search of the parties to present the argument supporting their view. Overall, considering the politicians’ dealing with the story, the problem is not in expressing the opinion, but in assigning the public with the party’s stand on the issue.

Washington Post writes that“ Republican Peter King (R-N.Y.) said on CNN's ‘State of the Union’ that the issue is not that there is a legal right to build the mosque but that those involved should listen to public opinion, which he said is strongly opposed to the project.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081502756.html

Similarly, The New York Times quoted Republican James Renacci saying “It is very troubling to see President Obama again turning a deaf ear to the thoughts and concerns of a majority of Americans.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/politics/17mosque.html

Mr. King and Mr. Renacci attribute their opinion to the general ‘public opinion’ and ’majority of Americans’. This action creates a wrong impression of the general public stand on the issue. Also, it contributes to the distortion of the public opinion by pressing an individual to join the ‘majority’.

The public stand on the issue must be referenced with caution, as the public is divided to supporters and opponents of the Centre’s existence. Mr. Curry, a local resident who was near the old WTC on the September 11, claims that “ the proximity is important. I would not object the idea if the location is further away from the WTC. However, the location at which they try to build the mosque is offensive for all victims of the terrorism”. At the other hand, Mr. Owen, also a resident of the area support the idea asserting that “ the United States should maintain their reputation of allowing the freedom of all people to exercise their religion.”


By Lejla Mesic

Another American Feud Just in Time for the November Elections

Almost ten years after the September 11, 2001 tragic collapse of the World Trade Center towers at the hands of Al Qaeda, an Islamic extremist terrorist network, the passionate emotions surrounding what the attack and the lives lost that day mean for America once again have been yanked to the forced to the forefront of the political battle.

This new source of controversy revolves around plans to build a thirteen story Islamic Cultural Center, Park51, two blocks away from Ground Zero at 45 Park Place. Islamic Cultural Center, frequently refereed to as a Mosque, will contain an auditorium, swimming pool, 9/11 memorial, and mosque.

Initially, the building of the Cultural Center existed only in local scope, a dispute upon whether the building currently standing, built in the 1800's, deserves landmark status.

Stop the Islamicization of America, an organization claiming to be a human rights group with branches in Europe and a track record of protesting mosques across the country, caught wind of the story.

Newspapers and news networks across the country jumped on the issue, capitalizing on the fiery emotions still surrounding September 11. Quickly, the Islamic Cultural Center two blocks away from Ground Zero, from which the site cannot be seen, became the 'Mosque at Ground Zero', springing onto the national stage.

American news sources across the board latched onto the story, following the progression of obstacles and public opinion. Even international publications picked up the battle cry of protesters or supporters.

With emotions still running high, media sources continue to track the story, digging up connected threads to follow. The sources of funding for the planned Islamic Cultural Center recently have recently been subjected to strict scrutiny.

Opponents of the project frequently link Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the most visible planner of the Islamic Community Center, to terrorism, citing for instance, his contributions to the Malaysian organization responsible for the flotilla's that tried to break the Israeli blockade on Gaza.

Fox News also reported that Hisham Elzanaty, an Egyptian business man funding part of Park51, donated $6000 to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) in the late 1990's. Two years later HLF was shut down on suspicions of terrorist supporting activity.

Curiously enough, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the second largest shareholder or News Corp's, the parent company of Fox News, has also contributed more than $300,000 to the project.

So, once again, and just in time for the November elections, the country stands divided. Martha Rinehart, a stay-at-home mother said of the issue, "I guess my sense is that it's a tempest and a tea pot. Our country is still so polarized around Ground Zero that they can't step back and look at the issue".

The dispute over the Islamic Cultural Center amassed such a swell of coverage that politicians up the ladder have been forced to give public opinions, especially as mid-term polls released show the majority of Americans opposed to the project. Estate attorney Chaz Wampold commented, "If this had come in December nobody would have said a word about it after the election."

Among politicians, the issue has largely been divided into two parts, legal and a claim of a personal sense of respect that echoes with the sentiments of those still reeling from 9/11. Many of these politicians, particularly those up for reelection, take a stance similar to Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid that, "the First Amendment protects freedom of religion," yet, "this Mosque should be built someplace else" (qtd. RTT News).

Politicians in opposition the Islamic Cultural Center in the proximity of Ground Zero ride hard on the sentiments of September 11, 2001. Former Alaskan Governor and 2008 VP candidate Sarah Palin passionately spoke against Park51, "to build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks" (qtd. RTT News).

The building today of Park51 proves impossible to separate from the feelings of nine years ago, even for supporters. In a forceful defense of the planned Cultural Center, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg insisted, "We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms the terrorists attacked (qtd. New York Times)".

Whether or not Park51 materializes as planned, the story has gained such scope that the nation once again is polarized in the wake of 9/11, approaching the November elections.

-Maeve Dwyer

Park 51: What Media?

by Joanna Kurylo

One doesn’t need to travel far to be smack right in the middle of conflict. As a matter of fact, just visit 51 Park Place New York, a controversial area about two blocks from the Ground Zero. What makes it so controversial isn’t the 6 empty beer bottles right across from the area, nor the litter, not the bar next to it, or the gentlemen’s club a few streets away. It’s the location of a mosque that has plans to be build. Debate has stemmed regarding funding to the mere close proximity of the planned mosque to Ground Zero.

On a sunny Saturday, I set out to visit the area. As a native New Yorker, I have witnessed the various media accounts of the controversy and witnessed the statements of various politicians. With a notepad in hand, I set out to write a critique of the media and politician’s portrayal of the situation, as witnessed by the various neighbors of Park 51. I set out to answer a few critical questions, What has been said, What is being done and How the story may have been distorted. A few hours later I was back on the train with a new realization and a different plan. Views and opinions of this particular matter are more likely to be shaped by a person’s past and their experiences as oppose to the media’s coverage.

Standing near the World Trade Center cross, I managed to meet a few tourists from L.A. “It should be left up to New Yorkers” Carol states, continuing though that even though she briefly watched coverage of the mosque, the “media is out of whack.” Surprised at this particularly indifferent opinion of the media, I sought out further views.

Mr. Iqbal Cby is a street vender near 51 Park Place. He works 12 hours a day, therefore doesn’t have much of a chance to watch the media coverage of Park51. However, as a person who works so close to the mosque, he does share quite a unique opinion. “I heard it’s going to have swimming pool and a restaurant…it will be a community center.” He pointed out, “Not a lot of people live here, they just work here, and it would make it easier for people to pray.” He stressed that it will bring more people and more business to the area. Even though Mr. Iqbal hasn’t watched an extensive amount of media coverage, he seemed to have a pretty strongly formulated opinion about the mosque. I ventured further, wondering if other people were in the same position as both Carol and Mr. Iqbal.

Standing right outside of Park 51 was what seemed to be a small rally. Signs with words like “COEXIST” were pressed against the old building. It was there that I met with Clifford Lafontaine, a very passionate man who was at the area because of the need to just simply “say something.” Strongly pronouncing “People died for to protect these rights,” he argued for a strong adherence to the Constitution. When asked about the media, he laughed “it sells newspapers, magazines…you get a buck out of it.” A similar opinion regarding the media was held by Samuel Arroyo who said “it’s their job.” Mr. Arroyo had come there to pray, and while he agrees that the area is a “bedrock of what America has become, a bedrock of freedom” he states that it comes down to respect of what is not Ground Zero but holy ground.

All the individuals that I had the opportunity to speak with shared unique reasons for why they were all brought to the particular area. Some came to work, several came to visit, others came to pray and many came to say something.

What has been said by the media has not made that much of a great impact on those I have interviewed. Even what has been said by politicians has just caused great schisms in the debate. One doesn’t need to look further then the recent comments made by President Obama, that caused either great joy or deep horror, depending on which camp you belong to. Jonnathan Coleman from the Examiner recently wrote about a Gallup poll that was conducted to measure the reaction of individuals. “Of those polled, 37% disagreed with Obama's remarks and 20% agreed with him. Just over 40% said they didn't know enough information to make a decision, and 2% didn't answer." What surprised me the most is the amount of people that stated they “didn’t know enough information to make a decision.” The experience I had that Saturday was definitely not an isolated incident.

What is being done about the situation can easily be witnessed by just taking a brisk walk through Park Place or by quick channel surfing. People are talking, people are protesting, people are rallying, and emotions are flying. Whether or not the story has been distorted by the media is a much more complicated question. Many formulate their opinion on the story based on past experiences, others by their environment and some by the media. This may be likened to the children’s game of telephone. The information you get is only as good as the information received or given by the person next to you. A debate that I previously thought to be further ignited by media coverage turned out not to be so, experiences are seemingly much more prevalent when creating an opinion about a situation like Park 51.

Welcome to the BardPolitikDaily Fall 2010 Semester

Carrying on the fine tradition which began way back in the "noughts," I'm happy to welcome you to your blog platform for the semester. As you will see perusing the posts of previous pupils, we prefer serious discussions at BardPolitikDaily, and - yes - this will be part of your overall grade.

Blogger, the software you're using to create these posts, is quite simple and the "Help" link is quite a bit more helpful than most, so use it if needed. Extra credit for posting photos of relevant topics that you have obtained yourself - but beware: Photography is subject to copyright. It is neither legal nor ethical to take just any photo off a website and republish it on a blog. A good rule of thumb here as in life: Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Blog away, please, and feel free to mix it up with your fellow students using the "Comment" feature. Our rules of the road forbid any personal attacks, racial or ethnic epithets or anything which could be construed as harrassment, sexual or otherwise. Be civil; be clever; be engaged.
MM

Anarchy in the UK

By Elias Isquith

As voters across the UK headed to the polls for the first time in 5 years last Thursday, no one was quite sure what the results would be. More than 48 hours since the results, which had David Cameron's Conservative Party holding the highest percentage of the popular vote (36%) and the most seats in Parliament (305), things may be even more unclear.

This is primarily due to the fact that although the Tories were the most successful of the three major parties, beating out Nick Clegg's upstart Liberal Democrats as well as incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour Party, they fell well short of the 326 necessary to hold an outright majority. Negotiations with the Liberal Democrats began almost immediately. But while the two groups share some ideological ground - both are, on economic policy, to Labour's right and both are looking to enact tax cuts and significant educational reform - reports indicate that the Tories have not been sufficiently willing to propose electoral reform, a fundamental Liberal Democrat goal.

If Cameron and Clegg were unable to forge a compromise, so it was thought, the Tories would be forced to govern with a minority. It would be first time such a government ruled in the UK since 1974, when Labour - to disastrous results - did the same.

But, in a surprising move that most are interpreting as an overture by Labour to the LibDems, Gordon Brown today announced his plans to reign as leader of the Labour Party in September, once his successor had been chosen. Labour and the LibDems have far more, ideologically, in common that the LibDems do with the Conservatives, but, even if the two were to join forces, they would still need to assemble what some are calling a "Progressive Coalition" - including smaller nationalist parties - to hold a majority in Parliament.

In short, things are moving very, very quickly - and they're quite messy, indeed.

My personal take: I don't see much of the upside for the LibDems to join with the Tories. Much of their base is young, progressive, and anti-Tory. A party that had a meteoric rise in the weeks before the vote - largely because of its image as an 'outsider' force - is unlikely to be able to translate a supplicant-position in a center-right government into future political success. Especially if the government in question is one that will be responsible for many unpopular public service cuts (a response to the UK's enormous budget problems).

The biggest stumbling block towards a coalition with Labour, however, was the aforementioned Brown, a profoundly unpopular politician who had the misfortune of becoming PM after 11 years of Tony Blair and before the greatest international financial crisis since the Great Depression. With Brown no longer an option as PM, the LibDems have much more room to negotiate. A Clegg PM-ship with a Labour cabinet may even be a possibility. But don't count the Tories out just yet.

In any event, here's a feed to an up-to-the-minute update of what's going on that's sure to be must-read material for those following the most confusing and exciting election the UK's had in a long, long time.

A Hushed Wave of Violence

By Eleanor Albert

The media was whipped into a frenzy after the tragedy of the Columbine shootings in the United States in 1999 – that was students-killing-students. In recent months, China has been home to a similarly shocking violence in an academic context, but in the Middle Kingdom children are the victims of teachers.

“There likely is no single explanation for the assaults in Fujian, Shandong, Jiangsu and, on Wednesday, in Guangdong Province, where a 33-year-old former teacher stabbed 15 fourth-and fifth-graders.”

“In Taixing, the city in Jiangsu Province where a knife-wielding man stabbed 28 kindergarten students and three adults on Thursday, critically wounding at least five children.”

“A crazed man who on Friday beat five toddlers with a hammer, then set himself on fire with two other children in his arms.”

“Students in four other schools and a day care center were attacked by knife-wielding men who stabbed dozens of children.”

The root of such violence? Most likely frustrations from an imbalanced society and rampant corruption at the local level. What is most horrific in the aftermath in China is that these issues are being suppressed and thrown into a box and sealed shut. From an analytical perspective, the Chinese government and state controlled media are “ignoring” the incidents because of the potential threat they pose to the credibility and legitimacy of the authoritarian party-rule that the CCP enjoys.

For now, the CCP can still get away with this. However, it is not a sustainable policy. The continued growth of the Chinese economy will lead to further engagement with the world and the Chinese will want reform and the means to make the CCP accountable. This is not to say that the Chinese people desire radical regime change—they are still extremely nationalistic and proud of the successes of China in the last 30 years under CCP leadership and will continue to look to that leadership in the future.