The Right Tries to Suspend the First Amendment (But Just for Muslims, Naturally)

Bin Laden would love to be able to say that in America you can build a church or synagogue anywhere you want, but not a mosque. That fits perfectly with his recruiting pitch — that America has declared war on Islam. And bin Laden would thrill to the claim that a mosque near ground zero dishonors the victims of 9/11, because the unspoken premise is that the attacks really were, as he claims, a valid expression of Islam.

Apparently I was wrong. Two New York politicians — Representative Peter King and Rick Lazio, a candidate for governor — are ginning up opposition to the project, as is the Weekly Standard.

Their strategy is to ask dark questions about the motivations behind the project (known as Park51 because of its address on Park Place). Those motivations reside in an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the project’s co-sponsors. So far as I can tell, Rauf is a good person who genuinely wants to build a more peaceful world. (I met him briefly last year at a venue where we had both been asked to give talks about compassion — his from an Islamic perspective, mine from a secular perspective. Here’s the talk he gave.)

But if you think Rauf’s good intentions are going to keep him safe from the Weekly Standard, you underestimate that magazine’s creative powers. Its latest issue features an article about Park51 chock full of angles that never would have occurred to me if some magazine had asked me to write an assessment of the project’s ideological underpinnings. For example: Rauf’s wife, who often speaks in support of the project and during one talk reflected proudly on her Islamic heritage, “failed to mention another feature of her background: She is the niece of Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its Web site to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America (I.C.N.A.), the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami.”

Got that? Rauf’s wife has an uncle who used to be “a leader” of a mosque that now has a Web site that links to the Web site of an allegedly radical organization. (I’ll get back to the claim that the Westbury Mosque is itself a “center for Islamic radicals.”)

The odd thing is that the author of this piece, Stephen Schwartz, is a self-described neoconservative whose parents were, by his own account, communists. You’d think he might harbor doubts about how confidently we can infer people’s ideologies from the ideologies of their older relatives. You’d also think he might disdain McCarthyite guilt-by-association tactics.

You’d be wrong. Schwartz’s piece goes on and on, weaving webs of association so engrossing that you have to keep reminding yourself that they have nothing to do with Rauf. At one point Schwartz spends several paragraphs damning someone whose connection to Park51 seems to consist of having spoken favorably about it.

As for the views of Rauf himself: In Schwartz’s universe, Rauf’s expressions of opposition to terrorism are themselves grounds for suspicion. Rauf, says Schwartz, has “cloaked the Cordoba effort in the rhetoric of reconciliation, describing himself and his colleagues as ‘the anti-terrorists.’”

"There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over."

Some opponents have cited traffic and parking concerns. But the objections have focused overwhelmingly on more intangible and volatile issues: fear of terrorism, distrust of Islam and a linkage of the two in opponents’ minds.

“Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?” asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood.

“No,” began Ayman Hammous, president of the Staten Island branch of the group, the Muslim American Society — though the rest of his answer was drowned out by catcalls and boos from among the 400 people who packed the gymnasium of a community center.

Opposition to new mosques has become almost commonplace. A similar uproar erupted during a Lower Manhattan community board meeting on May 25 over plans to build a mosque near ground zero. Protests also have broken out in Brentwood, Tenn.; Sheboygan County, Wis.; and Dayton, Ohio.

After the sustained standing ovation that followed his introduction, he turned to the Muslims on the panel: “My question to you is, will you work to form a cohesive bond with the people of this community?” The men said yes.

Then he turned to the crowd. “And will you work to form a cohesive bond with these people — your new neighbors?”

The crowd erupted in boos. “No!” someone shouted.

Subrosa said:

...Newt Gingrich and his ilk are implicitly calling for separate governmental policies for Muslims than for Christians or Jews. I'll spare the suspense for those who aren't familiar with Constitutional Law: That shit is prohibited.

joydiv said:
Given that Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are not governmental officials with any official decision-making authority over the rebuilding around the 9/11 Ground Zero site, I think they are exercising their 1st Amendment rights in opposing the mosque. The 1st Amendment says Mayor Bloomberg can't discriminate against a NYC mosque based on religious reasons. The 1st Amendment also says KKK, Sarah Palin, and other offensive groups and non-governmental individuals have the right to protest against the building of a mosque.

Two New York politicians — Representative Peter King and Rick Lazio, a candidate for governor — are ginning up opposition to the project, as is the Weekly Standard.

joydiv said:
Given that Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are not governmental officials with any official decision-making authority over the rebuilding around the 9/11 Ground Zero site, I think they are exercising their 1st Amendment rights in opposing the mosque. The 1st Amendment says Mayor Bloomberg can't discriminate against a NYC mosque based on religious reasons. The 1st Amendment also says KKK, Sarah Palin, and other offensive groups and non-governmental individuals have the right to protest against the building of a mosque.

MrCrisp said:

Another issue that I have with that quote is this: why are we comparing ourselves, as a country, to Saudi Arabia? Sure, you can propose that Saudi Arabia practices religious discrimination by prohibiting the construction of churches or synagogues, but aren't we supposed to be better than that?

IDGAS said:



“Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?” asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood.

PointBlank said:

...and if anyone were saying that they don't have the right to say whatever they want, your post would be relevant.

The thread topic is "The Right is Trying to Suspend the First Amendment". I was pointing out it should be entitled "The Right Opposes the Building of a Mosque at Ground Zero". If we were passing laws like France banning the wearing of the burqa, the thread would be accurately titled. The article describes political debate, not governmental suspension of constitutional rights.

Catallus said:

You think that woman has ever heard of these guys?

Catallus said:

You think that woman has ever heard of these guys?

Since the late 1970s, a Long Island congressman, Peter King, has been aligned with one of the most violent terrorist groups in recent European history, defying critics in his own Republican Party and elsewhere, and yet managing to prosper. Now, however, Mr. King and the Irish Republican Army appear to have come to a parting of the ways.

Once a vocal and frequent House champion for the IRA's political wing, Sinn Fein, and its leader, Gerry Adams, the 60-year-old, Queens-born Mr. King has said nothing about either on the House floor in years. The politician once called the IRA "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland," he was banned from the BBC by British censors for his pro-IRA views, and he refused to denounce the IRA when one of its mortar bombs killed nine Northern Irish police officers. But Mr. King is now one of America's most outspoken foes of terrorism.

He forged links with leaders of the IRA and Sinn Fein in Ireland, and in America he hooked up with Irish Northern Aid, known as Noraid, a New York based group that the American, British, and Irish governments often accused of funneling guns and money to the IRA. At a time when the IRA's murder of Lord Mountbatten and its fierce bombing campaign in Britain and Ireland persuaded most American politicians to shun IRA-support groups, Mr. King displayed no such inhibitions. He spoke regularly at Noraid protests and became close to the group's publicity director, the Bronx lawyer Martin Galvin, a figure reviled by the British.

Mr. King's support for the IRA was unequivocal. In 1982, for instance, he told a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County: "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry."

IDGAS said:

Congressman Peter King (R) mentioned above is an opponent of building the Mosque was a long time supporter of the IRA

From the New York Sun in 2005

He only supports some terrorism I guess

IDGAS said:

He only supports some terrorism I guess

joydiv said:
Given that Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are not governmental officials with any official decision-making authority over the rebuilding around the 9/11 Ground Zero site, I think they are exercising their 1st Amendment rights in opposing the mosque. The 1st Amendment says Mayor Bloomberg can't discriminate against a NYC mosque based on religious reasons. The 1st Amendment also says KKK, Sarah Palin, and other offensive groups and non-governmental individuals have the right to protest against the building of a mosque.

Coyotemike said:
It amuses me that the same people who are lining up to whine about the gubbmint telling them how to spend their money are now demanding (in their own way) that the government tell Muslim investors/organizations/individuals how to spend their money.

kungfoo said:

Why do people bring up this argument? Because they are a higher social status than their dissenters, criticism of their opinions is considered to be anti-free-speech? I don't understand it and it is besides the point. Nobody is talking about throwing Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich in jail over their statements. Of course, they are perfectly free to "exercising their 1st Amendment rights" just as we have to right to say that they are hateful demagogues and xenophobic opportunists. The First Amendment protects political opinions from the state, not from any criticism at all.

So, in the spirit of the First Amendment, I would just like to say; fuck Sarah Palin and fuck Newt Gingrich.

After the sustained standing ovation that followed his introduction, he turned to the Muslims on the panel: “My question to you is, will you work to form a cohesive bond with the people of this community?” The men said yes.

Then he turned to the crowd. “And will you work to form a cohesive bond with these people — your new neighbors?”

The crowd erupted in boos. “No!” someone shouted.

Subrosa said:

That's a good response, but it's incomplete. OBVIOUSLY no one is arguing that Palin and Newt don't have the right to spew their hateful bigotry. MY point was the following: What is the end-game that they're proposing?

How on earth do these people expect us to enforce the ideas that we're "refudiating" and/or disallowing "double standards"? It's my understanding that the plans are already signed off on by the proper local authorities, so the only way to actually STOP this cultural center from being built is through governmental intervention. Which, as I said, would be totally fucking against the law.

I mean, set aside Rep. King and Lazio for a second and ask yourself: what do these people want? Are you seriously arguing that if the State or Federal Government stepped in and told NYC that they couldn't let the Muslin Terriorists build their Al Queda den that Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich would protest that on Constitutional grounds? Really? Because that seems to be EXACTLY what they're advocating for.