The clearance by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission for the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" to be built in lower Manhattan received national coverage amidst a raging debate. Initiated by Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich and then weighed in upon by Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama, the debate focuses on whether Park 51, the 13-story Islamic cultural center, should be allowed to be built so close to 9/11's Ground Zero.
Those who oppose Park 51 argue either that the project is insensitive because Ground Zero is unique and a kind of "hallowed ground," as journalist Charles Krauthammer put it, or that it is politically motivated by an anti-American agenda and should not be treated with the same tolerance as a religious institution. Those defending the Islamic center have been quick to label opponents as bigots and claimed the center will be a bridge to cultural harmony by promoting moderation, non-violence, and diversity.
Is this apparent new backlash against Muslims in Western nations a new version of the “culture wars”? While religious freedom has been a consistent part of the Enlightenment tradition, does the increasing antagonism towards Muslims in the West express a feeling that we tolerate what some consider the intolerant at our peril? How should today's American society deal with clashing belief systems? Does the current preoccupation with Islam, whether sympathetic or hostile, reflect a deeper lack of certainty about what Western values are?
Bio
Wendy Kaminer
Wendy Kaminer is a lawyer, social critic and has been a contributing editor of The Atlantic since 1991. She writes about law, liberty, feminism, religion and popular culture and has written seven books, including Free for All; Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials; and I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional. Kaminer worked as a staff attorney in the New York Legal Aid Society and in the New York City Mayor's Office and was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1993. She is a renowned contrarian who has tackled the issues of censorship and pornography, feminism, pop psychology, gender roles and identities, crime and the criminal-justice system, and gun control. She is now a senior correspondent for The American Prospect and her articles and reviews have appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The American Prospect, Dissent, The Nation, The Wilson Quarterly, Free Inquiry, and spiked-online.com. Her commentaries have aired on National Public Radio.
Alan Miller
Alan Miller is Director of The NY Salon. He also is the co-founder of London's Truman Brewery and Vibe Bar.
Miller is also a film director and writer.
Brendan O'Neill
Brendan O'Neill is the editor of spiked. He started his career in journalism at spiked's predecessor, Living Marxism, until it was forced to close in 2000 following a notorious libel action brought by ITN.
O'Neill writes widely for publications on both sides of the Atlantic. His journalism has been published in the New Statesman, the Spectator, the Guardian, The Sunday Times, the British Journalism Review, the Press Gazette and the Catholic Herald in Britain. He is also a feature-writer for the Christian Science Monitor in America and for the BBC in Britain.
He writes a weekly blog for the Guardian website, Comment Is Free.
He is a British correspondent for the Polish political weekly PrzeKroj, and has written for newspapers and magazines in Australia, South Africa, Canada, India, Germany, France, Italy and Denmark. His work covers everything from war and terrorism to free speech and junk food. He was a consultant for the book Human, published by Dorling Kindersley and winner of the British Medical Association Medical Book Award 2005.
Zead Ramadan
Zead Ramadan is the Board President of the Council on American Islamic Relations-New York.
Kristen Saloomey
Kristen Saloomey, a correspondent for Al Jazeera based in New York, has more than 15 years of news reporting experience.
Her career highlights include covering the election of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and the trial of the cell known as "the Lackawanna Six". She holds a master's degree from the Columbia University graduate school of journalism.
Series of airline hijackings and suicide bombings against U.S. targets perpetrated by 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda. The attacks were planned well in advance; the militants—most of whom were from Saudi Arabia—traveled to the U.S. beforehand, where a number received commercial flight training. Working in small groups, the hijackers boarded 4 domestic airliners in groups of 5 (a 20th participant was alleged) on Sept. 11, 2001, and took control of the planes soon after takeoff. At 8:46 AM (local time), the terrorists piloted the first plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. A second plane struck the south tower some 15 minutes later. Both structures erupted in flames and, badly damaged, soon collapsed. A third plane struck the southwest side of the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., at 9:40, and within the next hour the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after its passengers—aware of events via cellular telephone—attempted to overpower their assailants. Some 2,750 people were killed in New York, 184 at the Pentagon, and 40 in Pennsylvania. All 19 terrorists died.
My comment on the first amendment is: not to speak to insult but to inform of your opinion as objectively correct though it is your subjective answer. Look at Behner, he is very good at this most times, as well, as most politicians. Sometimes they get out of hand in their deceptive speech - not giving a direct answer. But you can not force a person to speak truth.
So the first amendment can not bring forth the truth, it simple gives all, fools and geniuses, the same opportunity to say something. This should be self-evident but it is not due to our constant competition to appear fair and balanced.
If we speak truth to each other, it gives us a better foundation to obtain something that we can agree on, share, and trust.
It's interesting that Zead goes back to the constitution as a document of respect, not just him but quite a few people do this to show how tolerant they are and that all should be. I say, ask a black man or woman if that document was a deliverer of tolerance. It was a commercial document that was made such that all who they considered persons could get along doing commerce. Don't forget, voting was based on property ownership.
Sure, we did change all of this but think of the issues raised during the presidential election between Bush and Gore. People who had offended society, even after they had paid their dept still could not vote. In order to get along we have to give up our personal beliefs as absolute.
To kikl: How can you compare burning a koran and building a mosque? Whose sensitivities are offended by a mosque being built? I don't think people need to be so thin skinned about radical bullies burning copies of their holy books, I mean they're just books and there are plenty of copies, but I can't see the parallel. Those muslims in New York were just as much victims of 9/11 as anyone else who lived there. The WTC was in their neighborhood, too. How can you say they were any less affected by the attack?
As for the imam trying to change the narrative, I can't say I agree with you. But even if it were true, he'd hardly be alone in this country in playing the victim to win political sympathy (but that's a completely different subject).
I think the sensitivity issue is a quite interesting display of double standards. Everybody has the right to burn his own books. There is no doubt that this is everone's personal liberty. But, when a pastor wants to burn a quran, the liberal left starts to cry out. But, when it comes to building a mosque at ground zero, sensitivity is a non-issue.
The imam wants to change the narrative. He wants muslims to be the perpetual victims, even of 9/11. So he is trying to play on sensitivities. His response is grotesque. Muslims perpetrated this crime in the name of Islam. That is the fact!
High jacked the religion? That is plain wrong: Read "The Al qaida reader" by Raimung Ibrahim. It is a selection of theological treatises that justify terrorism using the quran and hadith.
Park 51 Centre? I thought is was supposed to be called "Cordoba House"? Wasn't is supposed to be a mosque? Now it is called a "community centre"?
What happened to Imam Rauf and his wife? Didn't they want to implement Shariah in the USA? That includes beating disobedient women, stoning adulterers, executing apostates, silencing and killing blasphemers,....
I think everybody should be concerned about a place of worship, in which an unconstitutional ideology is preached day in day out.
Since these people are followers of an antidemocratic and unconstitutional ideology, I don't think they have the right to build a mosque in the USA, no matter where, but in particular not at ground zero!
Why present only the liberal view? Complete waste of time ! Can you tell me what was the original name for this project? and what made them change it? did this start as a mosque and now this is a cultural centre? what do you know about islam? and its preachings?
member. 
Watch Now
