In discussing the ground Zero Mosque, much of the commentariat thinks two blocks is a long way away. For example, here is Josh Barro of the National Review:
Second, the proposed mosque would not be located “at” Ground Zero, but two blocks north of it. So, any federal overlay that restricts development would have to cover not just Ground Zero but an area around it. Again, it is hard to come up with a policy rationale: this area is part of one of America’s busiest office districts, characterized by over a century of high-rise development and redevelopment, which we hope to see continue.
...
As an aside, I think that some of the concern over this mosque, especially among people who do not live in New York City, is based on a misunderstanding of the geography of Lower Manhattan. This is an area that had significant high-rise development before New York imposed setback requirements and floor-area ratio maximums (limits on how many square feet of building you can put on a lot). As a result, the area is denser and more canyon-like than Midtown.
This means you can be two blocks away from something without any sense that you’re near it. City Hall is four blocks from Ground Zero, but you’d never stand there and think “I’m right near Ground Zero.” There is even a strip club three blocks south of Ground Zero, but nobody seems to have noticed that it is sullying the memory of the place.
In most cities, including Washington, 13 stories constitute a very tall building. But in the environment of Lower Manhattan, Cordoba House will be just another structure—which is not exactly consistent with the view that it is a Towering Monument to Jihad. In short, people are overestimating the extent to which this building will interact with, or be noticeable from, the World Trade Center site.
I have spent years wandering the concrete wilderness down there, and Mr. Barro is superficially correct. However, yesterday Matt Drudge linked to a month-old NY Times story noting that the proposed site was actually put out of service by the 9/11 attack; if this was news to Matt Drudge, my guess is that it will come as news to others as well, and perhaps the site has a symbolic value greater than Mr. Barro realizes.
Let's hear about the symbolism from the imam leading the project (in last December's NY Times):
The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”
“We want to push back against the extremists,” added Imam Feisal, 61.
Well, pushing back against extremists is one interpretation. However, symbols mean what people think they mean (Yeah, I'm copyrighting that insight!), so one might just as plausibly argue that this is a Victory Mosque being built on territory destroyed in the attacks. That would jibe with the history of Muslim conquerors (as well as many other conquerors, obviously). As to how much other property near Ground Zero was damaged on 9/11 and has this potent symbolism I do not know, but the old Burlington Coat Factory is not just any old site in the financial district.
Now in a strict legal sense, the motivation of the imam counts for nothing - the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and worship to all people, not just government-approved moderates. However, I doubt that Mayor Bloomberg would be telling We The Rubes that we should be ashamed of ourselves for opposing this mosque if the imam was on record as getting in touch with his inner Jeremiah Wright and describing 9/11 in terms of "God Damn America".
PROFILES IN COWARDICE: The NY Times covers Sen. Reid's backpedaling and contrasts it with a local boy made good:
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader and a Democrat facing a difficult re-election fight, said through a spokesman that those who plan to erect the Islamic center should look elsewhere. That separates Mr. Reid from President Obama’s support of the developers’ right to build the center.
“The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” said Jim Manley, a top adviser to Mr. Reid. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”
That aligns Reid with his opponent, Sharron Angle. On to the Times' idea of wisdom and insight:
Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat who represents the district that includes ground zero, said he doubted that the fight over the mosque would inflict much damage on fellow Democrats in the November elections.
Mr. Nadler, whose view is that the developers were entitled to build the mosque at the selected location if they choose, said, “Ultimately I suspect that once this simmers down in a few weeks, people will realize that everybody’s liberty is at stake here.”
Huh? Nadler respects their right to build there? So do Reid and Angle, and Sarah Palin, and plenty of critics. Having the right doesn't make it right.
Nadler and Rep Peter King, mosque opponent, air their views more fully here. From Nadler:
NADLER: Well, I certainly appreciate the sensitivities of some of the families of 9/11. There are others who have expressed support for it. The press has concentrated on those who have opposed it. But frankly, ground zero is hallowed ground. Two blocks away, first of all, is not so hallowed ground. Second of all, we should not -- government officials should not be in a position of pressuring people where to build their mosque or their church or whatever.
Third of all, as much as I respect the sensitivities of people, there is a fundamental mistake behind it, and that is how can you -- and I can quote any number of some of the people who have commented on it, and what they are saying essentially is how can you put a mosque there when, after all, Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and this is ripping open a wound? Well, the fallacy is that Al Qaida attacked us. Islam did not attack us. Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism, like other religions, has many different people, some of whom regard other adherents of the religion as heretics of one sort or another. It is only insensitive if you regard Islam as the culprit, as opposed to Al Qaida as the culprit. We were not attacked by all Muslims. And there were Muslims who were killed there, there were Muslims who were killed there. There were Muslims who ran in as first responders to help. And we cannot take any position like that.
Obviously, I disagree with his "two blocks away" comment. As to the rest, I agree, but that doesn't change my mind. We were attacked by Muslim extremists; this mosque would be a powerful symbol of victory for extremists, it may be financed by extremists, and it may be that, regardless of the motivations of the founder, it will be one day be run by extremists.
If the imam seriously wants reconciliation and bridge-building, he should relocate. If he wants to give offense (as is his right), he should stay on his current course, and we will see how the debate unfolds.
Personally, I doubt he can raise the money. Any investor will be calling attention to himself, his family, his business associates, and all past deals, all of which will go under a microscope. If there is a hint of a whiff of a suggestion of a link to extremists, we will read about nothing else. Who needs the publicity?
THE DEBATE SO FAR: Amidst the cacophony I hear my people from Jersey: "Yo, fool, reconcile yourself to this!" Yeah, I got something for you to tolerate right here, buddy."
My main man, Chris Christie, punted; I guess he doesn't have the body to tap dance.
LET'S PUT ALL THE 'PC' EGGS IN ONE BASKET... Maybe they can complete the mosque quickly enough that it will be available to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during his NYC trial.
THE DAMAGE DONE: Here is more from the December Times:
There was no immediate sign of the fiery cataclysm that erupted overhead starting at 8:46. But out of a baby-blue sky suddenly stained with smoke, a plane’s landing-gear assembly the size of a World War II torpedo crashed through the roof and down through two empty selling floors of the Burlington Coat Factory.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attack killed 2,752 people downtown and doomed the five-story building at 45 Park Place, two blocks north of the World Trade Center, keeping it abandoned for eight years.
The lost distinction in all of this is that while the 1st amendment allows freedom of religion, it doesn't exempt anybody from building codes, zoning and other government rules and laws that apply to everybody.
I seem to remember (but the search engines don't seem to find any of) the many cases where churches were restricted in their size and placement based on parking and zoning rules.
Posted by: Neo | August 17, 2010 at 11:48 AM
given that the building in question was hit by part of the landing gear and fuselage from one of the planes there is a better than even chance that there was also bits of people deposited there as well ...
non NY'ers don't understand the differences in "blocks" in NYC ... there are long blocks (east/west) and short blocks (north/ south) ... yes, city Hall is 4 blocks away, long blocks ...
Oh, and the strip club was there before 9/11 ... or so I've heard :)
It got hit by parts of one of the planes and seriously damaged ... had it also collapsed nobody would be trying to defend it ...
Posted by: Jeff | August 17, 2010 at 11:52 AM
I saw this at American Thinker...what would these same people be saying if the Westboror Baptist Church was trying to locate there? Yeah. Great question.
Posted by: Sue | August 17, 2010 at 12:00 PM
--There is even a strip club three blocks south of Ground Zero, but nobody seems to have noticed that it is sullying the memory of the place.--
Just guessing, but perhaps that's because Carol Doda and Gypsy Rose Lee didn't fly planes into the WTC.
Posted by: Ignatz | August 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM
I love this issue. It's really got the hectoring do-gooders all hot to trot and putting themselves on display for our enjoyment.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | August 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM
I agree with TM's posting in the main respect, but disagree with one important detail. The good Iman will be revealed as a let's get along kind of guy if he finds another location. If he pursues the GZM, he will be revealed as an Islamist conquerer holding a victory trophy for the Ummah in the US. We shall see. I disagree with TM about raising the money for the GZM. TM speaks as an infidel dealmaker; the GZM will be paid for by some laundered out arm of the House of Saud spreading Wahabism. That front group won't care about publicity or ROI, it's all about the power of the spread of Islam. There are hundreds of empty mosques in North and South America paid for by Wahabists to plant the flag of Islam in the home of the infidel,waiting for the day of the inevitable conquest by the Ummah. That's what they believe, that's what they do. It takes morally blind schmucks like Mayor Mike not to see that.
Posted by: NK | August 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Greg Gutfeld has decided on a name for his gay bar next door: Dialog. You know, he is building Dialog:)
And as far as the Gentlemen's Club down the street, isn't it mandatory to have a strip club close by a place where young Islamists gather?
And as far as a gay bar goes, it will come as a sigh of relief to any taliban member of the mosque to have place they feel comfortable with after prayers and stoning some woman for showing her ankles.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | August 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Damn Iggy; you're really dating yourself (in a non-onanistic way) by those names.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM
There was some deal about the site having a 'historic' designation too. I think it was they decided to NOT give it one. I live in a 'historic' designated neighborhood & it is the perfect means to stop any construction that you want. It is so vague that the board is all powerful in what gets approved.
It's as though someone wanted this thing fast tracked.
Posted by: Janet | August 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Bill Kristol posts this, and Rush just read it on air.
Beginning of the End - GZ Mosque?
Posted by: centralcal | August 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM
DoT, the amount of preening puts the world's supply of peacocks to shame.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM
the many cases where churches were restricted in their size and placement based on parking and zoning rules.
Yes, I know of such cases. Why has the Greek Orthodox Church, destroyed on 9/11 not been allowed to rebuild?
It's one thing to argue the mosque should be treated like any other religious facility, but this one seems to have been fast-tracked through the system. I don't think it's a stretch to cite the Ft. Hood shooter as a similar instance where authorities not only don't discriminate, but bend over backwards to reverse discriminate, with bad results in the end.
Posted by: jimmyk | August 17, 2010 at 12:16 PM
And the Sophist called, and said 'stop it, you're embarassing us' stick to the subject
at hand, not 'look squirrel'
Posted by: narciso | August 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM
From CCal's link we get Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, director of al-Arabiya TV and former editor of London’s Arab daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, sounding like a right-wing nutjob:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | August 17, 2010 at 12:19 PM
From my link above:
A column (h/t, MEMRI) in the August 16, 2010 London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, director of Al-Arabiya TV and the paper's former editor, “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” should mean the end of plans for a mosque near Ground Zero.
Posted by: centralcal | August 17, 2010 at 12:19 PM
lol, sorry DoT!
Posted by: centralcal | August 17, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Anyone know what Al-Sharq Al-Awsat says about this?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | August 17, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Soooooooo the trolls don't really accurately reflect the attitudes of the moderate muslims that they are forever referencing? Is that shocking to anybody?
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 17, 2010 at 12:23 PM
The trolls do what they are told. Facts never matter to them.
Posted by: Jane | August 17, 2010 at 12:24 PM
I think Al-Rashid gets directly to the heart of matters: some Muslims will consider . . . and, that is the problem.
Posted by: centralcal | August 17, 2010 at 12:24 PM
ding, ding, ding, Captain!
Posted by: centralcal | August 17, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Jane, I'm sure a script is being prepared to refute that arabic Uncle Tom as I type this.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 17, 2010 at 12:26 PM
they have mostly gone along with the Rauf as peace making moderate, and any opponent as haters
Posted by: narciso | August 17, 2010 at 12:27 PM
DoT - You got that right. For me this really does help clarify who the "the other side" is.
Posted by: Mike Huggins | August 17, 2010 at 12:27 PM
He does do a bit of the blame shifting, but that is a remarkably candid 'speaking truth
to power' where there are real consequences to this action
Posted by: narciso | August 17, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Really narc: Countdown to Fatwa starring somebody far more dangerous and just as mentally addled as Bathtub Boy
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 17, 2010 at 12:35 PM
The over/under on cleo and Bubu posting on this thread is now 360/210 (comment number).
Posted by: Jack is Back! | August 17, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Al-Awsat's column should be a must read for Bloomberg, Obama and every other pro-Cordoba House mosque pol. Cordoba House mosque supporters like to preen about how sensitive they are. Al-Awsat points out that a Cordoba House mosque will be viewed by jihadists as a symbol of jihad victory on 9/11, and thus will help jihadists in their battle with non-jihadist Muslims. One would think that a crew (the pro-Cordoba House mosque crowd) so attuned to cultural sensitivity, and so well educated (as opposed to the bitter clingers), could have figured this out.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | August 17, 2010 at 12:53 PM
I wonder whether those who have classified as Muslim haters opponents of the Cordoba House mosque and skeptics of the approval process will now also classify Al-Awsat as a Muslim hater.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | August 17, 2010 at 12:59 PM
I wonder if the Kristol find represents a Sunni/Shia or somesuch sectarian divide/power struggle within Islam ..
Posted by: Chubby | August 17, 2010 at 01:01 PM
I suspect that before they post here Cleo, Darwin and Bubu will want to work on those Dem congressman mentioned in the newer thread.
Oh, this is rich!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | August 17, 2010 at 01:03 PM
Hmmm...hosting a Ramadan dinner at the WH but not attending National Day of Prayer events. Defending the right to build this mosque saying religious freedom is for all Americans equally but didn't say anything when Franklin Graham was disinvited to speak at the Pentagon for National Day of Prayer. Past actions hold a better picture for me than all of the current rhetoric!
Posted by: Don | August 17, 2010 at 01:09 PM
Posted by: Cecil Turner | August 17, 2010 at 01:10 PM
If anyone found an endangered two inch long green frog on the WTC site, or the burial ground of a sixteenth century Indian there would be screams from the left and 9000 lawsuits preventing any construction but 3000 murdered souls doesn t hit their button.
The left is not only stupid but heartless as well.
Posted by: john morrissey | August 17, 2010 at 02:56 PM
Posted by: cathyf | August 17, 2010 at 03:31 PM
If the Greeks were smarter they'd notify DoS they were converting en masse to Islam and they'd get enough money to complete the deal PLUS free trips around the world.
Posted by: Clarice | August 17, 2010 at 03:38 PM
--Damn Iggy; you're really dating yourself (in a non-onanistic way) by those names.--
Heh. They were before my time but I have no idea what any more current ones might be named.
Posted by: Ignatz | August 17, 2010 at 03:45 PM
In most cities, including Washington, 13 stories constitute a very tall building. But in the environment of Lower Manhattan, Cordoba House will be just another structure
Oh! Then the Cordoba House wouldn't really stand out unless a bunch of other skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan were suddenly leveled somehow.
Posted by: bgates | August 17, 2010 at 03:52 PM
I can't find the link but I still vaguely remember Mother Teresa, in about 1993, (right around the first time the adherents of the Religion O' Peace tried to destroy the Twin Towers), being denied permission to take an abandoned Bronx building and renovate it as a Rehab Center because it didn't have an elevator in it for the disabled.
So golly, I sure hope this Cordoba place has all the handrails and guardrails and escalators and elevators and no lead paint, and especially no residue from the asbestos dust that rained down from the ceiling as the landing gear from the 747 came roaring through the building on it's murderous crash in the name of Islam. (And that's not even to mention the extremely deadly and poisonous hydraulic fluid residue from those landing gear Hydraulic lines).
As a comparison, the EPA out here is banning 100LL (Low Lead) aviation fuel because it supposedly puts off 2 parts per million of lead into the environment in a basically uninhabited territory that is half the size of the Continental United States, and the EPA has determined that that is hazardous to humans and other living animals. Since that's their criteria, I suggest we immediately put this project on hold, and do a decades long series of studies (as least as long as those very important Oil Drilling studies in the Chukchi) to verify that the combined residue of airborne asbestos and lead paint and victims pulverized human remains and gasoline fumes, and hydraulic fluid etc in that enclosed building all total less than the equivalent 2 parts per million in an area the size of Alaska---something like .000002 parts per million combined might be equivalent. If after a decade worth of Enviro studies and Legal Challenges etc, the readings top out at combined values above that .000002 factor above, then Safety demands we stop this dangerous project immediately in the interests of Public Safety and Health. Otherwise, we're allowing something to be built that is even more dangerous than that Alaska snowman that Democratic Senator Mark Begich banned from being built in a private yard in Anchorage as a Public Safety Hazard.
Think of the children. Please.
Posted by: daddy the wanna' be heretic | August 17, 2010 at 04:00 PM
Exactly, John M.
Native American burial sites are federally protected. National cemeteries and battlefields, such as Gettysburg or, say, the USS Arizona memorial, are federally protected. Try building anything, let alone a mosque on those sites.
Personally, I think the WTC sites should have immediately been declared a burial site and preserved as a memorial to those who gave their lives that day by act of war against the United States. This sacred ground was not declared a protected burial site for one reason: MONEY! The dollar signs in the eyes of the NY mayor and the developers.
If those commercial airliners had been bombers or fighter jets carrying missiles, the same people ranting on about the Imam's religious freedom would be screaming about collateral damage and the deaths of thousands of civilians. Those two planes that hit the WTC buildings were used in the same capacity as a bomber or missile launching weapon. The collateral damage was extensive, destroying the building where this mosque is being proposed to be built along with thousands of lives and the destruction of blocks of buildings. Landing gear instead of bunker busters, spewing fuel instead of hellfires, but the intent and the damage on a par.
Oh wait, these were American businesses and buildings, American lives, they don't count in they eyes of lefties.
As to liking or hating Islam, I don't care enough about Islam to do either. What I do hate is an organization of psychotics operating in the name of a religion that allows for women to be mutilated, to have their nose and ears cut off, that allows women to be stoned or beaten to death, that is based on killing or enslaving all nonbelievers.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | August 17, 2010 at 04:02 PM
Al-Qaeda Operative Says Ground Zero Mosque “Terrible” Location for Recruitment
http://wp.me/pIP1s-5w
Posted by: ajay | August 17, 2010 at 04:04 PM
Al-Qaeda Operative Says Ground Zero Mosque “Terrible” Location for Recruitment
So what? Nobody's objecting to it on the grounds that it will be a recruiting site.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | August 17, 2010 at 04:18 PM
Ground Zero Mosque’s Hidden Websites: Follow the Shariah
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | August 17, 2010 at 04:28 PM
Nobody's objecting to it on the grounds that it will be a recruiting site.
I am, as one of many reasons. The fact that al-Qaeda is denying it, is all the more reason to believe that is one of the purposes.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | August 17, 2010 at 04:32 PM
Obama is such a disgusting excuse for a ________.
Obama: Property rights for Muslims but not for Jews
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | August 17, 2010 at 04:41 PM
Bill Whittle Weighs In On the Ground Zero Mosque Controversy with a good treatise on moral cowardice.
And make no mistake, the BS being spouted by darwin and BB and our president our driven by moral cowardice.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | August 17, 2010 at 04:58 PM
.
Very very good post. I will reference this post the next time I blog on this matter... which will probably be tomorrow morning. Here is mine for the day.
Tearing Down That Which No One Believes-The Left and the Ground Zero Mosque
.
Posted by: Papa Giorgio | August 18, 2010 at 12:45 AM
The mear fact that part of any debis landed on this building would make it a potential place too marter the ones responsable for 911.
Belive it when i tell you this location was planned and knew it would put americans of all races and religions split, we loose eather way it goes dammed if you do dammed if you dont ,its gonna make it look like were insesitive too there right too practice there faith, there is no need too create more hate and never ending pain ny and its victims go through every day .
And who is too say who is going too be used by just good muslims not all are bad but lets get real let the people who dyed that day have proper peace and closure too that horrific day the affects me daly since it happend I hope in the intrest of the ones suffering they being the political end do the right thing ,just for the record i have nothing against mulims just the radical groups that live too create fear in the name of something they call there religion its so twisted from what the coran realy potrays.
Posted by: matt | August 20, 2010 at 08:48 PM
News came in last night Burlington Coat Factory is planned in a converted mosque in Buraidah, Saudi Arabia http://bit.ly/a8Vys1
Posted by: sen de | August 21, 2010 at 10:15 AM