The Cordoba Initiative Hardens Differences
The current controversy over this project, and the hardening of positions on all sides, was almost certainly anticipated in advance. I think Victor Davis Hanson got it right. The initial choice of the title, "Cordoba House" for the (now) Park51 complex and the continued use of "Cordoba Initiative" for the project means different things to different people:
"Cordoba is as much a mythical construct of a long-ago multicultural paradise so dear to elite liberals as it is a fantasy rallying cry to Islamists to reclaim the lost Al-Andalus. . . So Cordoba is a two-birds-with-one-stone evocation: in the liberal West proof of one’s ecumenical bona fides; in the Middle East proof of one’s Islamist bona fides."But even beyond Islamist vs. multiculturalist fantasies about Cordoba, there are reports of Muslim scholars who are convinced that this is a Jewish plot to connect Islam with 9/11.
Everything is so simple to proponents of multiculturalism like Mr. Schlesinger. The "new nativism" in America, as characterized by over-the-top statements by a distant third-place candidate in a primary election in Tennessee, can be the only explanation for the widespread disapproval of the "Cordoba Initiative". Because multiculturalists are in a "group think" intellectual world, they believe that everyone else must think the same way.
And Mr. Schlesinger is certain that this project would "enrage" bin Laden. How does he know that? Hasn't bin Laden repeated western liberal talking points in his most recent messages to the world?
Why wouldn't he be happy about the completion of an Islamic cultural center topped by two floors of mosque, erected in place of a building which had been damaged by parts of one of the 9/11 planes, scheduled to be opened on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, when the Ground Zero memorial will not even be finished? Even if the backers say that they are trying to promote understanding between "people of the book" (excluding atheists and practitioners of Eastern religions, of course)?
Positions do seem to be hardening. People pick out the most extreme positions to characterize others' views. For example, concerning a previous comment, I don't thnk that most honor killings are conducted in accordance with sharia law, or that genital mutilation is part of sharia law, even though both practices occur with impunity in areas where sharia law is considered to be the law of the land. On the other hand, Mr. Schlesinger should not pretend that sharia law is not making inroads in several countries where Muslims are currently pushing against western-style law.
Seriously, VDH has some fascinating thoughts on the cynical brilliance of this project, plus some corrective world history.
And here, he debates Alan Dershowitz concerning the ADL's opposition. Other contributors at VDH's website: Raymond Ibrahim and a "citixen comment" by Karen Lugo.
RELATED: From Twitter
Jim Treacher:
How about "Not-at-Ground-Zero Mosque-Type-Structure for People Who May or May Not Be Muslims, Not That We're Judging"? Kind of a mouthful...
New rule: Turning down a job is now a violation of religious freedom.
If construction crews refuse to work on the #911DebrisFieldMosque, then the religious-freedom-fighters will. Pack a lunch,
Iowahawk:
Of all the arguments in favor of the mosque, I think the "opponents are subhuman racists" one is the most persuasive.
But it's not the one Howard Dean is making. For a change.
No comments:
Post a Comment