The Ground Zero Mosque: Could the Archbishop of New York Be a Mediator?
Published in Le Devoir
(Canada) on 23 August 2010
by Jean-Claude Leclerc (link to original)
(Canada) on 23 August 2010
by Jean-Claude Leclerc (link to original)
Translated from
by Lauren Messina .
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
New York City’s Catholic Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan has offered to mediate in the controversy over the proposed Muslim center in Manhattan. In fact, the “mosque at Ground Zero” has become a serious bone of contention. Neither Mayor Michael Bloomberg, nor the American president, Barack Obama, have been able to calm dissent. But the archbishop might be the man who can.
Less dramatic than the project in Manhattan, there has been another mosque project in Staten Island that provoked an equally strong opposition. The parish priest of St. Margaret Mary, Father Keith Fennessey, agreed with a Muslim organization in May that a convent attic could serve as a mosque. At this news, debate soon raged in the local community. What would the church authorities decide?
In June, a community association invited Muslim developers to participate in a public dialogue. Paul Vitello, A New York Times journalist, gave an example of one of the questions asked by a woman at the meeting, “Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?" Ayman Hammous, a representative of the Muslim American Society, had no time to finish his answer before outcries and boos erupted from the 400 people who filled the gymnasium.
One participant, Joan Moriello, said that she had spoken to the FBI that morning, wondering why this Muslim society was “on the terrorist watch list.” Murmur in the room. “Your information is incorrect, madam,” replied Hammous. And the questions continued. “Is Sharia law better than democracy in your view?” “How do you feel about the role of women in society?” “What are your views on Israel?” “Can you point to any single statement in the Koran that you would consider to be incorrect?”
Uproar in the gym. A few minutes before the police asked people to leave, however, there was a moment of silence. Bill Finnegan, a Marine back from Afghanistan, said he had been mediating between warring tribes. Standing ovation. He asked Muslims whether they would forge links with the people of this community. “Yes,” they said. Finnegan turned to the crowd, “Will you agree to forge links with these people — your new neighbors?” The crowd erupted in boos.
In late July, the Catholic authorities released their response. It was "no." However, among the committee members other than the priest who were deciding, there were two trustees and two representatives of the archdiocese, including Archbishop Dolan. A spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, would not say if the archbishop took part in the deliberations or the vote. But it’s known that the committee “voted to ratify the pastor’s decision.”
In short, we can conclude that the archbishop of New York rejected the sale of the convent. Since then, the promoters of the local mosque have also resolved to seek a place of worship for the neighborhood Muslims. But can the archbishop still be a mediator in the case for Ground Zero?
Though refusing to answer questions from the New York Times, in a radio interview, Archbishop Dolan defended Muslims’ religious freedom while encouraging developers from midtown Manhattan to accommodate people that are seen as an affront to the memory of the victims of 9/11.
The archbishop’s idea seems to be an “alternative” solution to the controversial project in Manhattan. Certainly, no particular religious or cultural project could be located there without regard for the circumstances or the environment. But, coincidentally, several other mosque projects are being blocked in various cities throughout the United States.
If New York can no longer get along with Muslims, what fate awaits a request of this nature presented elsewhere in the American democracy? The New York area has about 600,000 Muslims. If we believe the polls, Americans for the most part are revealed to be if not hostile, then negative toward them and their fellow worshippers in this country.
One can detect confusion [in differentiating] between Muslims and extremists as the result of the trauma remaining in the American mindset since 9/11. But in this widening gap, we cannot minimize the undermining, the propaganda and the exploitation that pollute the country’s media, and the devastation of which is spreading on the Internet.
In such context, especially on the eve of an election, if the parties and candidates count the votes that they hope to win in violation of the rights that they trample, should we be surprised? More worrisome, on the other hand, is the wait, if not the evasion, of the Catholic hierarchy. The Church appears, in fact, to be unable to find a path through this field strewn with prejudices and fears, if not hatred.
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President George W. Bush presided over the grieving families and victims of the American people in a special ceremony where Christians, Jews and Muslims were represented. But since then, the country’s Muslims have been left to face more and more discrimination in America.
The Muslims in New York, we learn, are not closed to a compromise. They have much to do in order to avoid creating a precedent that would be detrimental to themselves. However, by allowing fanatics to prevail against them in a single parish, has the Church not also abandoned it’s own supporters?
Many worry about signs such as these in a society that is becoming increasingly tempted by intolerance.
Less dramatic than the project in Manhattan, there has been another mosque project in Staten Island that provoked an equally strong opposition. The parish priest of St. Margaret Mary, Father Keith Fennessey, agreed with a Muslim organization in May that a convent attic could serve as a mosque. At this news, debate soon raged in the local community. What would the church authorities decide?
In June, a community association invited Muslim developers to participate in a public dialogue. Paul Vitello, A New York Times journalist, gave an example of one of the questions asked by a woman at the meeting, “Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?" Ayman Hammous, a representative of the Muslim American Society, had no time to finish his answer before outcries and boos erupted from the 400 people who filled the gymnasium.
One participant, Joan Moriello, said that she had spoken to the FBI that morning, wondering why this Muslim society was “on the terrorist watch list.” Murmur in the room. “Your information is incorrect, madam,” replied Hammous. And the questions continued. “Is Sharia law better than democracy in your view?” “How do you feel about the role of women in society?” “What are your views on Israel?” “Can you point to any single statement in the Koran that you would consider to be incorrect?”
Uproar in the gym. A few minutes before the police asked people to leave, however, there was a moment of silence. Bill Finnegan, a Marine back from Afghanistan, said he had been mediating between warring tribes. Standing ovation. He asked Muslims whether they would forge links with the people of this community. “Yes,” they said. Finnegan turned to the crowd, “Will you agree to forge links with these people — your new neighbors?” The crowd erupted in boos.
In late July, the Catholic authorities released their response. It was "no." However, among the committee members other than the priest who were deciding, there were two trustees and two representatives of the archdiocese, including Archbishop Dolan. A spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, would not say if the archbishop took part in the deliberations or the vote. But it’s known that the committee “voted to ratify the pastor’s decision.”
In short, we can conclude that the archbishop of New York rejected the sale of the convent. Since then, the promoters of the local mosque have also resolved to seek a place of worship for the neighborhood Muslims. But can the archbishop still be a mediator in the case for Ground Zero?
Though refusing to answer questions from the New York Times, in a radio interview, Archbishop Dolan defended Muslims’ religious freedom while encouraging developers from midtown Manhattan to accommodate people that are seen as an affront to the memory of the victims of 9/11.
The archbishop’s idea seems to be an “alternative” solution to the controversial project in Manhattan. Certainly, no particular religious or cultural project could be located there without regard for the circumstances or the environment. But, coincidentally, several other mosque projects are being blocked in various cities throughout the United States.
If New York can no longer get along with Muslims, what fate awaits a request of this nature presented elsewhere in the American democracy? The New York area has about 600,000 Muslims. If we believe the polls, Americans for the most part are revealed to be if not hostile, then negative toward them and their fellow worshippers in this country.
One can detect confusion [in differentiating] between Muslims and extremists as the result of the trauma remaining in the American mindset since 9/11. But in this widening gap, we cannot minimize the undermining, the propaganda and the exploitation that pollute the country’s media, and the devastation of which is spreading on the Internet.
In such context, especially on the eve of an election, if the parties and candidates count the votes that they hope to win in violation of the rights that they trample, should we be surprised? More worrisome, on the other hand, is the wait, if not the evasion, of the Catholic hierarchy. The Church appears, in fact, to be unable to find a path through this field strewn with prejudices and fears, if not hatred.
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President George W. Bush presided over the grieving families and victims of the American people in a special ceremony where Christians, Jews and Muslims were represented. But since then, the country’s Muslims have been left to face more and more discrimination in America.
The Muslims in New York, we learn, are not closed to a compromise. They have much to do in order to avoid creating a precedent that would be detrimental to themselves. However, by allowing fanatics to prevail against them in a single parish, has the Church not also abandoned it’s own supporters?
Many worry about signs such as these in a society that is becoming increasingly tempted by intolerance.
Previous article![]( "Obama Defeated by Mosque?")
Next article![]( "What Comes After the Withdrawal?")