Tuesday, May 24, 2016 Iyyar 16, 5776

What the Mosque Debate Says About Public Discourse

October 14, 2010 By:
Leonard A. Cole
Posted In 

In an address at the recent annual meeting of the Anti-Defamation League, national director Abraham Foxman urged decent people to speak out against anti-Muslim bigotry. Ordinarily, this worthy plea would hardly merit special notice. It is, after all, consistent with the century-old organization's mission to fight prejudice. But it is also a reminder of the ill-founded criticisms of ADL's stance against building an Islamic community center and mosque near the ground-zero site.

The sponsors of the project ostensibly wanted it to promote peace and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims. Instead, the proposal has become mired in dissension and ugly accusations. The tensions became worse after a barrage of self-righteous reactions to the ADL's statement on July 28.

By any fair measure, the statement was civil and restrained. It deplored the bigotry expressed by some opponents of the mosque, and it recognized the right of proponents to build near the location of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The organization also acknowledged the anguish felt by many victims; a mosque there would cause them more pain, the statement said, and would be "counterproductive to the healing process."

Before then, the public debate had been animated, but hardly histrionic. That changed after the ADL statement, when the organization itself became a target of mosque supporters. Conciliation through civil discourse grew more elusive as fury directed at the organization became unforgiving.

Among the first to pounce was Fareed Zakaria, then a foreign affairs columnist for Newsweek and host of a CNN interview program. He wrote to Foxman that he was stunned by the ADL's decision to side with those who favored relocating the mosque, and announced that he was returning an award and cash prize he had received from the organization.

Zakaria urged the ADL to admit error and reverse its position, saying that it's "a small price to pay to regain your reputation." He repeated his admonition in his column and on TV, as if the organization could not be reminded often enough of its purported indiscretion.

Even if one disagrees with its conclusion, the ADL's measured assessment hardly merited a scolding. In truth, the statement's sensitivity to the concerns of the 9/11 victims, as well as to the rights of Muslims, was exemplary. Yet the remarks by Zakaria and subsequent comments by others condemned the organization as if it was championing bigotry.

For a while, the ADL was buffeted like a pinball in a maze of bumpers. The New York Times editorialized that its decision was inexcusable, and that the organization had "eagerly piled on with the opponents of the mosque." Writers in publications from coast to coast called the ADL's position "ill-advised" (Los Angeles Times), "terrible" (The Atlantic), "despicable" (The Nation) and "bigoted" (The Washington Post). Talk about piling on!

Denunciations of the ADL died down after a few weeks, but the media tilt in favor of the mosque persisted. Network television frequently posed the issue as if only one side deserved a hearing. ABC's Christiane Amanpour, for example, held forth with two panelists, both eager that the Islamic center be built. One was Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who headed the mosque project.

Is America Islamophobic? Amanpour asked Khan. Beyond Islamophobic, Khan answered. "It's hate of Muslims," she said.

Then, Khan insisted there would be no compromise about the mosque, saying that "it has to go ahead. There's so much at stake."

Amanpour, evidently content with Khan's position, did not respond, and the interview ended.

In fact, the ADL's stance mirrors that of most Americans. A CBS poll at the end of August indicated that 72 percent of the public believed that the mosque should be located elsewhere. Still, rigid advocates continued to assail opponents as bigots or enablers of bigots. If true, not only would this label apply to the ADL, but, just as absurdly, to prominent political figures including Democrats Harry Reid, Howard Dean and New York Gov. David Paterson, as well as Republicans George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin.

However the contest of wills turns out, absolutist approaches are bound to fuel continued antagonism. The losers would likely carry resentment far into the future. A reasonable outcome would involve neither establishing a mosque near ground zero nor debasing its well-intentioned advocates. A solution could come in the form of a different sort of edifice at that location -- one expressly dedicated to interfaith engagement.

Meanwhile, rhetorical excesses need to be tempered. A good start might be acknowledgment by Fareed Zakaria that the ADL was not far off the mark after all.

Leonard A. Cole, an adjunct professor in the division of global affairs at Rutgers University, is the author of Terror: How Israel Has Coped and What America Can Learn.

Comments on this Article