My blog yesterday on what I found to be a sanctimonious Keith Olbermann commentary suggesting that opposition to the proposed community/mosque near Ground Zero stemmed from anti-Muslim bigotry drew some comments.

Martin S. wrote:

HOW ABOUT SOME SENSITIVITY TOWARDS
THE MORE THAN 3000 SOULS WHO
LOST
THEIR LIVES ON THAT TERRIBLE DAY??
WHAT ABOUT THEIR FAMILIES
AND
FRIENDS??

That is, in my view, what this issue is about. As Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League writes in the Huffington Post regarding his group’s principled opposition to the facility, “At its essence, our position is about sensitivity. Everyone — victims,
opponents and proponents alike — must pay attention to the sensitivities
involved without giving in to appeals to, or accusations of, bigotry.
Ultimately, this was not a question of rights, but a question of what is right.
In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade
Center would unnecessarily cause some victims more pain. And that wasn’t right.”

Later in that same piece he adds “The lessons of an earlier and different controversy echo in this one. In
1993, Pope John Paul II asked 14 Carmelite Nuns to move their convent from just
outside the Auschwitz death camp. The establishment of the convent near
Auschwitz had stirred dismay among Jewish groups and survivors who felt that the
location was an affront and a terrible disservice to the memory of millions of
Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Just as we thought then that well-meaning efforts by Carmelite nuns to build
a Catholic structure were insensitive and counterproductive to reconciliation,
so too we believe it will be with building a mosque so close to Ground Zero.

The better way for Muslims seeking reconciliation and moderation would have
been for them to reach out to the families of the victims, who we are sure could
have recommended any number of actions to achieve those goals other than the
present plan.

To make this a test of whether one supports religious freedom or is
stereotyping Muslims is to engage in demagoguery. Good people can differ as to
what should happen, without falsely being accused of abandoning their
principles.”

In responding to my blog yesterday R.H. wrote:

People seem to forget that Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attack, as well.
Those terrorists were not their brothers. Anyone offended by a community center
(or even a mosque) being built near ground zero is poorly informed. Keep in
mind, also, that there is already a mosque four blocks North of ground zero. And
there is a strip club within two blocks. Really, you think a community center is
offensive? Please. I think the ONLY concern in this issue is that some ignorant
racist/religist will try to bomb the place once its built.

Your point about Muslims being among those killed on 9/11 is a good one which should be remembered by everyone. Certainly the vast majority of Muslims do not identify with those that attempted to hijack their religion fateful day (and continue in that attempt to this day).

But, while the vast majority of Germans aren’t Nazis, one would hope they’d have the sensitivity not to open a $100 million 13 story German Cultural Center two blocks away from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Nor would we expect the Japanese (our friends today) to open a similar facility that close to Pearl Harbor. Such common-sense sensitivity is not about being anti-German or anti-Japanese, it’s about one group of people showing decent respect toward another.

And, R.H., regarding your point that there is already a mosque about four blocks north of Ground Zero, I would think the lack of opposition to that would ease your concerns that opposition to the proposed center is anti-Muslim. No one is trying to chase Muslims out of the area.  

And, about the strip club you note also operates in the area, I fail to see the relevance. 

And, BTW, I agree with you that, should this facility open, it should not be taken as an excuse for violence by anyone opposed to it.  

Someone identifying himself (or herself) as “Poor” wrote:

“…wait… extremists who twist their religion to their own ends to justify
abhorrent acts…that sounds vaguely familiar but I can’t place
it.”

I guess that’s a reference to the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals which are, in fact, “abhorrent.” But to my knowledge no one in the Church has sought to justify those heinous acts either by twisting the Catholic faith or through any other means.  Wrong is wrong and while it certainly can be argued that the Church needs to do more to reform itself in the wake of those scandals and cover-ups, I don’t know of any Catholic who has even tried to justify them.

So, cheap shot. 

Soudan42 commented by quoting my contention that “Most people would, in fact, agree that it would be wrong to build a
Christian church on or very near a Native- American burial
ground” and asked:

Have you been to Wounded Knee?

Well, no I haven’t.  I really should go though since it has been declared a National Historic Landmark. According to the page devoted to Wounded Knee on National Park Service’s website site “Dominating the pleasant pastoral scene is the modern church of the Sacred Heart
Mission, a simple white frame structure. It stands atop a low hill on the
approximate site of the Hotchkiss battery. Behind the church, in the cemetery,
is the mass grave of the Indians who died in the battle and the Big Foot
Massacre Memorial, erected by the Sioux Indians in 1903.”

So that’s a fair point. I guess I’d have to learn more about the feelings of the descendents of the Sioux people who died there to form an opinion on it but, again, a fair point.

Kat wrote:

“Just wonder if maybe people have allowed this to get blown way out of
perspective. Hypothetically speaking, I think Israelis would have been delighted
if the Al Aqsa mosque was built two blocks north of the temple mount instead of
on top of it. What makes two blocks a “still too near hallowed ground”
yardstick? Who created this yardstick and does he/she have political motives for
doing so?“

I can’t speak to the Al-Aqsa Mosque issue but your point about the two-block yardstick at Ground Zero is certainly fair. All I can say is that many (though not all) of the families of the 9/11 victims seem to think it’s too close. I think those feelings are reasonable and should be respected. If they were calling for no mosques anywhere in New York City I’d think they were going too far and would say so.

Finally, Pete wrote:

“Not looking like your response is getting the attention you were hoping for, but
is getting the attention it deserves. Olbermann was right and your were not.” 

True. I wish everyone agreed with me about everything — and I suppose it is possible that Keith Olbermann is right and I am wrong. There is that whole principle about the broken clock being right twice a day (it’s up to you to decide which one of us is the broken clock). I will say I shouldn’t have called Mr. Olbermann “sanctimonious.” I really don’t like name calling in arguments and I shouldn’t have stooped to it.

So, sorry, Keith. I hope you don’t think I’m the Worst Person in the World.