The "Ground Zero Mosque" and Newt "the Xenophobe" Gingrich

I received an email recently that was basically from a Newt Gingrich newsletter (http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-statement-proposed-mosqueislamic-community-center-near-ground-zero).  By the way, note how I'm documenting my sources so you can go read more on what I'm wriitng about and find out more about it. It is important that we strive to be informed readers and make informed decisions.  Jumping to conclusions rarely provides any good results.

He begins with:

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

I was quickly turned off by the insinuation that the US government should conduct itself the same as Saudi Arabia, which is a virtual theocracy.  Newt Gingrich is a smart guy; he knows this isn't realistic (goes against our constitution); ergo, he is being disingenuous, or even worse, encouraging bigotry. 

Now, I'm a smart guy.  I know how to check sources.  I call it looking things up, so I read the rest of his newsletter as I wanted to check his assertions.  He of course cites no sources; he could be making it all up for all I know.

Here's a good article from USA Today of all places checking some of the facts if you want to just skip over my points:  http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=cincinnati&sParam=34321137.story

First off, he calls it a mosque.  The groups planning it never called it a mosque.  It was called Cordoba House and while it had a muslim prayer center inside it (a mosque no doubt), it is intended to be a Muslim cultural center open to the public--atypical for most muslim facilities. (http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm).  They changed the name to Park 51 project after the objections to the reference to Cordoba, Spain. Secondly, it's not being built on ground zero and I wouldn't even consider it near ground zero though I suppose that's up to what you consider to be close. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are other muslim facilities as close if not closer to ground zero.

Let's talk about the Mosque in Cordoba Spain for a minute.  Newt says:

Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to "symbolize interfaith cooperation" when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex. 

Well after doing some research you'll find that the mosque of Cordoba is actually a Cathedral (in Spain--a country with strong ties to Roman Catholicism, ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?).  It was converted to a mosque for a while (during a time of muslim conquest though I'm pretty sure there was some Christian conquest going on at the same time). However, it has been a cathedral for around 1,000 yrs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mosque_of_C%C3%B3rdoba).  Cordoba actually is a city where major religions have coexisted peacefully for hundreds of years, (though I think it's mostly Catholic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B3rdoba,_Spain).  In fact, Muslims are petitioning to worship in the Cathedral but the bishop has had to draw the line on that one (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100818/muslims-lobbying-to-worship-in-spains-cordoba-cathedral).

It's worth mentioning that if we looked hard enough we could find plenty of places around the world where people of different cultures and different beliefs live side by side harmoniously with little to no conflict other  than your typical petty arguments that all human beings are capable of.  But I think it's easier to find more places where conflicts exist and with them come rhetoric like Newt Gingrich's (often initiated and sustained with such rhetoric).  The last thing we need is to promote the same kind of conflicts here in the US. 

I should probably devote another post to Gingrich's newsletter responding to it paragraph by paragraph.  As for this post, my argument is that Gingrich's rhetoric is disingenous and more importantly, encourages fear and anger towards muslims and even aggression.  His second last sentence is, "No surrender."  Gimme a break, dude.  Extremist and evil doers are all around us.  A group that wants to bring some economic stimulus to an area and try to enlighten not just non-believers but also enlighten and set an example for those who practice Islam around the world is not at war with us.  As is often the case, how a message is received is often as important as how it's delivered.  Gingrich's rhetoric tells me that peace is not something he is interested in and he'll distort the facts to accomplish this.

As far as the project goes, there are two things that are important: 1) Transparency on the part of those funding the project.  It would not surprise me to find individuals with ties to foreign governments involved in this.  I don't think that this should prevent it from being built but I would be wary.  Also (2), sensitivity to those directly affected by 9-11 should be addressed.  Again, this shouldn't prevent it from being built but this issue shouldn't be ignored.  I see an opportunity here for good things to happen as opposed to a cultural war.  Perhaps devoting a part of the center to interfaith understanding would be a smart move.

A couple other notes to Gingrich and his audience:

• comparing New York to Mecca is falacious.  This is an extension of his falacious comparison of Saudi Arabia to the United States.  The rule of law is different in this country, thank goodness, than Saudi Arabia's.
• Gingrich's rhetorical devices are startlingly close to the rhetoric terrorists organizations use to recruit.  They try to make their audience believe they are under attack, that they are being deceived, and they distort facts to create distrust.  And probably most important, they make their audience seem like the enemy is directly responsible for their every day struggles.