-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Blake Hounshell
Monday, August 2, 2010 - 11:32 AM
Share
The controversy over a prospective mosque and community center in lower Manhattan reached fever pitch late last month, starting when former vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin called on "Peaceful Muslims" to "pls refudiate" the project via her Twitter feed. She was soon joined by Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's call to prevent the building of any mosques near Ground Zero "so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia" -- thereby embracing Riyadh's medieval notions of religious freedom.
Bizarrely, the Anti-Defamation League embraced their cause last week, if not their arguments, putting out a statement "recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center" on the grounds that the project had become too controversial. (Peter Beinart discusses the ADL's strange turn in the Daily Beast today.)
What's particularly tragic about all this is that the people behind the so-called Ground Zero mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, are precisely the moderate Muslims that everyone recognizes are an important bulwark against extremism. They say their aim is, "steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions." Here's the head of the Cordoba Initiative, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, speaking to FP in a 2006 interview about some controversial remarks Pope Benedict had just made about Islam:
The burning of churches and things like that are completely antithetical to the teachings and principles of Islam. While we may have our grounds for disagreeing and some of us may disagree strongly with the remarks that the Holy Father quoted, and while it might be offensive, destruction was not warranted by Islamic thought or jurisprudence.
The United States has largely avoided sectarian strife thus far, to Americans' great credit. But that may be changing, if even a guy like Imam Feisal is considered beyond the pale.
So what are we to make of this latest outburst of stupidity?
To me, the most interesting question is: Why now, nearly a decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, has anti-Muslim sentiment on the right gotten so virulent? There are clearly a couple factors at work -- primary season, the election of Barack Hussein Obama, the recent failed attacks in Chicago and Times Square -- but perhaps the most decisive is the absence of the most powerful voice for tolerance among American conservatives.
That's right, I'm talking about George W. Bush. Much as Muslims around the world may have despised his foreign policy and his interrogation and detention policies, the former president spoke out repeatedly and eloquently against attacks on Muslims, and visited an Islamic center several days after 9/11 to send the message that Muslims were not the enemy. He may not have much standing in the Islamic community today, but he still retains a broad following on the right.
But with Dubya now offstage, there are no conservatives left of stature who can push back against the insanity. Here's hoping Bush speaks out.
While he did start the war in Iraq, domestically, Bush defended Muslims and wasn’t afraid of being seen with them. Even when Democratic and Republican members of Congress protested the Dubai ports deal, Bush spoke out against anti-Muslim sentiment.
its because of the neocon clash of the civilization narrative
through the media they are able to shape the narrative. regardless of who goes to the white house, the conservative media empire still has much sway over the discourse in our country.
I understand and respect the concepts you are advocating, but come on, there's something unseemly about this; if they really want to promote dialogue, why not make it an inter-faith center? It's not like we're going to have a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor, so why not move it or change it from Islam to a place all faiths can share?
The analogy of shinto is not right but your point is
Shintoism had nothing to do with Pearl harbor. People that did and planned 9/11 used Islam to justify what they did. Thus it got associated with Islam. Rightly or Wrongly.
There is no legal or moral justification to prevent someone from building a mosque there. But it is imperative upon Muslims to just defer to the symbolism. Show some respect, and voluntarily decide not to build a mosque. Even though in their minds Islam had nothing to do with 9/11, it just bears powerful and painful symbolism for the people who suffered.
I could think of another analogy. What if Hindus and Jains purchased land around Auschwitz and erected Swastikas there. As many of you know, Hindus and Jains use Swastika as their sacred symbol for over three millennia and in true sense that had nothing to do with the Nazis. Even then we would not quite feel right about that would we?
If New Yorkers want to build...
...a community center with a mosque or other place of Islamic worship within it, why not? When have any of the rest of us ever tried to tell a New Yorker what to built where in New York, if they want to?
Since religious extremism, rather than Islam, was the cause of 9/11, why not call for a voluntary ban on building any religious building or monument near Ground Zero? Or would it be okay if the new community centre was being built by, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church rather than moderate muslims?
Why did only unborn MALE babies die from miscarriages as a result of stress from 911? Are female fetuses immune to miscarriage or are women pregnant with girls naturally stress-free?
Well, more male than female it seems
KA probably should have left gender out, but I have read that males are more susceptible to stress in the womb. Here's a link to the first item Google found on the subject:
http://news.discovery.com/human/september-11-miscarriages-boys.html
If Christians working in Saudi Arabia are forbidden to build churches in Mecca, or any other city there, where they can practice their religion in the open and in peace. Therefore, there should not be allowed any Mosque near the Ground Zero, which many Americans consider it as sacred ground to their dead.
Religious tolerance must be both way, not only the West giving, and for Islamists to take.
I don't think it's a good idea for America to mirror Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights.
That kind of thinking is very destructive sababa, have you read the piece they have in Slate on this?
http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/
Well-said and brief on something that should be largely self-evident
I love the author's assumption that only crazy rightwingers disagree with the placement of the huge Mosque near Ground Zero. The post basically said, 'how can we stop these conservative bigots from winning the debate and preventing the Mosque from being placed in it's rightful place, right by Ground Zero'. The last hilarious partisan aspect of the post was the backhanded compliment to former President Bush. The post basically stated 'Besides being an awful President who treated Muslims very poorly, Bush spoke the right words once in a while.'
Mr. Hounshell,
One doesn't need to be a radical rightwing to find a problem with the placement of a huge Mosque near Ground Zero. In fact a majority of Americans believe it should not be placed there according to Rasmussen, http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/local_news/manhattan/Rasmussen-Poll-Most-Oppose-Mosque-Near-Ground-Zero_8789239. One can make a very valid argument in favor of placing the Mosque there without lazy partisan attacks.
Intellectually Lazy, Partizan Post
I have to agree with P. Frost's assessment of this analysis. Claiming that only biggotted, right-wing zealots object to the Cordoba Initiative's "Islamic Community Center" is a straw man argument. One can legitimately argue that the First Amendment guarantees the right of anyone to build a religious structure on that location. From a legal perspective, it is up to local building officials and they have already approved the project to the best of my knowledge.
However, a reasonable person can object to a proposed "Islamic Community Center" about 500 feet from the location of the worst Islamic terrorist attack in U.S. history. The building in question was close enough to be damaged by parts of at least one of the two planes used on Sept. 11, 2001. I lost a grad school classmate that day, but others lost wives, husbands, etc. So it is possible to say "yes, they have a right to build it there but they should not do it" because it is offensive to the victims.
Let's consider the motivation CLAIMED by the Cordoba Initiative. A YMCA-like community center sounds reasonable... until you ask "Is there a Muslim community there?" The answer to that question is "NO!". They say "It is not a mosque," but Muslims already are conducting religious services there. Many apparently come from NYU which isn't exactly located next door. The most farcical claim is that their intention is to bring Muslims and Americans closer together. If that were true, they would simply sell their rights to the property (at a tidy profit BTW) and locate closer to a Muslim community as soon as the public outcry began. They made the concious choice not to do the reasonable thing, and that calls into question their motivations.
Finally, the Imam leading the Cordoba initiative has a stated objective of making the U.S. judicial system "compatible with Sharia". The only legal system compatible with Sharia IS Sharia. It certainly isn't compatible with the Bill of Rights. I, for one, never want to see Sharia law take precedence in the U.S. judicial system. The British have already started down that slippery slope and it is not going well for English Common Law.
If the preceding comments and observations make me a biggotted, right-wing lunatic, then I am sorely confused.
As a New Yorker, who had friends who were murdered at the WTC
on 9/11, I'm offended by the mosque. I find the idea that New Yorkers need to learn tolerance from that event to be quite insulting. It's a big city, and has been pointed out elsewhere, there are other mosques that provide religious sanctuary to the Muslim community in the five boroughs. But the Cordoba House is not being built as just a mosque. It's placement and size make it an ediface to those who sent the bombers in the first place. In short, it comes across as a Triumphal Arch, and not as a site of healing and remorse.
.
Imam Rauf wants to build a 'community'? Fine, there's enough space in New York City to do that. But within blocks of the World Trade Center? No. It is as ugly a response as the $10 million offered by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, or Prince Ahmed bin Salman who offered his race horse as compensation for the 3,000 that were slaughtered that day. And while not exact, the Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor, or Jain shrine at Auschitz are apt common denominator examples.
Truthfully though, If , Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to spread tolerance, let him go to the Arab and Muslim world and spread tolerance there. It was the UN that pointed out the level of religious intolerance in the Muslim world. Perhaps a dialogue should begin amongst themselves. The idea that New Yorkers have the need to learn tolerance after 9/11 is quite repugnant. If there are moderate Muslims out there, good. Let them go to their bretheren and speak to them. Perhaps a travelling exhibit or House would be better so that he can go through the Arab and Muslim world explaining the need for such tolerance.
As for why now? Let's see, first off, it is now when they are attempting to build such an ediface. It is now, nearly 10 years after 9/11, that we have seen subsequent attacks and planned attacks by Muslims on Americans. We have seen the Christmas day underwear bomber. We have seen the Fort Hood massacre. We have seen the Times Square Bomber. And that's just locally.
.
Further abroad we have witnessed the intolerance of Muslims in many European nations, rioting on the basis of political cartoons and the murder and attempted murder of the artists behind this and other politically sensitive productions, such as the death of Theo van Gogh.
.
And that's against the infidels. In the Muslim world itself, you have intolerance on a daily basis in the form of honor killings, suicide bomber attacks against minority mosques, riots against Christians (Malaysia when churches used the word Allah for God), and death sentences against women for supposed adultery in Iran, and Sorcery in Saudia Arabia.
.
So let the good Imam go and confront the intolerance at its core, and not at the ground of its targets.
Mr. Blues, first my condolences for your losses due to the 9/11 attacks, I also lost a good friend that day. However, despite our shared grief, I can not agree with your arguments.
Yes, there are other places this mosque/learning center/cultural center could be built, but there is no reason it can't be built on the proposed site except for the knee-jerk reaction of people like yourself.
Imam Rauf and his clergy were not responsible for 9/11, and they should not be punished because their proposed site coincides with the site of the 9/11 attack. Picking out the worst aspects of Islam and saying it characterizes the entire religion is simply ignorant. Imam Rauf is attempting to bring moderate Islam to New Yorkers, but the actions of panicky Americans in vilifying his actions are shameful and dangerous. Why should Muslims believe they can be integrated into American society when Americans act like this?
This is America, where religious freedom is one of our paramount virtues. Our tolerance of religions we might not agree with is what separates us from oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and gives us the moral high ground (if you're into that kind of thing) over allied states like France. If we can't allow that freedom when it comes to this, what is the point of saying we uphold religious freedom?
Excellent post Jacob and I agree with what your saying. I cannot be tolerant of a "religion" that teaches that infidels should be killed if they will not convert. This is not a religion of peace but of hate.
Thanks for your well thought out & intelligent post.
Michelle
I can't believe what I'm reading. If by "religion of hate" you refer to passages in the Koran which condone violence, try reading Deuteronomy. If you refer to fundamentalist clerics who exhort Muslims to wage jihad on Americans, try to recall the lives lost in abortion clinic bombings right here in our back yard. The point is that the most extreme aspects of Islam represent a small minority who justify their actions on a literal interpretation of holy text, just like fundamentalist Christians do right here in America.
Based on your reasoning, you must not be tolerant of Christianity either. But I doubt you hold the same prejudices against Christians.
MR WATER,
It is not about substance, it is about symbolism
Imagine someone let's call him Mr. Niner . Unfortunately Mr niner is a witness to a horrible crime! That of his family getting hacked by an 8 inch Chef's kitchen knife.
Now, a good chef, lets call him Mr. Raufcook is his neighbor! He has a valid point that kitchen knife is not used for hacking he loves his knives and has a big collection of those. He wants to prove to Mr. Niner that it is just a utensil. Every time Mr. Niner walks by him, he comes out and sharpens one of his knives. He claims this is done so Mr. Niner will forget what the knife did to his family and learn the true use of the knife.
Now is Mr. Raufcook legally wrong? Does Mr. Niner have a point?
Should Mr. Raufcook go sharpen his knife somewhere else ? If Mr. Niner, objects to that sharpening, would you call him Knifophobic?
Would you put the freedom of Mr. Raufcook's sharpening over Mr. Niner's pain?
I don't miss the point at all.
I get the analogy, but I simply don't buy that a moderate-brand of Islam's mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero is traumatic to the point that we should rescind our support for freedom of religion. So to play the analogy, yes I would put the freedom of sharpening knives over Mr. Niner's pain.
I agree 100% with what you said. While it's true now that their freedom of religious expression is not being taken away, my feeling was that making the site a historical landmark was an attempt to make an end run around their religious rights.
I don't disagree that the mosque could be put in another location, and in fact that may be the most sensible solution, but my qualms were with people saying they should not be allowed to build in that spot for x or y reason--which at the root I suspect is merely intolerance veiled as the agony of a traumatic experience.
"...but no more irrational than believing that some scimitar wielding, polygamist Bedouin in the Arabian desert was spoken to by G-d. "
Who, you mean Abraham?
How about creating a center for inter-faith dialogue?
... or a hub of peaceful co-existence? Do we need 'places of worship' to remember G-d? Do we need to pose and dress-up in a certain way to remind ourselves of G-d's existence?
I don't know nothing about religion, any religion that is. I do, however, understand that mankind has lost faith in itself. Can we just stop for a minute and take stock of the situation?
There is too much at stake as far as humanity is concerned. Why build a structure that can bring back memories of pain and suffering? Why complicate matters even more than they already are? Why create apprehensions in the minds of folks who have been impacted by a historically nerve-wrecking event? Why give the fundamentalists a chance to make further inroads into an uncertain environment?
Give me a break guys - I'm fed up of this symbolism. Can we cease to be Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and work together for a better world? Lets take it down a notch; why not say it loud and clear that we are one?
Come on, forget about this mosque; relax our nerves and put our differences behind us. Let's bring in volunteers, academics, philosophers, educationists from all major faiths and try to bring people together.
Have you even read a newspaper? That's what this building is! It's a muslim community center, designed to reach out to other religions as well, with ONE ROOM to pray in.
Hypocracy all over the position of mosque
When I see the arguments of all these people who oppose the mosque , only one word comes to my mind : hypocracy.
Remember the US destroyed Okinawa during the war and thousands of innocent Japanese were butchered by the US army over there. Still the US can keep a military base over there when clearly the people in the Okinawa do not want it.
Now how many of these opponents of the mosque have got balls to oppose the presence of any US military bases in Okinawa ? I would love to know.
Are you saying Islam won the war?
Because DEBANJAN not everyone has his brains in his balls whether it concerns Okinawa, Mosques, Ground Zero or elsewhere.
AS I recall, a Japanese PM recently elected in a landslide had to quit because his tangled up views which coincide with your position were inconsistent with those of the whole of the Japanese people, to include many governments of the region such as Taiwan to name but one in particular.
Ground Zero, mosques, US military, religion, Okinawa, butchers, hypocracy - my advice to you is to avoid the Miller Analogies Test.
Different Histories of Pacific War
Debanjan, we must be reading out of different history books. The ones I've read say that World War II in the Pacific began in 1941 not 1945, Okinawa being the last battle of a very bitter war--not the first. I've also seen films of Nisei Japanese-speaking US Army soldiers using loudspeakers to try to persuade civilians on Okinawa not to blow themselves up or throw themselves, and their wives and children, off the sea cliffs.
And a propos butchering, I mean butchering, innocent civilans, those books also mention places like Nanking and Manila...
I believe the symbol of the mosque is creating the conflict here. Remembering that a true believer does not need a place to worship their God, because God is everywhere.
Those who disapprove of sanctuaries for any religious establishment may be in denial of the good that may come of such an establishment. I believe the location of this mosque can help rectify misconceptions of the Islamic faith, both native or not native to New York.
If the title of the establishment were downgraded from "mosque" to "Islamic civic center" would their be such a controversy?
To Islam symbolism is everything.
To Islam symbolism is everything. The 9-11 site is they holy ground where their martyrs received their 72 virgins.
...there would still be a controversy, and you know it.
Islam is a radical religion that leads their nations
Islam is a radical religion that leads their nations. This includes Sharia law. They are working on bringing Islam to the USA, as they have in Europe. Australia has been the only vocal country to tell them 'no' to to bringing their communities into the country and demanding 'their' rights.
The 'settling in' way of doing it, is building the mosques especially on site of victorious battles. Just as the mosque was built in Jerusalem on the sight of the jewish temple that was destroyed 70AD. I can say that Bush had it right when stated it is evil vs good.
The change to Islam will be easy in this country of "freedom". What is destroyed is the Constitution of the United States. After it does, then people will wonder what happened. The USA was built on Christianity which believes all men (and women) are created equal. The USA citizens must vote for the leaders that will preserve the Constitution and the laws under it. No president, senator or congressman should take away or kill this document as they are doing now. Americans, do something!!! Vote and talk about who and what a candidate is doing to be a REAL leader and statesman. We will all thank you..........
"The 'settling in' way of doing it..."
You mean like the Christian settlers among the Native Americans?
For some reason this Mosque reminds me of a Trojan Horse.
it i similar to the Islamic country, they have money to build such large building but they give you the reason that they got no money to build the road. This is what I face in my country! Even in one of the state, within 10km you can find this building. I'm not the be racist, it just this thingy is not necessary to spent on. That is our money (taxes)! It should be use on valuable thing!
Circle Lens
How about building a synagogue at the site of the 1994 murder of 29 Palestinians by religious fanatic Baruch Goldstein as a monument to "moderate Judaism"? Surely the Arab residents of Hebron would respect the Jews' "religious rights"!
Where does the money come from!
Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34.
*********************************
Apparently there are those that do not have the understanding that what happened on 9-11 is a sin perpetrated upon our nation.
These that are without understanding would rather give into fear and not hear the facts about where the money is coming from to build the
Ground Zero Mosque.
It would be the sane thing to check first and make sure the money to build the Mosque is not coming from any group that was and or is affiliated with those that caused the following destruction seen in this video. . .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413#
Bloomberg it is not about religious tolerance, if it were about that then why are you and your committee stopping the rebuilding of a church in the Ground Zero area? Bloomberg it is instead about acts of terror and not letting those that committed those acts build in a place where three thousand people were killed. That is why questions need to be asked to make sure that the money to build this Mosque is not coming from those that support terrorist organizations.
Sacrilege at Ground Zero
Even Mayor Bloomberg acknowledges that the rules are different when it comes to sacred places.
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).
When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there — and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized, or misappropriated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That’s why Disney’s early ’90s proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition fearing vulgarization of the Civil War (and wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.
And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.
Even New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.” Yet, as Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message, or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely, that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and, therefore, unique criteria govern what can be done there.
Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.
But then, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Awlaki — spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
An Awlaki preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Awlaki preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege.
Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.
Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of good will would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”
America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero.
Build it anywhere but there.
The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010 the Washington Post Writers Group.
...I'd almost forgotten that "sacredness" doesn't really exist, it's all in our heads and what the voices tell us they are.
"— but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all."
Oh yeah, and we need to write zoning laws to control Houses of Worship just like Liquor Stores, Strip Malls, or any other questionable business enterprise...
setusfree, should I continue through the whole article, or do you see how much of a lame douchebag Krauthammer really is?
Like I asked earlier, where are the "Libertarians" now?
What's the point in having rules
What's the point in having rules if we are prepared to break them on the nebulously subjective notions such as "sacred ground"? Part of the justification for secular government is that it removed the ability of representatives, elected or otherwise, to invoke an unverifiable and unaccountable authority for their actions. Shirking the rules here invites the opportunity for others to do the same in future on whatever they consider "sacred ground".
You might even say that the rules are more important here, now, where they're really being tested, than in ordinary, uncontentious, mundane situations. If they cannot be relied upon when a great democracy is being stressed, when can they be relied upon?
It has been said more eloquently before that living in a democracy is does not afford you the opportunity not to be offended. In fact, just the opposite: the ability to express oneself invariably results in someone else being offended. What stops individuals and groups from constantly offending each other? Social marginalization, when a majority of people consider something offensive.
There is no legal basis to oppose the construction of the center. If a majority of Americans truly does find its construction offensive, then they can take succor from the fact that those offending Muslims will be marginalized and the impact of their tactless gesture reduced. And if not, then what's the problem?
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(41)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE