Move the New York City mosque, as a sign of unity

The national debate about building a mosque near Ground Zero in New York is less about our freedom of religion than about the common sense and uncommon courtesy sometimes required to come together as Americans. In our society, we are free to do many things that we nonetheless choose not to. During my lifetime, a number of racial and ethnic slurs have been effectively banned from our national vocabulary -- not because our free speech has been limited, but ... Full Story »

Posted by Jon Mitchell - via Washington Post , Real Clear Politics, Memeorandum, Google News (Religion), Salvador Sala (t), Umbreen Bhatti (t), David Fox (f)
Tags Help
Subjects: Politics, Religion, Local
Member Tags: am update
Stats Help
# Diggs: 1 (as of 2010-08-23)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Jon Mitchell - Aug 20, 2010 - 2:16 PM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Jon Mitchell - Aug 21, 2010 - 12:25 PM PDT
Jon Mitchell
3.5
by Jon Mitchell - Aug. 21, 2010

This is an eloquent personal statement, but not an effective political argument.

Anything can be a symbol of anything to anyone else; that's not a reason to deny people their right to religious expression.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Peter Henry
2.6
by Peter Henry - Aug. 21, 2010

This is an opinion piece. I can't rate it as good or awful, but Karen Hughes' presentation is surely interesting, in the same way that something disgusting can be fascinating as well. How, for example, does she make the jump from civility to bigotry? In writing about the project to build a mosque / community center near the 9/11 site, her advice to the congregation - not that they are asking - is for the them to bow down to xenophobia and fear - oops, to show uncommon courtesy - and build elsewhere. She makes the strained analogy of the Danish anti-Mohammed cartoons (created on purpose to offend) and the fact that building the mosque would offend "most Americans ... [who] just don't believe it's respectful." Doesn't Hughes get ... More »

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Jack Dinkmeyer
1.9
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Aug. 21, 2010

Definitely a right wing op-ed in which me thinks she doth protest too much. Her contention is putting an Islamic cultural center that includes a mosque close to hallowed ground represents a hostile act because: “It goes to the heart of who is to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001.” Clearly implying all of Islam is to blame. Then she expends an ungodly amount of equivocating arguments trying to explain away her original statement. Her argument comes down to this: trying to get Muslims to get the Hell out of Dodge themselves, which involves Muslims taking the initiative: “Sometimes uncommon courtesy is required for us to get along in our free and diverse society.” My God! “Uncommon” courtesy doesn’t ... More »

Right winger anti-mosque arguments take three forms: 1) The realtor approach–location, location, location. How dare those terrorist Muslims desecrate our hollowed ground with their version of a church! 2) We believe in freedom of religion, but C’MON! Meaning, we really do believe in freedom of religion but only for ourselves. 3) Then there’s the one in this op-ed. Muslims must do the “right thing.” Meaning, we really do believe in religious freedom, so why don’t you ... More »

Rauf and his congregation are certainly free to locate their mosque near Ground Zero. But I hope and pray that they will show uncommon courtesy and decide not to. More »

See Full Review » (20 answers)
Patricia Blochowiak
1.0
by Patricia Blochowiak - Aug. 22, 2010

This isn't a logical opinion. It basically states that though Muslims aren't inherently terrorists, they shouldn't build a community center near the site of 9/11 destruction.

See Full Review » (2 answers)
Mike Carlson
2.2
by Mike Carlson - Aug. 22, 2010

It is personal opinion not journalism. Ms. Hughes is an accomplished wordsmith using her skills to promote dissention.

See Full Review » (4 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.6

Average
from 5 reviews (72% confidence)
Quality
2.7
Facts
1.0
Fairness
1.0
Information
2.5
Insight
2.5
Style
2.7
Accuracy
1.0
Balance
1.0
Context
2.0
Depth
1.0
Enterprise
1.0
Expertise
1.7
Originality
3.0
Relevance
4.7
Transparency
1.0
Responsibility
1.3
Popularity
2.4
Recommendation
1.6
Credibility
3.3
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!