Sad: The Anti-Defamation League opposes the Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero

[marmar]

from the WaPo:




ADL: Some opponents of Ground Zero mosque are bigots, but we should let them win anyway

As you have probably heard, the Anti-Defamation League came out against the Ground Zero mosque today. I wanted to highlight this extraordinary bit from their statement:

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is 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 will cause some victims more pain --unnecessarily -- and that is not right.

That's just amazing. This is basically a concession that some of the opposition to the mosque is grounded in bigotry, and that those arguing that the mosque builders harbor ill intent are misguided. Yet ADL is opposing the construction of the mosque anyway, on the grounds that it will cause 9/11 victims unnecessary "pain."

But look: The foes of this mosque whose opposition is rooted in bigotry are the ones who are trying to stoke victims' pain here, for transparent political purposes. Their opposition to this mosque appears to be all about insidiously linking the mosque builders with the 9/11 attackers, and by extension, to revive passions surrounding 9/11. To oppose the mosque is to capitulate to -- and validate -- this program.

On this one, you're either with the bigots or you're against them. And ADL has in effect sided with them.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/anti-defamation_league_opponen.html

[Ozymanithrax]

1. I absolutely agree that building the Islamic Center two blocks from Ground Zero will...

cause some victims more pain. But that is no reason to keep them from building it there.

Freedom of religion demands that hey have the right to build their Islamic Center there. The pain it might cause is regrettable.

[EFerrari]

2. What an insult to all the people of good will who died on 911

including the Muslims who died in the towers.

[Skip Intro]

4. How do you know they were of good will? nt

[EFerrari]

5. I'm sorry. Am I messing with a "Muslin = evil" world view?

Please don't take it personally.

[Puregonzo1188]

3. Can't say I'm surprised. I've been pretty dismayed with ADL

since they came out against recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

http://www.forward.com/articles/11470/

[Behind the Aegis]

10. Were you surprised when it was reversed?

[Unvanguard]

6. It's disgraceful. They have vacated any claim to be a civil rights group.

And have lost whatever credibility they had left.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Ridiculous post.

"baby and the bathwater"

[Unvanguard]

11. It is the most egregious manifestation of a larger trend in the stances they have taken.

And this is an area where consistency is of utmost importance. The difference between "civil rights for some" and "civil rights for all" is the difference between having civil rights at all and having certain privileges handed out to politically-convenient constituencies.

But, actually, your point is fair. Though they have dropped the ball on some things (affirmative action), the ADL has by and large taken worthy stances on domestic policy issues. I don't mean what I said: they may still be worth listening to sometimes. But with this stance, they have lost some of the principled universalism that makes great civil rights groups great.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. How so?

Nothing in the official statement declares that Muslims nor Arabs should be victims of discrimination:

"Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong."

Taking in mind the considerations of those who were victims or lost family there is not bigoted. David Duke and Pat Buchanan, both racist, Jew-hating bigots, are anti-war in Afghanistan and Iraq, does this mean we should abandon those positions because they are bigots?

They dropped the ball on affirmative action? You have anything to substantiate this? I have always seen the ADL be very supportive of affirmative action, but not quotas. Also, this situation is just another position being used by hatemongers (of Jews) to dismiss the incredible work which has been done by the ADL. While one may not agree with the position, it was not chosen from a place of hate or disrespect toward Muslims.

The ADL has a long record of working for the rights of various groups, including Muslims and Arabs, when no one else, except those "special interest groups" of the persons involved, would. Many civil rights groups are only concerned with their set of civil rights, the ADL has fought for gays, Latinos, Arabs, the disabled, women, and other groups. They are far from perfect and, IMO, Foxman has long since run his course, but don't for a moment think this is some great blight on a group which has done so much for so many, when others stood silent.

[Unvanguard]

14. That's boilerplate cover.

A disingenuous attempt to preempt criticism for the concrete stance they are actually taking, which is opposing the construction.

The feelings of people offended by the construction of a mosque should not be determinative of whether or not such a mosque should be constructed, any more than they should be determinative of whether a synagogue or a church should be. A mosque is not a monument to Osama Bin Laden. Imposing upon Muslims generally a special test due to the fact that the people who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks were Muslim is discriminatory and repugnant to liberal and pluralist principles. The consequence is that the ADL's stance, whatever it pretends to be, is concretely a defense and manifestation of a discriminatory attitude toward Muslims.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with reference to David Duke and Pat Buchanan. There is nothing intrinsically racist or anti-Semitic about opposing the Iraq or Afghan wars. There is, however, something intrinsically discriminatory and Islamophobic with attempting to hold Muslims collectively guilty for the conduct of al Qaeda.

Yes, they dropped the ball on affirmative action, though they've gotten a little better about it. In the most recent pair of Supreme Court decisions on the subject, they filed a http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.mer.ami.adl.pdf">brief (pdf) calling the University of Michigan's affirmative action programs unconstitutional. Their stance in opposition went considerably beyond opposition to quotas:

"While ADL has endorsed limited racial
preferences in order to remedy specific discrimination,
it has consistently opposed the non-remedial use of
race-based criteria, believing that the eradication of
discrimination in our society is best achieved through
strict assurance of equal treatment to all." (p. 7 on the pdf, p. 3 by internal pagination)

And, actually, no, lots of civil rights groups are concerned with more than their own narrow interests. To choose two examples that I know a little bit about, Prop. 8 was nearly universally opposed (and attempts to overturn it supported) by civil rights groups representing a variety of minority groups, and in complementary fashion numerous gay rights groups have spoken out against SB 1070 and in support of the Arizona boycott in response. It is something a lot of progressive groups do, and one of the best things they can do, I think.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. They explained why they opposed the construction so it is no boilerplate cover.

I am not surprised you don't get the Duke and Buchanan reference. The point is because they are racist doesn't make opposition to the wars racist or anti-Semitic just because those are their reasons for opposing the war.

The program they opposed was a quota/racial number system. They stood by the court's decision.

"And, actually, no, lots of civil rights groups are concerned with more than their own narrow interests." Rarely. Big cases, yes, one will see all kinds of groups popping up from time to time, but overall, most groups are concerned with their own rights, which is not a bad thing, just what is common.

Most of what I am seeing here (the other threads included), this is just one more "boilerplate cover" for those who don't know shit about the ADL and the work it has done on a national and international level.

[Unvanguard]

16. But that's precisely why it is disingenuous of them.

If they really believe this is about civil rights, then they should realize that civil rights are not trumped by the feelings of people who think all Muslims bear guilt for 9/11. Of course, they don't actually believe that at all, as the very explanation you cite makes clear: they think that the feelings of such people should be deferred to. They say themselves that "ultimately this is not a question of rights."

Your David Duke and Pat Buchanan comparison is not any more apt by virtue of your explanation for it. I agree that the fact that people support a stance for bigoted reasons does not mean that the stance is necessarily bigoted itself. It does not follow, however, that no stances are in fact intrinsically bigoted, or excessively deferential to bigotry, or dependent on discriminatory double standards. This is one such stance.

A "racial number" system is not a quota; the undergraduate program at the University of Michigan (and not the law school program, which the ADL also argued was unconstitutional) used the former (in the sense that a point total was assigned to a person's race) and not the latter. There are serious questions, voiced by advocates on both sides of the affirmative action debate, about whether a "racial number" system is really all that different from the sort of less formal program the court upheld. But I don't want to argue about affirmative action here. More importantly to our topic, you mischaracterize both the ADL's general position (which, as I quoted in my prior post, referred generally to "the non-remedial use of race-based criteria", not specifically to quota systems, racial number systems, or mechanistic systems broadly), and its specific reaction to the case, as seen in this Forward article:

The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, said that numerical systems are “the most damaging” types of racial preferences and called the court’s ruling in Gratz “a major, major victory.” He said that while the ADL would prefer that racial preferences not be used at all, “we can live with what the court says.”

Exactly consistent with what I have been saying.

I think it would be hard to argue that the ADL does not concern itself primarily with fighting anti-Semitism, as well as defending Israel (goals it sees as interrelated.) As you say, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The fact that they do take stances on issues beyond that does not alter that fact.

[backscatter712]

7. ADL's completely jumped the shark.

They used to be a solid organization, and now they implicitly endorse that which they were founded to fight against.

Disgusting. I've lost all respect for the ADL.

[NYC Liberal]

9. I say no delis near the WTC lest we insult the memories of the vegetarians

who died there.

[roxiejules]

13. ADL also said....

Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, defended his position.

In a phone interview, he compared the idea of a mosque near ground zero to the Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns who had a convent at the Auschwitz death camp. In 1993, Pope John Paul II responded to Jewish protests by ordering the nuns to move.

"We're saying if your purpose is to heal differences, it's the wrong place," Foxman said of the mosque. "Don't do it. The symbolism is wrong."

[MilesColtrane]

17. "We must stop the construction of the Ground Zero mosque to preserve our freedoms."

I actually heard a moron say that the other day.

Probably a teabagger, but I had no interest in engaging them to find out.

[Hugabear]

18. It is NOT a mosque, and it will NOT be at Ground Zero.

I really wish the media would quit pushing this meme. There are NO plans to put a mosque near Ground Zero. It's a friggin' community center, and it just happens to be near Ground Zero, not at Ground Zero. :banghead: