iconoclasm.

New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission denied landmark status Tuesday for a building at the site of a proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero.

i think this was a good thing.

i spent the morning of september 11, 2001 fielding frantic phone calls from my (jewish) mother, who could not determine if her uncle and brother-in-law had been in the world trade center towers when the planes hit (they weren't, although their offices were), and online with my friends, one of whom was watching the towers come down from his office window a few blocks away.

i endorse the cordoba house project (no, it's not a mosque), to build a muslim-run community center a few blocks from ground zero, because i endorse the first amendment to our constitution.

if we allow fear and prejudice to overcome the values embodied in this statement, we are, quite frankly, proving al quaeda and the rest of the radical islamists right when they say the west is anti-islam and persecutes muslims.

a lot of the debate around the cordoba house project is centered on the symbolism of a muslim project near the location where radical muslims killed something over 2000 american citizens. the "con" side of the argument says that allowing the project to go forward will dishonour the memories of those who died that day. this is dangerous rhetoric, because it insists we live in the past. instead of moving forward with dialogue and mutual respect (including for the american citizens who were muslim who died in the twin towers), they want to wallow in their grief, pick at their wounds, and generally whine about what "they" did to "us."

i am arguing is it a greater dishonour to those who died that day to insist on making their place of death a symbol of our victimization and fear of the other instead of a symbol of peace, strength, and respect for our fellow human beings. if we really want to claim any kind of victory, we should be pushing forward for the openness and interaction that the radical islamists hate so much. to oppress muslims in our own country and insist on outlawing their religion and practises is to first of all be guilty of the same intellectual violence that the radicals practise, but also to open the door for more oppression and to become victims of our own fear and therefore of the radicals themselves instead of gaining power over them. the strength of oppression is no strength at all, but panicked weakness.