Nearly two weeks after the Wall Street Journal allowed (and continues to allow today) reader comments on a WSJ article on the mosque “at Ground Zero,” to call for a terrorist bombing attack on the mosque, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board’s Dorothy Rabinowitz writes of “Liberal Piety and the Memory of 9/11. “ It is troubling to see that the WSJ staff have more time to condemn a planned religious center than they have time to remove public calls for a terrorist attack against a religious center from its own website. R.E.A.L. repeatedly contacted the WSJ on this in July 2010.
Once again, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) points out the planned Islamic center at 45-51 Park Place is not “at Ground Zero,” as so frequently and inaccurately stated, but is two New York City blocks (600 feet – nearly two football fields) away. R.E.A.L. reported on this in detail in our June 3, 2010 article, including the fact that Islamic worship services on Fridays have been ongoing since at least December 2009, and some have stated they have ongoing since 2008. The owners of the 45-51 Park Place bought the property over a year ago on July 2009.
In her article, the Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz states: “Liberal piety may have met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come to know pure demagoguery when they hear it.” Indeed we do. We also understand that American property rights and universal human rights cannot be bargained away because of bullying crowds of intolerance.
Wall Street Journal Logo (Image: Google)
Whether we agree or disagree with the leaders of the Islamic center project at 45-51 Park Place, in America, they have the right to do what they want with their property, according to the law and local governmental authorities’ approval of property use (May 24, August 3). Whether we agree or disagree with the leaders of the project at 45-51 Park Place, they have the universal human rights of freedom of religion and freedom of worship, not just as Americans under the Constitution, but also as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If we defend these freedoms for some, we must defend these freedoms for all. Because it not just their freedoms that we defending, but it is also our freedoms as well. In much of the world today, and especially in the war of ideas against religious extremists who seek to deny such freedoms – this is a core issue of human rights that we are fighting for.
Yet the Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz writes complaining of “liberal piety” after these New York City governmental decisions, and the support of these governmental decisions and our universal human rights by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The NYC governmental decisions weren’t even a contest. The May 24, 2010 decision by the Manhattan Community Board was 29-1; the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission decision was a unanimous 9-0. Former Republican (now Independent) NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was discussed as a possible VP candidate for Republican presidential candidates John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. But now when NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg stands up for American Constitutional and for universal human rights, he is guilty of “liberal piety.”
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Boards’ Dorothy Rabinowitz is wrong. “Property rights” are not some “liberal piety,” but fundamental rights for all American citizens. Our universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience, are not some “liberal piety,” but fundamental aspects of our identities as Americans, and rights that all human beings around the world deserve – regardless of your race, ethnicity, gender, nationality… or religion. These universal human rights apply to those we like and those we dislike. They apply to all people – irrespective of their political views – left, right, or center.
Ms. Rabinowitz and the Wall Street Journal use her August 4, 2010 article to also justify denying such freedoms based on “political Islam.” R.E.A.L. does not question whether or not there are political arguments or extremist arguments by some followers of Islam, Christianity, or any other religion. We know there are. When religious extremists make political arguments using religious words to justify denying anyone’s human rights, R.E.A.L. and myself have been there to challenge them on this, publicly and consistently. But we recognize that such political debates are ones that we will have in the political and public arena, whether the group making such anti-human rights or anti-democracy statements is the Hizb ut-Tahrir or the Westboro Baptist Church. But our challenges and disagreements with those who seek to deny human rights is never a challenge or denial of their freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience.
It is ironic that a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board should suddenly become concerned about “political Islam” as a rationalization to deny others their American Constitutional and universal human rights. Certainly, the Wall Street Journal has not been concerned about “political Islam,” when the Wall Street Journal has made money from some of its supporters as “economic growth opportunities.”
The Wall Street Journal and parent company Dow Jones have been significant investors in global Sharia financial organizations, some of which have involved “political Islam” figures, that the Wall Street Journal now claims to object to. We understand the need for ethical finance, and have no objections to financing supporting ethical objectives by financiers.
But the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones paid individuals to promote such financial organizations, regardless of their links to “political Islam.” A former employee of the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) organization, Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, was the Wall Street Journal’s representative at Sharia finance meetings, as the Wall Street Journal’s “Chief Shariah Officer.” According to the IIIT, one of their primary goals is the “the Islamization of knowledge.” Mr. DeLorenzo is also currently a member of the Dow Jones board. The Center for Islamic Pluralism states that “the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), [is] a major subject of the GreenQuest inquiry“… and that the “GreenQuest investigation has yet to be concluded.” According to the Washington Post, “The IIIT network was set up in the 1980s largely by onetime [Muslim] Brotherhood sympathizers with money from wealthy Saudis, Muslim activists said. A number of its members ended their Brotherhood ties years ago after concluding it was too inflexible but still advocate some of its principles, the activists said.” Another former employee of Dow Jones (WSJ parent company), Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani was a Dow Jones Sharia finance adviser, while he also promoted books on the need for “aggressive Violent Extemism.” The London Times reported that former Dow Jones adviser Usmani “believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims ‘to establish the supremacy of Islam’ worldwide.” In his book, this Dow Jones adviser stated that “aggressive jihad must be made against… non-compromising non-Muslim states to subdue them” (Chapter 11).
Our pointing out these documented facts are not in any way intended to demonize Mr. DeLorenzo or Mr. Usmani. They have the right to express their opinions and political views, whether we agree or disagree. But we find it inconsistent for the Wall Street Journal to support such individuals with “political Islam” ties and views for a protracted (and in the case of Mr. DeLorenzo) continuing period, while a Wall Street Journal editorial board writer claims to object to “political Islam.”
The Wall Street Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones, is in no position to lecture to Americans on “political Islam,” certainly not until it addresses its own financial support for those who have supported “political Islam.” Nor is this some surprise to the Wall Street Journal, with a new member to its editorial board. Ms. Rabinowitz joined the Wall Street Journal in 1990.
The fact remains that we can challenge those political groups that promote religious supremacy of any religion, and who reject our consistent universal human rights and democratic values. But our human rights and political challenges does not give us the right to attack or condemn any one religion or all of it adherents.
Nor does our human rights argument, as shown in the case of the Wall Street Journal, give us the right to blithely ignore American Constitutional rights and our universal human rights – for all. It does not. Not at 45-51 Park Place, not anywhere.
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) supports our universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship for ALL people — without exception. We reject protests against houses of worship. We reject those views that seek to demonize those of any one religion or any one identity group. We also reject those views that seek to deny our universal human rights. To R.E.A.L., these are not contradictory or conflicting positions. They are the consistent message of those who are consistently responsible for equality and liberty.
Choose Love, Not Hate – Love Wins.
