37
The Campaign Against the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ By Aliya Karim
The Campaign Against the
‘Ground Zero Mosque’
By Aliya Karim
Karim 2
There was nothing particularly unusual about the construction plans for an Islamic
community center in Lower Manhattan during late 2009. In fact, a New York Times
article that December stated, “It has drawn early encouragement from city officials and
the surrounding neighborhood.”1 According to the article, Mayor Michael Bloomberg had
already voiced support for the project, saying building owners had a right to build such a
center there, along with two other city officials and two Jewish leaders. Little else about
the center made it into the media spotlight that year. During the summer of 2010,
however, news of the center – suddenly dubbed the “ground zero mosque” – took over
newspapers, broadcast networks and all of CNN. According to construction plans, Park51
would be located at 45-51 Park Place, just two blocks away from where the World Trade
Center towers once stood.
What was not originally a controversy became so once news organizations
reported the finalized construction plans and right-wing bloggers started ranting about it.
Much of the opposition to the community center started with blogger Pamela Geller’s
posts on Atlas Shrugs and her subsequent campaign and protests through her very own
organization, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). Geller succeeded in creating a
controversy; momentum gained and several protests took place in 2010. The opposition
campaign ultimately failed to stop the community center’s plans, however. Today the
construction plans for Park51 are still under way. The building officially opened to the
public in September 2011 with an art exhibit, and building development is slated to
continue during the coming years.2
1 Blumenthal, Ralph, and Sharaf Mowjood. “Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero.” The New York Times. 8 Dec 2009. < http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html> Web.2 Zraick, Karen. “Ground zero mosque opened to public Wednesday.” The Christian Science Monitor. 22 Sep 2011. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0922/Ground-zero-mosque-opened-to-public-Wednesday> Web.
Karim 3
Background
The building at 45-47 Park Place received enormous damage during the Sept. 11
attacks when the landing-gear assembly for one of the hijacked airplanes crashed through
two floors of what was then a Burlington Coat Factory.3 No one in the building was hurt,
since most were in the basement preparing for another sales day. Regardless, the store
soon shut down. During the years afterward, the building remained vacant until it was
finally sold in July 2009 and then leased for use as a prayer space for local Muslims. The
location was not designated a mosque at this point in time. Instead, the rooms in the
building were used as overflow prayer space for the al-Farah mosque at 245 West
Broadway. In fact, al-Farah is not the only existing mosque located within the vicinity of
ground zero; another, called the Manhattan Mosque at 20 Warren Street, is only five
blocks away.4
Little was done to change the grungy façade, one that would not make it seem like
a prayer space at all. Its old Burlington Coat Factory sign still hung over the entrance,
with graffiti-sprayed garage doors on either side. Soon after the building was purchased,
its investors – foundations called the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for
Muslim Advancement (ASMA) – proposed the construction of a cultural and community
center, similar to the YMCA and Jewish community centers nearby. The founder of the
Cordoba Initiative and imam of the al-Farah mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, told Mayor
Bloomberg of the plans during a Ramadan celebration in September 2009.5
3 Blumenthal and Mowjood.4 Woodward, Calvin. “FACT CHECK: Islam already lives near ground zero.” Newsvine. 18 Aug 2010. <http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/18/4922332-fact-check-islam-already-lives-near-ground-zero> Web.5 Blumenthal and Mowjood.
Karim 4
Initially, there was no backlash against the project. Rauf had already helped the
FBI during the months after Sept. 11 in reaching out to the Muslim community in and
around New York. He even told the New York Times that his spiritual life as a Sufi
Muslim made him more concerned about creating long-lasting relationships with those
who were not Muslim. Rabbi Arthur Schneier of Park East Synagogue on East 67th Street
described Rauf as a local leader of interfaith understanding, saying, “He subscribes to my
credo: ‘Live and let live.’”6
Progression of Events
On the same day the New York Times published its rather positive piece on the
proposed community center, blogger Pamela Geller wrote about the news story on her
blog, Atlas Shrugs. In response to a comment in that article by Joan Campbell of the
Chautauqua Institution that building a community center near ground zero would take
hold of the tragedy of the Sept. 11 attacks, Geller snidely wrote, “That’s the point
asshat.”7
According to Justin Elliott at Salon.com, the only other major mention of the
center in 2009 was another positive one – this time, surprisingly, on Fox News, a cable
network that has been accused of usually having a politically conservative bias. During
the Dec. 21 segment of “The O’Reilly Factor,” guest host Laura Ingraham said, “I can’t
find many people who really have a problem with it.”8 She even told Daisy Khan, an
activist and wife of Imam Rauf – that she liked the idea of the proposed community
center.
6 Ibid.7 Geller, Pamela. “Giving Thanks.” Atlas Shrugs. 8 Dec 2009. < http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/giving-thanks.html> Web.8 Elliott, Justin. “How the ‘ground zero mosque’ fear mongering began.” Salon.com. 16 Aug 2010. < http://www.salon.com/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins/singleton/> Web.
Karim 5
It was not until May 5, 2010 that the Cordoba Initiative and ASMA presented
their plans to Lower Manhattan’s community board. The 12 board members present
voted unanimously in favor of construction. Ro Sheffe, one of the board members, said,
“They own the land, and their plans don’t have any zoning changes. They came to us for
our opinions and to let us know their plans. It was purely voluntary on their part.”9 Both
the Associated Press and CNN picked up the story that week, along with the New York
Post and Geller on Atlas Shrugs. Geller wrote in her post – titled “Monster Mosque
Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction”:
“Islamic jihad took down those buildings when they attacked, destroyed
and murdered 3,000 people in an act of conquest and Islamic
supremacism. What better way to mark your territory than to plant a giant
mosque on the still-barren land of the World Trade Center? Sort of a giant
victory lap.”10
The following day, Geller posted on her blog that SIOA would start “organizing a
coalition and action plan” to fight against the construction plans.11 She included the
contact information for Mayor Bloomberg and the community board members who
approved the plans, telling her readers to write to them every day and to be polite. She
also promoted claims by others that Park51’s funds were unexplained and that most
mosques in the United States received funds “directly or indirectly by Saudi Arabia the
9 Bliman, Nicole. “Mosque to go up near New York’s ground zero.” CNN. 7 May 2010. <http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-07/us/new.york.ground.zero.mosque_1_muslims-ground-zero-community-center?_s=PM:US> Web.10 Geller, Pamela. “Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction.” Atlas Shrugs. 6 May 2010. < http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/monster-mosque-pushes-ahead-in-shadow-of-world-trade-center-islamic-death-and-destruction.html> Web.11 Geller, Pamela. “SIOA Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!” Atlas Shrugs. 7 May 2010. <http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/sioa-action-alert-stop-the-911-mosque.html> Web.
Karim 6
country to which 15 of the 19 hijackers who bombed the World Trade Center
belonged.”12 Geller followed up on the SIOA campaign the day after on Atlas Shrugs and
announced the organization’s plans for protests against the “911 monster mosque” on
June 9 and Sept. 10, 2010, listing numerous speakers who would be present – Robert
Spencer, the founder of the Jihad Watch blog and co-founder of SIOA; Nonie Darwish, a
former Muslim; Pamela Hall, the leader of SIOA in New York; James Lafferty, the
president of the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force (VAST); and several others.13
On May 13, 2010, New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser wrote a long piece on
the subject, saying, “A chorus of critics – from neighbors to those who lost loved ones on
9/11 to me – feel as if they’ve received a swift kick in the teeth.”14 Peyser even claimed
the community center would open on the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks – a
claim that was ultimately proven incorrect. According to Elliott at Salon.com, Peyser’s
column was a defining moment as the “ground zero mosque” controversy unfolded: “It’s
the first newspaper article that frames the project as inherently wrong and suspect, in the
way that Geller has been framing it for months.”15 Elliott wrote that a large number of
right-wing opinion makers and news junkies regularly read the New York Post, and thus,
the issue – brought up by Geller and Peyser – soon hit the conservative and then
mainstream media.
The campaign
12 Geller. “SIOA Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!”13 Geller, Pamela. “SIOA Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque Protest; Update: Date Change June 6th D Day.” Atlas Shrugs. 8 May 2010. <http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/stop-the-911-mosque-protest-may-29th-the-last-day-of-the-world.html> Web.14 Peyser, Andrea. “Mosque madness at Ground Zero.” New York Post. 13 May 2010. <http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL> Web.15 Elliott.
Karim 7
Pamela Geller was ready to criticize Park51 from the get-go. In fact, she and
Robert Spencer took on SIOA in April 2010.16 Although there is no proof that the
organization started for the sole reason of campaigning against Park51, Geller did write
on April 3, 2010 that SIOA made its very first endorsement in support of VAST’s protest
at a “9/11 mosque” fundraising dinner.17 Such involvement in an organization and
contacts with like-minded individuals at other organizations may have helped Geller take
on the issue at length once the community center’s construction plans were approved that
May.
Geller had already established an online presence through her blog, on which she
had been posting since 2005.18 In May 2010, however, her name rapidly entered
households across the country. She continuously blogged about the issue of a “911
monster mosque” and invited her readers to support SIOA by calling and sending letters
to Mayor Bloomberg and community board members. These two actions played a huge
role during the beginning of the campaign in creating a controversy out of regular
proposals for construction of a building.
First, Geller called Park51 a mosque rather than a community center. She painted
it solely as a prayer space devoted to the “violent teachings” of the Qur’an and evidence
of Islamic domination. Not once did she say the center would only include a prayer
space, along with its performing arts center, fitness center, bookstore, culinary school and
other sections.19 With the focus on an “insulting” prayer space rather than the rest of the
16 Barnard, Anne, and Alan Feuer. “Outraged, and Outrageous.” The New York Times. 10 Oct 2010. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EEDB113CF933A25753C1A9669D8B63&scp=3&st=cse&pagewanted=all> Web.17 Geller, Pamela. “VICTORY: Legislators Shun 911 Mosque Fundraising Dinner.” Stop Islamization of America. 3 April 2010. <http://sioaonline.com/?p=30> Web.18 Ibid.19 “Facilities.” Park51 Community Center. <http://park51.org/facilities/> Web.
Karim 8
building, which would be used for interfaith dialogue and community building, Geller
managed to make the center seem like a holy ground or monument to the terrorists
involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. She also said this mosque would be built on ground zero,
making it seem as though it would be constructed right where the twin towers once stood.
She purposely avoided mentioning that it would actually be located two blocks away
from the World Trade Center site and that at least two other mosques were already
peacefully existent nearby.
Such avoidance of specific, important details was necessary for Geller to make
her point and persuade her audience that Park51 would be an insensitive and dangerous
project. In fact, “while underlying facts may change only slowly, media coverage of those
facts may shift dramatically from positive to negative, or from little attention to a sudden
fascination.”20 According to Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, issues and venues
change over time. In this sense, a person who is trying to persuade his or her audience
may attempt to change the topic at hand or approach it from a different angle. In this
case, Geller decided to attack Park51 by coming from an angle of the construction of a
mosque on hallowed ground rather than a community center for interfaith dialogue. This
allowed her to make her audience of thousands angry and riled up enough to start calling
politicians in New York and elsewhere in the country and to participate in protests.
Geller’s tactic of angle resonated with the 2002 Supreme Court school voucher case, in
which an appeals court had decided school vouchers could not be allowed for students in
religious schools. The Institute for Justice, which represented the students and their
20 Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2009. 2nd ed. Page 105. Print.
Karim 9
parents, changed the angle of its argument from focusing on church and state to focusing
on equality.21
Second, Geller’s invitation to readers to contact Mayor Bloomberg and
community board members created a direct target. Not only was her campaign directed
toward her own readers to help her create awareness, but also it was mainly directed
toward the local politicians in Manhattan so they might change their approval of the
center’s plans. In fact, the Lower Manhattan community board received hundreds of
angry calls and e-mails within the couple of days after Geller’s first post on the subject in
May 2010.22 If Geller had not made it clear who her target audience was, there might
have been fewer calls and e-mails and what she called a campaign might not even have
been considered one.
Geller’s existing online presence allowed her to continue writing on her blog and
include information and opinions on the newfound issue of Park51. If she had not had
such an established blog, she may not have been able to reach as many people with her
message as she did. She was also aided by her one-month-long involvement in SIOA.
Having an official organization and other individuals in that organization to back up her
claims and arguments was just as helpful in keeping Geller ready for an attack. Months,
and even years, before the plans for Park51 had come up, Geller was already writing and
getting involved in groups that spoke out against Islamic teachings and practices. She
attempted to create a problem definition – “attributing bad conditions to human
conditions of fate, or nature,” according to Deborah Stone23 – ahead of time by presenting
21 Greenhouse, Linda. “Win the Debate, Not Just the Case.” The New York Times. 14 July 2002. Print.22 Barnard, Anne. “For Mosque Sponsors, Early Missteps Fueled Storm.” The New York Times. 10 Aug 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/nyregion/11mosque.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all> Web.23 Baumgartner and Jones 27.
Karim 10
what she believed to be negative attributes of Islam in America. Baumgartner and Jones
said:
“Social conditions do not automatically generate policy actions.
Arguments must be made and accepted that a given problem can be solved
by government action before a social condition becomes a public policy
problem. So before a problem is likely to attract the attention of
government officials, there must be an image, or an understanding, that
links the problem with a possible governmental solution.”24
In this case, Geller had been arguing for years about the dangers of “political Islam”25
before the idea of an Islamic community center near ground zero even came up. She
discussed the social condition before it became any sort of problem. If she had waited
until it became news, Geller might not have been able to make as much of an impact as
she did.
Geller also strategically carried out her campaign through continuous blogging
and tweeting, reminders to readers and planned protests. She continued to attack Imam
Rauf and the funds for Park51, saying the funds were unexplainable and suggesting that
funds came from such places as Saudi Arabia, the land of terrorists who hijack airplanes
and kill Americans. Her nonstop online arguments helped her make the point that this
issue was something of utmost importance – to both her readers, the media and
politicians. She gained so much attention that by July 14, 2010, Geller had been hosted
on different news outlets to discuss the community center – on NBC News, MSNBC,
24 Ibid.25 Barnard, Anne, and Alan Feuer. “Pamela Geller: In Her Own Words.” The New York Times. 8 Oct 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10gellerb.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1> Web.
Karim 11
CNN and Fox News – at least six times.26 Her presence on these news shows just added
to her agenda setting goals, so the idea of a mosque at ground zero could remain
prominent on the news front. Baumgartner and Jones would agree that this was a
necessary strategy: “Issues have a way of grabbing headlines and dominating the
schedules of public officials when they were virtually ignored only weeks or months
before.”27
Strategy Success and Failure
Pamela Geller, her readers and those who quoted and supported her arguments
against the plans for Park51 put together a comprehensive campaign that seemed to
succeed. They helped start and keep up a news agenda featuring a mosque at ground zero,
which would be an insensitive monument to build at the location where Muslim terrorists
had killed thousands of people. They continued to use emotional appeal – what Aristotle
termed “pathos” – from the memories of Sept. 11, 2001 by painting it as a mosque, where
dangerous ideas and activities could be taught, rather than a community center devoted to
interfaith learning and growth. By Sept. 2, 2010, two-thirds of New York residents
believed the center should be relocated to a site farther away from ground zero, even
though many of them accepted the interfaith ideas behind the project.28 One resident, who
said nothing of the interfaith aspect of the center, commented, “Freedom of religion is
one of the guarantees we give in this country, so they are free to worship where they
26 “Memo to media: Pamela Geller does not belong on national television.” Media Matters for America. 14 July 2010. <http://mediamatters.org/research/201007140035> Web.27 Baumgartner and Jones 10.28 Barbaro, Michael, and Marjorie Connelly. “New York Poll Finds Wariness for Muslim Site.” 2 Sept 2010. Print.
Karim 12
chose. I just think it’s very bad manners on their part to be so insensitive as to put a
mosque in that area.”29
Geller and SIOA were able to use the already large presence they possessed in the
online world with Atlas Shrugs, SIOA’s new website and right-wing opinion makers’
websites. They even targeted the community board members who had approved of the
construction plans. They successfully used their online presence to carry out several
protests – with thousands of people present – against the “ground zero mosque” in New
York. Geller’s blog began receiving more and more visitors over time – 200,000 unique
visitors per month as of October 201030 and 214,000 in the present.31 It even received
several awards, including the 2010 Annie Taylor Award for Courage from the David
Horowitz Freedom Center and a flag flown in Afghanistan by the United States Marine
Corps on the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.32 Geller’s SIOA also rose up,
continuing to this day, with support from others with similar mindsets, including Jihad
Watch’s Robert Spencer. Together, the colleagues and friends are already tackling issues
larger than the “ground zero mosque,” such as shariah law in the United States. All in all,
this campaign’s work to set the news agenda, gain fame and gain supporters was a huge
success.
The campaign against Park51, however, did not reach its goal to stop the center
from being built. Why? Geller and her supporters set a clear and identifiable goal,
targeted local government officials, appealed to the emotions left behind in the aftermath
29 Ibid.30 Barnard and Feuer. “Outraged, and Outrageous.”31 “Question: How many people visit Atlas Shrugs blog website per month?” Find the Best. <http://blog.findthebest.com/q/34/745/How-many-people-visit-Atlas-Shrugs-blog-website-per-month> Web.32 “Pamela Geller.” Atlas Shrugs. <http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/about.html> Web.
Karim 13
of Sept. 11 and used readers and the local community to get that message across to the
targeted audience. They did everything that a strategic campaign is supposed to do. So
what was wrong?
For one thing, although the campaign against Park51 gained huge support from
Americans in New York and elsewhere around the country, it also met opposition from
different political leaders, organizations and everyday Americans. Not only did Mayor
Bloomberg support the project, but so did City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.33 Other national politicians spoke in support
of the center, as did organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the
American Civil Liberties Union and even J Street, a primarily Jewish political
organization. In his statement of support, J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami said:
“We would hope the American Jewish community would be at the
forefront of standing up for the freedom and equality of a religious
minority looking to exercise its legal rights in the United States, rather
than casting aspersions on its funders and giving in to the fear-mongerers
and pandering politicians urging it to relocate.”34
Although none of these organizations really worked together to create a campaign in
support of Park51, they all delivered the same message about the community center’s
future ability to create growth and understanding after Sept. 11. Such an argument
coming from so many sources created just as much emotional appeal as Geller’s
arguments of insensitivity, if not more.
33 Hernandez, Javier C. “Vote Endorses Muslim Center Near Ground Zero.” The New York Times. 26 May 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/nyregion/26muslim.html> Web.34 “Statement on Cordoba House Controversy.” J Street. 30 July 2010. <http://jstreet.org/blog/statement-on-cordoba-house-controversy/> Web.
Karim 14
An even larger reason for which the campaign against the center failed was the
fact that the construction plans were legally acceptable. According to minutes from a
community board meeting on May 25, 2010, the building would be “an as-of-right
project and does not need the approval of the Community Board.”35 An as-of-right
development is one that fulfills all zoning regulations and does not need approval from
the City Planning Commission, the Board of Standards and Appeals or the local
community board.36 This means the board’s vote was completely advisory, because it
really had no power over whether or not the construction plans would go through.37 Was
Geller targeting the right people? In this case, the community board had no power; the
members were only there to vote and provide advice. While she could technically target
the board members so they might advise against building Park51, it would not be
guaranteed that those behind Park51 would take such advice anyway, because they really
would not have to do so. Perhaps Geller was doomed to fail from the very start; while her
arguments were definitely heard by the community board and the public, they did not get
anywhere in stopping Park51.
Recommendations
Why did Geller focus so much of her arguments on the building’s insensitivity to
ground zero and threats to the country? Although she might have wanted to tear apart the
center’s construction plans because of what she believed it would be used for and because
of insensitivity to 9/11 victims, she could have instead created an entirely new angle to
her argument. It does not seem as though Geller was aware of the fact that the building at
35 “Minutes From the Monthly Meeting of Manhattan Community Board #1; May 25, 2010; Three Legged Dog; 80 Greenwich Street.” Manhattan Community Board No. 1. 25 May 2010. Print.36 “Zoning Glossary.” New York City Department of City Planning. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/glossary.shtml> Web.37 Hernandez.
Karim 15
45-47 Park Place, which would be torn down to construct a new building at 45-51 Park
Place, might be of historical significance.
The building was originally constructed in 1858 for a shipping firm in the Italian
Renaissance Palazzo architectural style.38 This type of architectural style made the
building “a prominent example of the store and loft structures that dominated the
drygoods warehouse districts of Lower Manhattan.”39 Because of this rather historical
style within the Manhattan area, the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission had
considered naming the building an individual landmark – along with several others in the
area – back in 1989. Naming it such would have prevented any demolition or
reconstruction of the building. The commission never acted on the matter, however, and
instead “calendared” the building to make a landmark decision sometime later in the
future.40
In March 2010, the commission informed the new owners of the building from the
Cordoba Initiative that they could not do anything to the building without a public
hearing and vote.41 In the end, the commission voted unanimously against granting the
building historic preservation, allowing the plans for Park51 to move forward.42
Instead of arguing the morality of the entire matter, Geller and her supporters – if
they really wanted to stop Park51’s construction – could have argued for its historic
38 Dunning, Matt. “CB1 Backs Imam’s Community Center, Silent on Mosque Near WTC.” The Tribeca Trib. 26 May 2010. <http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/may/617_cb1-backs-imams-community-center-but-stays-silent-on-mosque-near-wtc.html> Web.39 “Landmarks Hosts Heated Three-Hour Hearing on Mosque.” The New York Observer. 14 July 2010. <http://www.commercialobserver.com/2010/07/landmarks-hosts-heated-threehour-hearing-on-mosque/> Web.40 Dunning.41 “Landmarks to Vote Tuesday on Potential Mosque Site.” The New York Observer. 30 July 2010. <http://www.commercialobserver.com/2010/07/landmarks-to-vote-tuesday-on-potential-mosque-site/> Web.42 Hernandez, Javier C. “Mosque Near Ground Zero Clears Key Hurdle.” The New York Times. 3 Aug 2010. <http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/mosque-near-ground-zero-clears-key-hurdle/> Web.
Karim 16
preservation. In this situation, it technically was not the community board that had power
over Park51 but the Landmarks Preservation Commission that had power. Geller could
have included contact information on her blog for members of the commission rather
than the community board. She could have argued for landmark preservation, saying the
building’s architectural style was so historically important that it could not be demolished
and built anew.
Creating a new argument might have helped Geller persuade those with power
with information they might find persuasive. A commission on historic preservation
would not find emotional arguments related to Sept. 11 persuasive enough; they would
only consider arguments related to the building’s architecture and importance. If Geller
had researched the different forms of architecture around New York, and particularly in
Lower Manhattan, she could have created a plausible case for 45-47 Park Place’s
landmark status. She could have gained support from such organizations as the New York
Society of Architects or even the New-York Historical Society; support from experts in
the field would have provided more credibility for the argument here.
Together, Geller, her supporters and architectural and historical organizations
could have built up enough evidence to keep 45-47 Park Place the way it was. Using
emotional appeals to the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001 and arguing about the dangers of
mosques so close to ground zero were not necessary. As Baumgartner and Jones wrote,
venues change all the time for a given issue or campaign.43 It is up to the campaign and
its organizers to choose the right venue for the right audience.
Of course, given Geller’s involvement in SIOA and her blog’s anti-Islamic views,
trying to create such an argument might not have been very realistic. For many, arguing
43 Baumgartner and Jones 105.
Karim 17
about an issue from an angle they do not actually care about can be demeaning and
morally wrong. Why should Geller have argued for the building’s architectural
significance when what she really cared about was – basically – its morally disgusting
existence? Coming from another point of view, why would anyone believe her arguments
about architecture when they could easily see from her blog and anti-Islamic
involvements how much she obviously cares about the presence of Muslims in America?
Third, an argument for a building’s historic architectural significance – especially a
building that Geller has no real attachment or feeling toward – would rely entirely on
facts and logic. Not only would Geller need detailed and convincing evidence of
historical significance, but her arguments would be lacking. The best strategic campaigns
do not solely rely on factual information but must also rely on emotional appeal and
character. That would not be the case in this instance.
Using an angle of historic architectural style might have provided Geller and her
supporters with a slight chance to save the original building from demolition and prevent
the building of Park51. More likely, it would have backfired to make her seem
hypocritical for arguing about one thing when she really cared about something
completely different and to make her arguments unemotional and deficient of real
persuasion.
Conclusion
Although the campaign against the “ground zero mosque” was thoroughly
executed and managed to steal the media spotlight during the summer of 2010 – as well
as garner tremendous support from thousands of Americans and other like-minded
organizations and individuals – it was ultimately a failure. It did not accomplish its goal
Karim 18
of stopping the construction of Park51 two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks. It
faced an opposing campaign of Park51 supporters – made up of local and national
politicians, families of Sept. 11 victims and many more – and it targeted a group of
people with no power. It targeted a group of people – the Lower Manhattan Community
Board – that had absolutely no control over the building’s construction but had only the
ability to give suggestions.
If Pamela Geller and her supporters wanted to stop the construction, they could
have targeted an organization – the Landmarks Preservation Commission – that had
actual power over whether or not Park51 was built. Targeting this organization would
have made her shift her angle of argument from one about mosques and community
centers to one about historical landmarks and building preservation. As unusual as it
sounds and rather far from the reasons for which Geller opposed the construction in the
first place, this angle of attack might have been more legitimate than anything else. It
could have helped her prove why the construction of the building at that particular
location should be deemed illegal. In Geller’s eyes, the building was illegal for reasons of
morality, but in the commission’s eyes – if the campaign were carried out properly – it
would be illegal for reasons of historical meaning and architecture. Such strategic
planning might have been necessary for the campaign to succeed.
However, this change of angle could have been completely unrealistic. It would
not necessarily fit her style, especially since she was already known as a conservative
blogger with anti-Islamic viewpoints. The commission might have been able to see right
through her arguments, thus making them not as credible as one might think. Complete
Karim 19
reliance on hard-hitting facts and none on emotional appeal might also have ruined this
angle of argument.
In essence, both campaign arguments – the one she came up with and the one
suggested above – are rather weak. Perhaps Geller could not have come up with any
winnable argument or campaign against the building of Park51, in which case all she
could do would be to keep ranting angrily against Islam in America through her blog and
SIOA. Sure, she could use her mindset and arguments for other campaigns, such as the
presence of shariah law along with the U.S. Constitution, but none of these arguments
would really help stop the “ground zero mosque.” Geller was fighting a losing battle
against something that was completely acceptable under zoning and building laws in the
state of New York, let alone the interfaith community.
Bibliography
Barbaro, Michael, and Marjorie Connelly. “New York Poll Finds Wariness for Muslim
Site.” The New York Times. 2 Sept 2010. Print.
Barnard, Anne. “For Mosque Sponsors, Early Missteps Fueled Storm.” The New York
Times. 10 Aug 2010.
Karim 20
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/nyregion/11mosque.html?_r=1&pagewant
ed=all> Web.
Barnard, Anne, and Alan Feuer. “Outraged, and Outrageous.” The New York Times. 10
Oct 2010. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9E05EEDB113CF933A25753C 1A9669D8B63&scp=3&st=cse&pagewanted=all>
Web.
Barnard, Anne, and Alan Feuer. “Pamela Geller: In Her Own Words.” The New York
Times. 8 Oct 2010.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10gellerb.html?pagewanted=1&_
r=1> Web.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. Agendas and Instability in American
Politics. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2009. 2nd ed. Print.
Bliman, Nicole. “Mosque to go up near New York’s ground zero.” CNN. 7 May 2010.
<http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-
07/us/new.york.ground.zero.mosque_1_muslims-ground-zero-community-center?
_s=PM:US> Web.
Blumenthal, Ralph, and Sharaf Mowjood. “Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground
Zero.” The New York Times. 8 Dec 2009.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html> Web.
Dunning, Matt. “CB1 Backs Imam’s Community Center, Silent on Mosque Near WTC.”
The Tribeca Trib. 26 May 2010.
<http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/may/617_cb1-backs-imams-community-
center-but-stays-silent-on-mosque-near-wtc.html> Web.
Karim 21
Elliott, Justin. “How the ‘ground zero mosque’ fear mongering began.” Salon.com. 16
Aug 2010.
<http://www.salon.com/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins/singleton/>
Web.
“Facilities.” Park51 Community Center. <http://park51.org/facilities/> Web.
Geller, Pamela. “Giving Thanks.” Atlas Shrugs. 8 Dec 2009.
<http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/giving-
thanks.html> Web.
Geller, Pamela. “Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center
Islamic Death and Destruction.” Atlas Shrugs. 6 May 2010.
<http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/monster-
mosque- pushes-ahead-in-shadow-of-world-trade-center-islamic-death-and-
destruction.html> Web.
Geller, Pamela. “SIOA Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!” Atlas Shrugs. 7
May 2010. <http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/sioa-
action-alert-stop-the-911-mosque.html> Web.
Geller, Pamela. “SIOA Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque Protest; Update: Date
Change June 6th D Day.” Atlas Shrugs. 8 May 2010.
<http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/stop-the-911-mosque-
protest-may-29th-the-last-day-of-the-world.html> Web.
Geller, Pamela. “VICTORY: Legislators Shun 911 Mosque Fundraising Dinner.” Stop
Islamization of America. 3 April 2010. <http://sioaonline.com/?p=30> Web.
Karim 22
Greenhouse, Linda. “Win the Debate, Not Just the Case.” The New York Times. 14 July
2002. Print.
Hernandez, Javier C. “Mosque Near Ground Zero Clears Key Hurdle.” The New York
Times. 3 Aug 2010. <http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/mosque-
near-ground-zero-clears-key-hurdle/> Web.
Hernandez, Javier C. “Vote Endorses Muslim Center Near Ground Zero.” The New York
Times. 26 May 2010.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/nyregion/26muslim.html> Web.
“Landmarks Hosts Heated Three-Hour Hearing on Mosque.” The New York Observer. 14
July 2010. <http://www.commercialobserver.com/2010/07/landmarks-hosts-
heated-threehour-hearing-on-mosque/> Web.
“Landmarks to Vote Tuesday on Potential Mosque Site.” The New York Observer. 30
July 2010. <http://www.commercialobserver.com/2010/07/landmarks-to-vote-
tuesday-on-potential-mosque-site/> Web.
“Memo to media: Pamela Geller does not belong on national television.” Media Matters
for America. 14 July 2010. <http://mediamatters.org/research/201007140035>
Web.
“Minutes From the Monthly Meeting of Manhattan Community Board #1; May 25, 2010;
Three Legged Dog; 80 Greenwich Street.” Manhattan Community Board No. 1.
25 May 2010. Print.
“Pamela Geller.” Atlas Shrugs. <http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/about.html> Web.
Karim 23
Peyser, Andrea. “Mosque madness at Ground Zero.” New York Post. 13 May 2010.
<http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ
34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL> Web.
“Question: How many people visit Atlas Shrugs blog website per month?” Find the Best.
<http://blog.findthebest.com/q/34/745/How-many-people-visit-Atlas-Shrugs-
blog-website-per-month> Web.
“Statement on Cordoba House Controversy.” J Street. 30 July 2010.
<http://jstreet.org/blog/statement-on-cordoba-house-controversy/> Web.
Woodward, Calvin. “FACT CHECK: Islam already lives near ground zero.” Newsvine.
18 Aug 2010. <http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/18/4922332-fact-
check-islam-already-lives-near-ground-zero> Web.
“Zoning Glossary.” New York City Department of City Planning.
<http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/glossary.shtml> Web.
Zraick, Karen. “Ground zero mosque opened to public Wednesday.” The Christian
Science Monitor. 22 Sep 2011. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-
Wires/2011/0922/Ground-zero-mosque-opened-to-public-Wednesday> Web.
