Peter Gadiel, James’ father, wants everyone in their hometown of Kent, Connecticut, to remember his son James. And his hometown wants to memorialize James. However, the town coucil has rejected Peter’s wording. He wants the memorial to read that his son was ‘murdered by Muslim terrorists.’ Some members of the town council object to the language and feel it is inflammatory and might alienate Muslim familes.
According to Peter Gadiel:
“It isn’t just overlooked, it’s suppressed,” Gadiel said. “It’s simply wrong to imply that people just died. The buildings didn’t just collapse, they didn’t just fall down — they were attacked by people with a specific identity, a specific purpose.”
Conversely:
Town officials call the phrase too controversial for a small town memorial, and they recently voted against erecting the plaque if Gadiel insists on the language.
“We perceive ourselves as a very warm, loving town,” said Ruth Epstein, a Kent selectman and one of two town leaders to vote the plaque down. “To disparage any one ethnic group is just against everything that we stand for here.”
Epstein noted that other Sept. 11 memorials, like the one at the Pentagon, don’t mention Muslim terrorists, and she said she does not want to alienate any members of her small and close-knit community.
“We have at least one Muslim family living here with children and it — it would be just awful to have them see something like that,” Epstein told Fox News.
So far, the matter is unresolved. Peter Gadiel refuses to back down. The town official refuse to back down. Meanwhile, the memorial to James does not exist. Gadiel feels that removing the word ‘Muslim’ is not being truthful. He harbors ill feelings because:
“Muslims have to acknowledge that it was their co-religionists who committed this act in their name,” he said. “I am offended that unlike so many others, they refuse to acknowledge that it was their people who did this.”
Why can’t they just say “terrorists”? Does it matter what religion or ethnicity the terrorist it? A terrorist is a terrorist, IMO. It’s horrible they can’t move on with the memorial because of this!
The father wants it spelled out.
I see both sides and I think both sides are being obstinate.
Both are getting hung up on pain and political correctness rather than memorializing the life that was tragically lost.
If you made me chose a side, I would fall down on the side of the father. On the other hand, I would think just saying murdered by terrorists would cover it also. He will not accept that wording, BTW.
Interesting problem. On one hand, it might be easy to just put Muslim to pacify the father and after all, the terrorists were Muslim. On the other hand, if they made a memorial for Dr. Tiller, would Christians want to see that he was killed by a Radical Crazy Christian spelled out that memorial? Probably not, because most Christians would say that the killer was not part of the Christian religion that they believe in.
Wow, I feel for the father and the town and honestly don’t know what I would do in this situation.
Well, his boy wasn’t murdered by Episcopal terrorists. Why are we so scared to call it what it is? The entire Catholic Church has been repeatedly called to account for the actions of some of its priests. How is this any different?
Anona, I agree. I see both sides. And I thought about Doctor Tiller. I have to throw my hands up at this point and simply say I don’t know how I would rule on it.
Emma, yes and no. I do think priests have been called up over covering up a situation. Not sure that is unfair. That seems like a topic for another day also. There are all sorts of ways to look at that.
Feel for the dad and I won’t say he’s wrong because we all thought some bad sh*t about certain faiths and certain people back when the attacks happened. But the town council is right and anonna hit the nail on the head. There were a lot of murderers who were Christian but we wouldn’t put that on a statue paid for by public money.
“Does it matter what religion or ethnicity the terrorist it?”
It certainly does!
——————————————
MASH message for Peter Gadiel:
Dear Mr. Gadiel,
You said: “Muslims have to acknowledge that it was their co-religionists who committed this act in their name.” We couldn’t agree with you more. Please know that there are Muslims who are disgusted with Kent officials’ cowardice. Without acknowledging what happened on 9/11, there is no way forward. Germany acknowledged the Holocaust and other atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in WWII and Germans became a better people for it. We would like to add our voices to your demand that “Murdered by Muslim terrorists” be added on your son’s memorial plaque.
Respectfully,
Muslims Against Sharia
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/10/father-of-911-victim-fights-to-have.html
So I guess the ‘Japanese’ didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor? It was just a group of people with planes? Why don’t they add the words ‘radical Muslims’ and let the man have his peace! How else are you going to describe the group responsible unless you’re too PC to identify them?
So if we carry this one step further, are the history books going to be so PC also, and not mention any link to radical Muslims? Too late, we all know who was responsible, and with today’s technology there’s no way all the computer files and video of that day can be changed to suppress who was behind what happened. It’s all part of well known and documented history, and no PC brigade can ever change that! If the radical Muslims blemished their faith than so be it. Not my fault!
The father is a jerk. I’m betting that “killed by religious terrorists” wouldn’t appeal to him.
The father is right. why are we, Americans, so afraid to admit the truth. This has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with Islam….Muslim religion. How can we, mankind, expect the religion of Islam not to accept responsibility for the acts of evil committed in its name and condoned by its highest religious authorities universally? I challenge all to find and point out where Islam’s highest religious authorities…non-political religious authorities… have denounced the acts this Jihad, committed in the name of Islam, against the west and Israel? I challenge all! There are literally hundreds of accounts of praise for this action, from Islam’s highest religious authorities.
Welcome Muslims against Sharia. Thank you for posting on Anti blog and thank you for explaining the position of your organization. I am taking the liberty of posting the objectives of your organization from your website:
Welcome Jacknhoo, ,to Antibvbl. Read the post by Muslims Against Sharia (MASH).
Nice to see some new faces on here!
As much as I respect inter-religious reform attempts (and let’s face it..institutions of all kinds need reform), I don’t think mentioning religion of terrorists on a memorial is appropriate. We are talking about a memorial to the son, not to a small population of radicals who would thrive in the limelight of being immortalized on a monument.
Outside of that, as Justin indicated, do we want to do the same thing to Christians? Do we want to engrave “murderous Christians” on every monument we have erected to, say, honor Native Americans who died at the hands of Christians? I don’t think so.
History books…that’s something different. We need to know everything we can about history–names, dates, faces, ethnicity, etc.
Sharia, your webpage and efforts are impressive! Nice work.
Simple as this: it’s ALL about a father’s rage and hatred (somewhat understandable). BUT…is the memorial to remember his son or to remember the people who did what they did to cause his death? The father has to ask himself that question.
Does he think anyone could EVER possibly forget who caused this? Not in a million years. So there’s no need for mentioning the killers…unless his hatred outweighs the possible good his son did in life.
Bottomline: noting the killers does NOTHING and serves no purpose for a memorial about an individual. Would his son appreciate more that dad put this on the plaque or if he said something nice about the boy’s life?
Lastly, did WW2 memorials have to say “Murdered by the Japs”? If there were memorials to the four people slain at Kent State did they read “Murdered by US Soldiers on US Land”? On the memorials for those killed in civil rights clashes in the old South did they read “Killed by Protestants”? (or whatever religion the racists were members of if they were?)
Again…if you disagree with me…ask yourself “is the purpose of the memorial to reflect hatred and rage and (in some perverse way) make people feel better for slamming an entire religion? or is it to remember the life of one person?
I believe that the father would respond with the murders were committed in the name of Islam. I think that would be the difference here.
I would have no problem with a memorial naming a Christian, Jew or Buddist if the person being memorialized had been killed in the name of one of these religions. I would have no problem with Dr. Baird (Pensacola, FL) having a memorial that stated he was killed by Christian extremist Paul Hill, for example. It is what is it.
Pinko, the Native Americans weren’t killed in the name of Christianity to my knowledge. It is hard to find models, fortunately, because we don’t have many crusades any more. (or if we do we are smart enough to keep them quiet.)
Welcome F Lewis. Thanks for your contributions. I understand the father’s rage on an intellectual level. Naturally, I didn’t lose a child on 9-11 so I can never viscerally understand his rage.
There are plenty of places where WWII memorials make note of who the enemy was. I don’t think that saying ‘Muslim terrorists’ slams an entire religion. Leaving off the word terrorists might, however.
We assume that we will never forget. Can we actually make that assumption? To me, the fact that we are even having a blog discussion about this tells me that perhaps we will forget. MASH makes an excellent point and I think one that is imperative to make.
The Muslim community really must stand distinctly against terrorist behavior, without equivocation. Until that happens, this father will find no peace. We can’t allow ourselves to pussy foot around about who attacked us on 9-11. Muslims didn’t attack us. Fundamentalist extremist Muslim terrorists attacked us. Big difference. I speak out against Westover Baptist Church even louder because they claim to be Christians. All Americans and All Christians should condemn their behavior.
@Moon-howler
“the Native Americans weren’t killed in the name of Christianity”
Some absolutely were–they were “savages” remember? And how about the natives of Mexico and South America? They were wiped out in the name of Christianity.
F. Lewis, you and I are on the same page. But MH I also agree with you when you say, “The Muslim community really must stand distinctly against terrorist behavior, without equivocation.” As we see in Sharia’s post, this has already started happening. It is also happening with Imams (local and otherwise) who preach that Islam is a religion of peace. I don’t believe most Muslims believe in exterminating non-Muslims.
Absolutely they weren’t. If Christianity were the issue their souls would have been saved by converstion. They were enslaved because of their riches. They were killed because of their riches. I am not a religious history expert so I can’t argue the details but I have never read about any native americans being killed in the name of Christianity. Land, supplies, settlement yes. But never Christianity.
Now were other things done in the name of Christianity, probably. But the American story really isn’t about missionaries and soul-saving. It is more about acquisition of wealth and lands.
‘Savages’ the term had little to do with religion and everything to do with cultural difference and degree of sophistication/technology.
@Moon-howler
Here is what some Christians believed about Native Americans and what they decided to do about it:
“In Virginia, following the Jamestown colony’s war against the Powhatans, a Virginia poet wrote in 1622, that the Indians were
____’Rooted in Evill, and opposed in Good;
Errors of nature, of inhumane Birth,
The very dregs, garbage and spanne of Earth.’
In 1711, the Virginia House of Burgesses set aside 20,000 pounds as bounty money for those who would do the colony a favor and “exterpate (sic) all Indians without distinction of Friends or Enemys.” (Bordewich, page 35)” http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1999/3/99.03.03.x.html#d
More coming. I don’t want to go into moderation because of too many links.
“Later European Christian invaders systematically murdered additional Aboriginal people, from the Canadian Arctic to South America. They used warfare, death marches, forced relocation to barren lands, destruction of their main food supply — the Buffalo — and poisoning. Some Europeans actually shot at Indians for target practice. 14
Oppression continued into the 20th century, through actions by governments and religious organizations which systematically destroyed Native culture and religious heritage.”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm
“How Did Native Americans Respond to Christianity?”
by Thomas S. Giles
in Christian History Issue 35 (Vol. XI, No. 3)
An enterprising European official sailed to the Central
American mainland in 1514. He hoped to settle large numbers of
Spaniards there, to find gold, and to convert natives. He and
his men adopted a simple approach.
They traveled by night, stopping at midnight outside a
chosen village. Before they entered, they declared loudly:
“Princes and Indians, there is one God, one pope, and one king of
Castile, who is lord of this country. Come at once and render
him obedience, or we will make war on you, kill you, and put you
into slavery.”
http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/GILES-01.ART
Please know I am not Christian bashing. My only point is that most every religion has used its own religion as an excuse to murder.
And I am not Christian defending. I just do not see any way you can justify saying that Native Americans were killed (generally speaking) in the name of God or Christ, regardless of how many quotes you trot out. Did Christians kill Indians? Of course. 99% of the White people in this country in its beginnings were at least culturally Christian. But they didn’t kill Indians for that reason. They didn’t say you are an infidel. You die. Did that happen in isolated instances? I am sure it did. There are nuts everywhere.
John Brown would probably say that God led him to attempt to instigate a slave revolt also. Can we say religious extremist?
The Colonies and later, the United States wanted the Indians pushed west, out of the way, so they could have their land and so the Indians wouldn’t come kill the settlers for taking their land. If religion got thrown in it, it was to justify their misdeeds.
I agree religion was used to justify misdeeds. But Islam is being used in the same way. Muslim extremists don’t like our capitalistic ways. They use Islam as justification for bombing. Some Colonial Christians didn’t like Native religions or native ways. They didn’t like the way Natives had no geographical boundaries or land ownership. What better way to get what you want than by saying, “God says we’re right”?
Perhaps it would less controversial if a country had attacked us, i.e., if it read, “… who died on 9/11 when our country was attacked by Afghanistan.” Instead, it wasn’t a nation that attacked us outright (we could debate this as the terrorists were funded under the table by certain countries), but instead we were attacked by an extremist Muslim terrorist group. They attacked us in the name of Allah and Islam, in their warped minds. This is a fact, not something that should be brushed aside or whitewashed away, lest future generations not learn the truth about what happens when extremists use religion as an excuse for violence. Islam as a faith is not at fault here, it is the warped minds of the extremists who used Islam as an excuse to kill who are at fault here. Maybe add the word “extremists” in, to point out that the terrorists were not representative of their faith and fellow Muslims as a whole. 9/11 happened b/c of religous extremism and intolerance of other cultures on the part of the terrorists, there is no getting around that, and there shouldn’t be revisions done regarding this point to make it more palatable. Future generations will be learning from how 9/11 is memorialized, and they need to know that it happened b/c of intolerance and religious extremism.
I am throwing up my hands.
Extremists who were Muslim flew planes into buildings on 9-11. I don’t think our capitalism has a darn thing to do with it. I think we are seen as evil by them. I don’t think they are jealous or anything like that. They have perverted a religion and have us as demonized at the enemy, the great satan or something like that. I don’t know how extremists think.
That is what the man wants on the memorial. I do not think it is anything like Indians or their ill fate. Not even close. I can’t say anything else. Think what you want. I think you are taking quotes to prove your point, sort of like a lot of people do with the bible, rather than stepping back and looking at the big picture.
IWK, I totally agree. And I doubt if he would mind Extremist Muslim Terrorists.
@Moon-howler
I only use quotes so I can cite sources, so you know I am not pulling this stuff out of my arse 🙂
Extremist Muslims hate the west and capitalism not because they are jealous but because they just hate it. I don’t know why. I can research it, but I don’t want to annoy anyone (at least today I don’t).
My only point was that if, on a memorial, we are going to name the killers, we should have been doing it all along. That said, history books should absolutely name the killers. History books are not the same thing as memorials, though, and that distinction needs to be made, IMO.
I thought this was an interesting quote: “An extremist might be said to be someone who resorts to (or thinks in terms of) a militant solution first and finds justification for it in faith or the literal meaning of text” http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3400/3400lect04a.htm
I think it is just something the town wants to do. I don’t think it is a national debate yet.
I go back to seeing both sides. As I said originally, if I were forced to chose a side, I would probably side with the father, although I think he is being stubborn and unyielding.
I can’t see pussy footing around with the truth. It is good to remember and recognize when religion infuses itself into state issues.
@Moon-howler
If you think about it, much of our western heritage is tied to a clash of civilizations between Islam and Christians. 1) The Crusades were initiated to push back the Islamic hordes from Spain, Italy and Jeruselum; 2) Christopher Columbus launched his expedition in search of new trade routes to the Far East that avoided land routes through Islamic lands — he ran into the New World instead; 3) One of our first wars was against the Barbary Pirates in Libya. Thomas Jefferson originally had tried paying tribute to the Muslim government to rescue hostages from the pirates.
How about “murdered by Al Qaida terrorists”?
Excellent suggestion. I wonder why no one suggested that to the father? Rez wins this round!
Absolutely. Thanks!
PWCR’s suggestion sounds good to me too. Might as well identify them by their organization, which is the most precise definition really.
@A PW County Resident
That’s probably better.
A PW County Resident has hit it right on the mark: “Murdered by al-Qaeda terrorists.” As a former counterterrorist officer, I have seen Americans murdered by people of a variety of nationalities and religious or political proclivities. It profits no one to lump the good in with the bad. For every terrorist of a particular nationality or proclivity who killed an American, there were many of the same nationality or proclivity who were my friends — in fact, many helped me to try to bring the murderers to justice. Zero in on the true evil. Do not slander the innocent out of unthinking vengeance.
I agree with your sentiment. PWC hits the nail on the head also, it was Al-Qaeda, not all muslims are al-qaeda. However, I would want my child to be remembered, not the murderers.