(photo credit: Courtesy)
Au naturel umbrage
Sir, – In your August 19 Letters section (“Threads on
‘David’”), two men complained about the frontal nudity of our king in the famous
statue by Michelangelo, as appeared on Page 1 of your August 17 issue.
this is a beautiful work of art and not flesh and blood that can arouse, I
cannot see the harm. Have these writers nothing between their legs that they
should take umbrage over a male being depicted au naturel – as God made him?
Even children should know (if they don’t already) the difference between men and
women, and learn to respect works by great artists.
My wife has commented
that men’s genitals are more beautiful than those of women, who have nothing to
show. The only grouse I have is that this David seems
Michelangelo should have known better.EDMUND JONAH
Rishon Lezion Spiritual or political?
Sir, – In your August 17 editorial
(“Common sense at Ground Zero), you correctly asserted that freedom of religion
was not the issue, but rather common sense. But you did not point out the fact
that the building of mosques has not always been done for purely religious or
spiritual reasons. Gil Troy (“Conceptually correct, politically tone deaf,”
Center field, August 18) mentioned one outstanding example: the Dome of the
Rock. Another was the attempt to build a huge mosque in Nazareth in 2005 next to
the Church of the Annunciation. In both cases, the mosques were built or planned
mainly for political reasons.
In light of the above, one can easily
question the motives for building a mosque so close to the site of such enormous
human tragedy inflicted by Muslim extremists.MATTIAS ROTENBERG
Sir, – The proposal to build a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero
has caused so much controversy that it already has made a horrific impact. This
is not a question of freedom of religion – it is a question of total disregard
for the sensitivities of thousands of people whose lives were shattered by the
Islamic terror attack on New York City.
The leaders of this mosque and
Islamic center could have purchased land anywhere else and stated that they
would pray for atonement and work to bridge gaps among peoples.
could have had a message to the world stating that the Muslims using the
facility would be truly dedicated to the service of God and
Instead, many terrorist leaders and their groups have come to
identify with this mosque. Very few leaders of the New York community have
stated the obvious, that there is something very flawed in the idea of this
mosque being purposely built on sacred soil.TOBY WILLIG
I wish to propose the following compromise: The Islamic philanthropists behind
the project should develop the property as an interfaith place of worship that
would include prayer facilities for Jews, Christians, Muslims, ethical humanists
and other spiritual persuasions.
What more fitting memorial could there
be at Ground Zero than an ecumenical project reflecting the aspirations
prayers of all people, and not just Muslims. That such a project would
and maintained by an Islamic institution would truly be a positive
the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 atrocity.MARC ZELL
Due to an editing error, Daniel Doron’s op-ed in
Jerusalem Post was incorrectly titled “Bracing for a deja vu,” and it
inaccurately presented Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as “dragging
The headline should have read “Unable to decide?,” as the writer wished
that Netanyahu was aware of the problem, and to express his confidence
prime minister would take action.