August 20: Au naturel umbrage

Even children should know the difference between men and women, and learn to respect works by great artists.

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.
As 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 uncircumcised.
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.
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.
They 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 mankind.
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.
Sir, – 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 and prayers of all people, and not just Muslims. That such a project would be funded and maintained by an Islamic institution would truly be a positive response to the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 atrocity.
MARC ZELL Gush Etzion
Due to an editing error, Daniel Doron’s op-ed in Thursday’s Jerusalem Post was incorrectly titled “Bracing for a deja vu,” and it inaccurately presented Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as “dragging his feet.” The headline should have read “Unable to decide?,” as the writer wished to show that Netanyahu was aware of the problem, and to express his confidence that the prime minister would take action.