For those of my readers who disapprove of the angry tone of Little Green Footballs, I hope that my pointing this out does not offend.

In an article about what it is like to "live" in JFK airport for a day, there is this comment:

The place labeled "multifaith chapel" looked like a mosque, with signs in Arabic and a poster of Mecca facing east....

At the end of the hall I met Rabbi Bennett M. Rackman. A tall, good-looking man in his 50's, he touted the diversity of the terminal's religious district. "Out here is a sacred space, a safe space," he said, "where people have to respect each other." Lately, however, there has been controversy over the multifaith chapel. "The Muslims took it over," he said. "They put in the carpet. They put up signs."

Is this the sign of aggressive Muslims, a racist rabbi, a mixture of both or none of the above? Perhaps it's just a poor choice of words or misreporting. Hmmmm. And if the Muslims did "take it over" is it a fear of terrorism at the airport that prevents someone from forcing the chapel back to it's original use as a multifatih room?

I'm also curious as to which of the three chapels (Christian, Jewish, now Muslim) would someone who practices Hinduism or Buddhism feel more comfortable in? The Muslim one because it's more "Eastern". The Christian one because it's more accepting? The Jewish one because they don't proselytize?

P.S. I am of course all for Muslims having their own chapel. Perhaps there's another story behind all this where someone asked to have one built and permission was denied.