People are still talking about the proposed mosque near the World Trade Center. One of the best columns I've read about the issue is this one,
from the Anchoress over at First Things. The key observations (emphases in original):
Resistance to a proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is not about bigotry or xenophobia; the demonstrated tolerance of Americans during the last nine years belies those unhelpful charges. Rather, the rancor is an amalgam; it is constructed of built-up feelings of anger, powerlessness, indignation and—most potently—disillusioned self-awareness and resentment against ham-handed, disdainful leadership.
Anger alone would be manageable. In our therapeutic culture we know that before a psych patient can get well, he needs to touch a needle to the crux of what is eating at him, like an interior boil-lancing, and sometimes it takes a lot of roundabout discourse and venting to locate it. Until the thing is touched upon, though, there is no chance of healing, just a general sense of disease, failure, and hurt.
We could find it, lance it, and start healing. But America is are being told—by the very people who have spent decades promoting the primacy of “feelings,” over thought, and who have declared that “a feeling is neither right or wrong”—to shut up, to not express its feelings, to not even have feelings, because those feelings are bad, stupid ones that are very, very wrong.
While I'm not sure about the notion of a "therapeutic culture," the sense I get is that a lot of people are finding the pedantry of the governing/ruling class quite tiresome. As the Anchoress notes:
Surrendering ones circumstance to a loving, trust-worthy God in challenging times is quite different from being nagged into acquiescence by people who you no longer believe even like you, or have your best interests at heart. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the press are no longer credible enough to convince the angry 65 percent of the country that Park51 could ultimately mean something good for America.
That's a huge issue right now. Read the whole thing.
21 comments:
So, the Anchoress says that this is not about Islamaphobia. On what does she base this assertion? On rancor that "is constructed of built-up feelings of anger, powerlessness, indignation and—most potently—disillusioned self-awareness and resentment against ham-handed, disdainful leadership?"
What exactly, do Conservatives and Republicans think Democrats and Liberals felt during the Bush Administration?!
(Hint: THE SAME THING.)
The Anchoress says the nine of years of tolerance belies evidence of bigotry - but the fact that Islamaphobia seems to be experiencing a resurgence during the Obama presidency is NOT a coincidence, particularly in light of the alarming number of people in this country who think he is a Muslim. (For the millionth time: NOT THAT IT SHOULD MATTER.)
And if this is not about bigotry and xenophobia, then why are Muslims being targeted specifically? There's got to be a reason for that. It's not random. Further, it hasn't just happened in NYC: the same thing took place and/or is taking place in Tennessee, Kentucky, and California.
For the millionth +1 time: Absolutely none of this matters if we believe in freedom of religion in this country. The protestor's "real reasons" do not justify a defense of their protests, unless we believe that American citizens do NOT have the right to practice their religion in this country.
She *ultimately* gets around to admitting that Americans must be free to build their places of worship.
But in the meantime, the language of violence and hate IS being used to protest the mosques; nobody is talking about powerless and a disdainful leadership. They're talking about how all Muslims are jihadists, and their very existence in the WTC neighborhood is an insult to those who died on 9/11. (The jury is still out, I suppose, as to whether the presence of a mosque in the neighborhood is an insult to the Muslims who died that day, not just because they worked in the WTC, but were firefighters and emergency responders.)
Where does this violent rhetoric leave us, regardless of the supposed reasons behind it? To answer that, I will quote Althouse, which was linked to your post yesterday:
"[I]t isn't just the radicals who set the bomb in a lighted, occupied building who are guilty. The blood is on the hands of anyone who has encouraged them, anyone who has talked recklessly of "revolution," anyone who had chided with mild disparagement the violence of extremists while hinting that the cause is right all the same."
Amanda,
You're partially right, but not for the reasons you think. I posted those two items in sequence.
Here's the dirty little secret: the roles are now reversed. The Left is the Establishment now.
There is an "Establishment," but not the one you're thinking of.
Implicit defense of an immoral cause is wrong and destructive regardless of who is in power.
So who is the establishment, then?
I don't feel particularly passionate about the issue of the mosque being built, but as Amanda knows I feel very passionately about the Left's proclivity for branding opponents racists, homophobes, Islamophobes and whatnot. True to form they are out there smearing willy-nilly. People who disagree with them don't have a different point of view, they are ontologically inferior. But hey! Buy a Prius, slap on a "Co-Exist" bumper sticker and you're saved!
i'm still waiting for a more logical reason to ban the mosque than 'islam sucks,anyway.'
and why so many who do not live near are so concerned.
maybe its the squattie potties?
Mr D - The Establishment is: Not The Point.
Are you saying that the political party who is not represented by the current president bears no responsibility for tacitly encouraging Islamaphobia? Because, that's ridiculous. Republicans have a lot of power in this country, and Dems are nearly halfway there too. It doesn't matter who the president is.
WBP - I love your rationale. "Liberals LOVE to call people racist and that means they're always wrong about that." Great reasoning, there.
Mr D - The Establishment is: Not The Point.
Shut up, Amanda explained.
Are you saying that the political party who is not represented by the current president bears no responsibility for tacitly encouraging Islamaphobia?
You have to define your terms. What is Islamaphobia? Is it an irrational fear of square toilets, as Gino suggests with tongue partially in cheek? Or is it concern over the way Islamic nations treat their people once they gain power? Or is it something else?
I don't know the motivations of the people opposing the mosque. But it's a lot easier to dismiss their motivations out of hand than to deal with them. Which is Picklesworth's point, of course.
You'll also notice that I haven't taken a position opposing the construction the mosque, either. My concern is this: there's a feeling out there, among a lot of people I talk to, that the government has stopped listening to their concerns. You mentioned that you felt that way when Bush was president. The reason that the Democrats are in trouble right now is that they promised to be different. But they aren't, really.
And that's again why the Establishment matters. The Establishment I'm thinking of is quite often bipartisan. But that's another post.
Do Muslims have the right, in America, to build a mosque? Absolutely.
Is it legal for Muslims to build a mosque whereever they choose? Absolutely, if the area is properly zoned.
Do I favor a law or executive order banning building a mosque at this site or anywhere else? Absolutely not.
Living in a pluralistic society, however, does require a certain amount of sensitivity to those around you, and for this pluralistic society to work, this sensitivity has to go both ways. I would think that a group of people that is strongly offended by someone publishing images of Mohammad could certainly understand that a symbolic trespass might generate a strong negative response, especially if the offense is deemedd "insensitive."
The U.S., collectively, goes to great lengths (some might even say absurd at times) to be sensitive to Muslim concerns, even to the point of requiring US women - soldiers and diplomats - to wear islamic dress when moving around Saudi Arabia. The predicted wave of violent reprisals against Muslims in the US after 9/11 never transpired. Is it wrong to expect a certain amount of sensitivity and awareness to come back the other way?
In a free society, a group certainly has the right under the law to build a mosque. Their opponents also have a right to make their displeasure known (as long as they, too, stay within the law). If your action is considered outrageous, then expect the response to be outrageous as well. For that reason, most folks and businesses try to be good neighbors and to overlook minor things in order to go along to get along. The last thing a business or group with honorable intentions wants to do is outrage or alienate the public. To have the stated aim of providing an outreach and to foster healing is admirable; to do so by jabbing a thumb into the public's eye is either ignorant or deliberately provocative. If it's the first reason and you've engendered bad-will you apologize, despite your personal beliefs (ala Target). If it's the latter, you brazen it out because your real purpose has been accomplished.
I explained my point perfectly in the first three comments.
But I think that you are wrong about a couple things. WBP doesn't have a point. A point is something that happens in an actual exchange of ideas. So maybe I'm not the one who's simply saying "Shut up, I don't want to hear it?"
Why is it not me? Because I'm not telling anybody that they don't have a right to say what they want in this country.
I AM saying that they don't have the right to practice religious discrimination, however. That's what they are trying to do. Their stated object isn't "my voice needs to be heard." It's "we must stop the mosque."
You want to protest the government? Go join a Tea Party.
What people do when they claim to have no idea what the reason is behind the mosque protests, is what I am describing with the Althouse quote. And you don't have to be a racist, or an Islamaphobe specifically, or a "bad person" to tactily approve of those who would take away religion freedon from other American citizens, by saying nothing, or by saying "They're just grumpy because they hate the government!" You just have to be stubbornly partisan.
In other words, you don't have to agree with me that this is about racism/Islamaphobia, in order to agree with me that it's unconstitutional, and that because of that alone, it doesn't matter what their (supposed) unconscious reasoning is.
Night Writer - Pluralism doesn't mean sensitivity, it means acceptance of more than one idea, or tolerance. (So acceptance doesn't mean "I agree" in this case - it means "you're allowed to be here.")
But if we do want to talk about sensitivity, it's not the New Yorkers who are mad about the mosque. The rest of the country - we don't own the WTC site. It belongs to NYC and to NYCers.
NW's comment was on point and rationale. He didn't conflate pluralism and sensitivity; he related them. I suspect he speaks for the majority of Americans.
it doesn't matter what their (supposed) unconscious reasoning is.
Keep telling yourself that, Amanda. See how that works out.
But if we do want to talk about sensitivity, it's not the New Yorkers who are mad about the mosque. The rest of the country - we don't own the WTC site. It belongs to NYC and to NYCers.
So can we then assume that if public opinion in NYC turns against construction of the mosque, you'll let opinion rule?
To put it simply, while the builders of the mosque have the right to do so, one has to ask, "What were they thinking?" If they are shocked, shocked that people have a problem with this they were clueless and tone deaf. Or they were hoping for precisely this kind of reaction, for whatever reason. It certainly calls their judgment and motives into play.
"But if we do want to talk about sensitivity, it's not the New Yorkers who are mad about the mosque. The rest of the country - we don't own the WTC site. It belongs to NYC and to NYCers."
The article from the Christian Science Monitor that Amanda linked earlier includes this:
"Polls have consistently found a majority of New Yorkers are opposed to the mosque at that site."
NW - Broken down by borough, Manhattan was the most in favor of the mosque, with only 36 percent of residents against it. On the other end of the spectrum was Staten Island, where 73 percent of respondents were opposed.
"Liberal Manhattan accepts the mosque and trusts Islam," observed Carroll. "Staten Island, where there's controversy about another proposed mosque, is more skeptical."
...The poll also researched New Yorkers' opinions of Islam. Fifty-five percent of New Yorkers believe that mainstream Islam is a "peaceful religion, while only 22 percent said Islam "encourages violence against non-Muslims." Twenty-three percent of New Yorkers are undecided. The full report can be found here.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/New-Yorkers-Oppose-Ground-Zero-Mosque-Poll-97602569.html
Further, the story didn't even start from outrage in the community, it started anti-Islam activist with strong ties to the Tea Party.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins
(I remember comments here about Salon, but the links within are not Salon.)
BUT, for the millionth +2 time - Not that it actually matters.
It's not that I thought your first comment wasn't cohesive. I just disagree that "being sensitive" means equating Islam with terrorism. That must be pretty effing offensive for American Muslims, I imagine.
WBP - What's sad is that if you were on my side, you'd have great things to say about the construction of my argument. It's not even funny how transparent that is. If I was idiotic and incoherent, you'd defend me forever, as long as I voted conservative.
Conflate vs. relate? He said maintaing a pluralistic society requires sensitivity. I said that it does not, that it requires tolerance.
Mr. D - Only on your blog and in circles with people who hold no power over you will you be able to end an argument by saying "Keep telling yourself that."
In commenting on this blog, it's not like I think I'm going to convert anybody here. I do it because on a personal level, I like to challenge my own belief systems, and it's hard for me to do that until the moment I try to talk about why I believe what I believe.
This is one of those moments in which I feel that my reasoning has been unimpeachable.
So though I know that nobody here will EVER admit to agreeing with me, I hope that on some level you will hear and remember, now or in the future.
Amanda,
First of all, I'm not trying to end the argument by saying "keep telling yourself that." You can keep arguing your point for as long as you'd like. As my friend Mitch Berg said about his blog: the comment section never sleeps.
What I'm suggesting is this: however unimpeachable you imagine your logic to be on this issue, you ignore the matter of public opinion and public perception at your peril. And that goes double for the political party that you most often support. And I hope that someday you'll hear and remember that, too.
Being dismissive of the views of others will never help you win an argument or, more importantly, win the day.
Disagreeing with you about the meaning of public opinion is not the same as ignoring public opinion. Personally, I'm rather alarmed about the controversy, when I'm not feeling annoyed that it still exists.
Also, I am so *not* dismissive. I responded to many points in the post quite literally, and other's comments, too, and not by simply "you're wrong." Disagreeing =/ ignoring or dismissive.
(Sorry, I meant to put this in the previous comment too but posted it too soon.)
Sorry if we misinterpret your disagreement. Perhaps if you didn't write things like:
BUT, for the millionth +2 time - Not that it actually matters.
we might see it differently. But you do have a tendency to be pretty, shall we say, categorical in how you phrase such things. When you categorize dissent as "denying people religious freedom," it's not going to work out so well. It's the matter of questioning motives.
Also, as you know, Staten Island is part of New York City. If it weren't, they wouldn't run the ferry between Staten Island and Manhattan nearly as much. It doesn't make sense to downplay the views of Staten Islanders any more than it would to downplay the view of people who live in Queens or Brooklyn.
"the fact that Islamaphobia seems to be experiencing a resurgence during the Obama presidency is NOT a coincidence"
Pure, self-serving opinion.
"And if this is not about bigotry and xenophobia, then why are Muslims being targeted specifically?"
False, as evidenced by the Left's vapors over Arizona.
"The protestor's "real reasons" do not justify a defense of their protests, unless we believe that American citizens do NOT have the right to practice their religion in this country."
False and incoherent. Protester's don't have to justify themselves to you or anyone. Freedom of religion certainly doesn't depend on whether they can justify their protest or not.
But in the meantime, the language of violence and hate IS being used to protest the mosques; nobody is talking about powerless and a disdainful leadership. They're talking about how all Muslims are jihadists..." (emphasis mine)
Double foul. First you're leaping to the conclusion the protests are violent (presumably as a means to invalidate them). The Left has been using this a lot lately, but it's not an argument, it's a smear (not surprising.) As "evidence" for this you use the word "all" in an attempt to twist protesters' valid concerns about Islam and this particular Imam. I doubt protester's think "all" Muslims are violent. I'm willing to bet that the protester's think "some" Muslims are violent, especially the ones who destroyed the Towers.
In sum, your first comment was pure crap. It's a self-serving, "aren't I good and aren't my opponents bad", kind of argument that is absolutely predictable coming from you.
It's not that I thought your first comment wasn't cohesive. I just disagree that "being sensitive" means equating Islam with terrorism. That must be pretty effing offensive for American Muslims, I imagine
I don't recall saying that being sensitive means equating Islam with terrorism. My point was based on non-Muslim Americans being asked for a decade to show tolerance by being sensitive to Muslim issues and by making accommodations to their religious practices (though I didn't say that in so many words); I suggested that being sensitive goes both ways and that a Muslim cleric or developer might also consider whether his actions might be symbolically offensive to the community.
And while you may not agree with those who "originated" the controversy - all they could do is call attention to the situation; they can't tell people what to think.
But let's sum up, Amanda, starting with where you and I are in agreement. The Muslims have a right to freedom of religion in America (a freedom, I might point out, that is generally denied them in non-Western countries). We agree, I believe, that it is legal for them to build a mosque near Ground Zero. We would both disdain any legal maneuvering or illegal activity, such as vandalism, against the mosque.
I,however, am also saying that freedom of speech is just as important as freedom of religion - and I hope that you agree with me there as well. I would say, though, that with this freedom the community has a right to voice its opposition to actions it sees as inappropriate (even if legal and constitutional) and voice its frustration with the country's leadership (which, I believe was the point Mr D was originally making several thousand words ago). In this case, the community is more than just a few blocks around Ground Zero, or Manhattan, or the New York boroughs. The 9/11 attack was aimed at America as a whole, and we all felt it. Ground Zero is a symbol and as I stated, no group should better appreciate symbols (and dealing with them respectfully) than the Muslims. They should expect to take heat for their decision; what they do in response to that heat is up to them.
Btw, here in Minnesota we have a similar situation in terms of rights and the actions of a group of activists in creating an uproar. The Target Corporation, long known in act and reputation as a progressive company with gay and family-friendly policies, used its freedom of speech to support a pro-business organization that endorses gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Perhaps Target thinks that a business-friendly governor would provide an environment where they can grow and continue to offer jobs and benefits to its diverse workforce. Because Emmer (like Pres. Obama and most Americans) has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and because Emmer received a $250 donation from an ultra-conservative Christian ministry that has been accused of calling for the execution of gays (it hasn't, btw, and we might discuss where the right to free speech becomes slander, but another time) a small group of gay activists has turned this into a secular version of a holy war and is calling for a boycott of Target.
Now I believe they, like Target, have a right to free speech and to do that, and boycotts are an acceptable form of social action, though I think this will be of no real consequence to Target (and, fortunately, to its employees). Were I uncharitable, I might call this group a bunch of hateful, single-issue bigots that doesn't understand the principles this country was founded upon, even though I support their right to try and organize such an action. Tell me, Amanda, how would you describe them? Could it be we have found something else to agree upon?
Post a Comment