Welcome to The Soapbox

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Build the Mosque

Posted by John Gee at 11:34 AM
I wasn't going to comment on the issue, but apparently it's not going away. Today’s New York Times ran a story on the continuing saga of Córdoba House, known to most of us as the “Ground Zero Mosque.” A new player has entered the debate – the Anti-Defamation League:

The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.

This debate is something that I really, really can’t wrap my head around. We have a principle of religious freedom in this country. We also have a principle of equal protection. Either one of these principles should suffice to prevent us from stopping construction. If a Christian group would be allowed to build a church on that site, then a Muslim group should too. As it turns out, a Muslim group purchased that land (two blocks north of Ground Zero) and it wants to build a mosque there. Sounds good to me! (Caveat: the ADL statement makes insinuations about financial ties that the American Society for Muslim Advancement may have. I haven't heard anything else on the subject, but if they do have close financial ties to terrorists, which I doubt, then that's obviously a serious problem and a whole other discussion, as the ADL acknowledges).

Newt Gingrich has this to say on the matter: “The average American just thinks this is a political statement. It’s not about religion, and is clearly an aggressive act that is offensive.” As far as I know, most religions build designated spaces of worship – Islam in particular. And there is, in fact, lots of demand for a prayer space in that area. So building a mosque is a logical extension of being a Muslim. Which would lead me to believe that this is, in fact, about religion, and not offensive at all unless you find Islam offensive.

David Frum acknowledges that “If America means anything, it means the freedom to worship as you please, with whom you please, where you please, subject only to the same rules as govern all your neighbors.” Excellent! He also offers “a proposal, raised in the genuine spirit of helpfulness,” suggesting that the mosque planners dispel their “determined disregard of the fact that the 9/11 site exists because of a murderous atrocity by people claiming to act in the name of Islam.” As it turns out, Daisy Khan (the leader of the Muslim group planning the mosque) did say she wanted “to reverse the trend of extremism and the kind of ideology the extremists are spreading.” I think that counts, and I hope Frum does too. In any case, kudos to him for his reasoned approach to a contentious issue. It is (usually) a refreshing exercise to read his brand of conservatism, particularly when contrasted with statements like Gingrich's.

But because the case at hand is so open-and-shut, I think it’s only proper to consider a more extreme version of events. Naturally, I don’t mind seeing a worship center built by people I don’t mind. But what if, instead of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the mosque were being built by a hardline conservative Muslim group, of the type that might be termed radical? Of the type that might openly proclaim its dislike for the United States of America? That’s a more puzzling question, because it wouldn’t represent progress for the relationship between Islam and the US – it would have no potential to be a feel-good story about how religious dialogue can overcome misunderstanding and tragedy. It would be emotionally difficult for every right-minded American to tolerate.

And that, it turns out, is what toleration is. It means putting up with things, people, and ideas that you just don’t like, and indeed flat-out hate. Living in West Philadelphia, I sometimes see women dressed in full-body veils with only a slit for eyes. I find it difficult to keep my frustration and bewilderment contained. But people can wear what they want, just as they can believe what they want. Some people think we should go back to Jim Crow, and I sincerely hope those people don’t vote. But I’d rather argue with them directly about their wrongheadedness than attempt to shut down their organization through legal means.

So: I think we should encourage the current mosque planners in their efforts - which, contra the ADL, are an integral part of "the healing process." However, if a radical Muslim sect wanted to build a mosque near ground zero, I would still have no legal reason to stop them, nor would I encourage the government to reject their proposal. I might encourage them to find another space to build, but at that point I would have a more substantive disagreement to hash out anyway.

3 comments:

  1. Is it weird that I never found it strange that women walk around West Philadelphia in the full burkas? Seems to me that men 70 years ago would have been walking around in the summer heat in full wool suits and hats, while women were allowed to wear nice cool dresses. We don't find it so oppressive that ladies' ankles had to be covered 200 years ago, but requiring covering the face bothers offends us. All the clothing stuff is arbitrary to me, and I care more about women not being able to work or drive a car.

    As far as building a mosque or religious center or whatever near the site of a national tragedy, this is still effing America and religious tolerance is one of our founding principles. If the American consciousness thinks we're in a war with Islam then we're truly doomed to repeat the pointless bloodshed over religion that plagued Europe for a millennium and our founders tried so hard to avoid with the separation of church and state.

    So build a mosque or an altar to Satan or whatever. This is A'merca and we don't tolerate discrimination.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Well, I find it plenty oppressive that women had to cover their ankles. I still think there's a reasonable basis to consider covering the face more oppressive, and both of them more oppressive than making men wear suits. The suits thing, as I see it, is about class, while minimum coverage for the ladies is about decency. That is, if a man didn't conform to the dress code that didn't make him impure. And to get to the veils, the face is our primary way of interacting with other people. I don't recognize you based on your ankles, for example. Making women cover their faces seems to me utterly dehumanizing in a way that ankle-coverage isn't. And I wouldn't find it weird if a woman covered her ankles voluntarily, whereas I would find it weird if she covered her face - because it would be difficult to relate to her.

    That said, you're absolutely right that driving and employment are more important. I was just picking an example of a religious lifestyle choice that I run into often.

    ReplyDelete

  3. You make important points on the building of the so called “ground-zero mosque,” and there is little that I can disagree with. That said I still believe that you are ignoring the obvious implications of the mosque. I understand that religious freedom includes the building of mosques, and honestly there is no legal reason that this mosque should be built. I also would never ask for a politician to try to delay the building of it, but that said we need to go a little deeper that a legal standpoint.

    First, I think that the background of Feisal Abdul Rauf should be brought to attention. In a 60 minutes interview after the 9/11 attacks he had these things to say: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”; “because we [Americans] have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world,” it could be said that “[i]n fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

    Do these comments make him an evil person? No. He can have his own views, but it does show that he does not have much sympathy towards the American people and that he clearly has no regard for the obvious pain that the mosque could cause many people. Simply put, the mosque needlessly touches the nerve of many Americans.

    Secondly, we have to call into question the views of some of his employees when he was a trustee of the Islamic Cultural Center. Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, who was an imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York City, said in an interview that “only the Jews” were capable of destroying the World Trade Center and added that “if it became known to the American people, they would have done to Jews what Hitler did.” Now Rauf did not say this himself, but Gemeaha was a prominent member of his organization and apparently his anti-Semitic views didn’t stop his advancement.

    Finally, the US Government is footing the bill for Rauf to travel to the Middle East to raise money for the mosque. Now I’m not really sure, but the claim that the mosque is being built on private land, that religious freedom means the government can’t interfere, shouldn’t that work both ways? Under no circumstances should the government finance in anyway the building of any religious institution, nor should they pay for the travel spent to raise money. This is absolutely unacceptable in any situation, whether it is a mosque, church, temple or whatever.

    What this whole “scandal” comes down to is bad politics. Rauf has decided to throw any attempt at political tact out the window and build a mosque in a place that he knows will stir up the most controversy. He has shown before that he does not feel much sorrow for the American people after the 9/11 attack and he certainly doesn’t care that he is offending over 60% of America. Even if he doesn’t care about the average American’s feelings, he should at least take pity on his fellow Muslims. He is raising anti-Muslim sentiment (though unjustified) in the US and many others will experience hateful stares and comments, especially those walking into the ground-zero mosque, all because he didn’t have the commonsense to move the mosque just a few block farther down.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)