Thursday, August 26, 2010

Mosque near Ground Zero

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

I like to read international perspectives of hot topics in the U.S. The issue of memorialization and remembrance of loved ones who die in war or by other tragic means (like 9/11) is almost always controversial. And religion complicates matters. In my opinion, what would be a tragedy is not if this mosque is built, but if some Christian extremists destroyed it, and killed innocent people in the process.

I also find the debate about President Obama's religion puzzling. Who cares if he's a Muslim or a Christian...or nothing so long as he has some sort of moral compass?

12 comments:

  1. Morena thank you for posting such an interesting link. I have been plagued with thoughts about this since the debate erupted on a global scale.

    I think rapacious fear mongering is the result of this debate. People are fearful of that which they do not understand. The individuals we elect and respect to tell us what the issue is and the moral, meaning in concert with the goals of our Constitution, be met.

    The same ignorance about President Obama's religious faith, and why it is even important, are the same people creating fear about the Islam faith.

    It should be the politicians and religious leaders of other faiths that speak about tolerance and equality. These leaders would maintains an honest discourse about the extreme sect of Islam that lead the attacks on September 11th. The leaders would also speak on the hatred that Muslims and middle-easterners (as they are not one in the same) that results if we continuously hate non-Christian individuals and that which we do not understand and seek not to learn about.

    Ethics and religion are intertwined precisely because we cannot distinguish our faith from how we treat other people, not and be righteous.

    Righteousness is not simply a religious word. It is an ethical word. It is a world that atheist, agnostics and Buddhist can use to describe the process of being right in living life. Almost all of our lives are spent in relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://snarla.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/if-they-hate-us-why-havent-they-killed-us-yet/

    ReplyDelete
  3. I suppose that many people would liken building an Islam Culture Center at Ground Zero during Operation Enduring Freedom to building a Buddhism Culture Center at Pearl Harbor during WWII.

    I realize that there is a difference between the governments we fight against and the religions that the people in those regions practice, but in the Middle East, that distinction is blurred by the fact that the citizens are governed by their religion. In my opinion, for most Americans, the syllogism is that Premise 1: America was attacked by Muslims; Premise 2: Muslims are governed by Islam; Conclusion: America was attacked by Islam so that if a person is of that religion, he is the enemy. I'm not saying that this is true at all, just that it is the sentiment of most Americans.
    For these reasons, it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that most Americans would be outraged if this building were to be erected at Ground Zero (I would pose that the number quoted (70%) is actually much higher).

    The proponents of this building are asking Americans to swallow all of their fear, hatred, and animosity towards this religious faction and allow them to invade a site that most Americans hold sacred. This is asking a lot--maybe too much.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it's easy to point to people that are against building a mosque at Ground Zero and claim those people are intolerant, ignorant, and/or hateful. As intellectuals we are taught that tolerance is the end-all, and that part of tolerance, is turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of any racial, religious, cultural, or ethnic group.

    Most faithful Muslims are much better people than I. The problem with Islam is that it's a religion that is easily hijacked. There's no hierarchy. It seems like whatever interpretation a particular Imam/cleric wants to use, he passes that along to his followers. Even more dangerous, the Koran often contradicts itself, especially when it comes to the proper treatment of Jews and Christians. Should effect be given to the clauses directing Muslims to live in peace with other "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians)? Or should effect be given to the clauses calling for their destruction? As the destructive commands come later in the Koran, one theory of interpretation called abrogation requires that it be given greater effect. When two verses conflict, abrogation says that the later replace the earlier.

    So does following Islam equate to violence? The answer is it can. Just like Christians used their religion to kill millions during the Crusades. Yeah, all religions have been hijacked for violent means at one time or another. But the fact remains, that at this moment in time, Islam is the only religion being used to justify attacks on America.

    Americans have a reason to view Islam as suspect, and they are not totally irrational for doing so. American Muslims need to assert their loyalty to America loudly and that demonstration of loyalty will win out over time. Just like my German ancestors did here during both World Wars. Fighting for a mosque being led by a guy who (1) blames America for bringing 9/11 on itself, and (2) does not view Hamas as a terorist organization, is not the battle American Muslims should be fighting right now. American Muslims still need to win over the rest of America, and this just isn't an intelligent way to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A few thoughts in response to Jeremy's post, which I must respectfully disagree with:


    >>>>"The problem with Islam is that it's a religion that is easily hijacked. There's no hierarchy. It seems like whatever interpretation a particular Imam/cleric wants to use, he passes that along to his followers."

    Once could say the same thing about Protestantism. Or Buddhism. Or Judaism. In each of these, there is no "hierarchy," and the interpretations are left to religious leaders and scholars. All religion can be misused in the hands of ill-meaning people, that's not a reason to attack an entire population of a certain faith.


    >>>>"Even more dangerous, the Koran often contradicts itself, especially when it comes to the proper treatment of Jews and Christians. Should effect be given to the clauses directing Muslims to live in peace with other "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians)? Or should effect be given to the clauses calling for their destruction? As the destructive commands come later in the Koran, one theory of interpretation called abrogation requires that it be given greater effect. When two verses conflict, abrogation says that the later replace the earlier."

    I am assuming that you are not a scholar of the Koran. Perhaps the interpretation should be best left to those who believe in the book, and dedicate their lives to studying it. Modern Islamic scholars seem to universally interpret the passages that seem to advocate any kind of violence very differently. See this: http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=414&subsection=Misconceptions

    That said, perhaps we should take into consideration that all of the "major" holy books have violence, and that just because something is written doesn't mean that the followers believe or are any more inclined towards violence than any other group in similar situations. (If you would like to see a list of examples of violence in the Torah/Bible, see this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html )


    >>>>"... But the fact remains, that at this moment in time, Islam is the only religion being used to justify attacks on America."
    First, that's not true. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps)

    Second, even if it WAS the only religion being used to justify attacks on the US, that wouldn’t make the religion itself bad. For example, if someone began to commit a series of murders dressed as an Elvis, we wouldn’t begin to hate Elvis. We wouldn’t even begin to hate other, non violent Elvis impersonators. Or people who listen to his music. We would understand that the one person (or in Islam, TINY minority) that is doing violence is perverting the image and message of what they are claiming to be. Logical people do not fall for things like that. It's important that we separate the political nature of terrorism from the facade that terrorists use. If we allow terrorists to use "Islam" as a cover, (1) we are ignoring the fact that most Muslims are peaceful, good, honest people, and (2) we are giving terrorists the power over their own image, which they do not deserve.

    ReplyDelete
  6. (second part... too long to publish as one comment, and republished with fewer typos.)

    >>>>Americans have a reason to view Islam as suspect, and they are not totally irrational for doing so. American Muslims need to assert their loyalty to America loudly and that demonstration of loyalty will win out over time. Just like my German ancestors did here during both World Wars. Fighting for a mosque being led by a guy who (1) blames America for bringing 9/11 on itself, and (2) does not view Hamas as a terrorist organization, is not the battle American Muslims should be fighting right now. American Muslims still need to win over the rest of America, and this just isn't an intelligent way to do it."

    It is not your right to tell ANY other citizen that they must somehow prove their loyalty to this country. I’m sorry if your own German ancestors, American-loving people as I assume they were, felt any need to demonstrate that to the rest of the world through a forced show of patriotism. America stands for free expression, liberty, and the religious freedom. Perhaps the MOST patriotic thing American Muslims can be doing right now is fighting for the mosque, and standing up to people like you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I want to comment on Kate's post. While I agree that in an ideal situation, people wouldn't make stereotypical associations which condemn many for the actions of few, the fact is that the sociological phenomenon does occur with great frequency in America and everywhere else in the world.
    During WWII, we entrenched Japanese-Americans in horse stalls because they were "suspect."
    Germans were treated harshly because they too were "suspect." After 9/11/01, the news media reported many stories about how people from the Middle-East were treated poorly; their homes, cars, and businesses were vandalized, their families were harrassed and they were treated like outcasts. The reason for all of this--they were "suspect." It isn't fair, but it is a fact.

    While a few scholarly and intellectual people may understand the inaccuracies inherent in stereotyping by association, I would posit that the average American has an "err on the side of caution" viewpoint. What some people may consider "illogical" thinking, others may consider "common-sense" rationalization.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Correction: I meant to say that we "interned" Japanese-Americans..."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jeremy,

    To your claim that Islam is easily highjacked.
    What about Christian-faith (meaning believing in God) which is the most prevalent religious faith for those who bomb abortion clinics? These are domestic terrorist. What about past AND present members of the KKK, most of which are Christian and believe the interpretation of the Bible where Cain was killed because he was black, similarly the whites who supported the apartheid in Africa also believed the same biblical interpretation.
    Further, I would ask you whether it can be argued that most religions have been hijacked. Religion as a belief in a set of ideals, morally, and faithfully--it can be argued--has been highjacked by organized institutions which exploit peoples belief or fear in a God, and use to it to centralize power and wealth throughout history and continue to so even today.
    As for your argument about showing their patriotism. Not to be funny but I show my patriotism by paying my taxes. First Lady Obama said that she was proud to be an American for the first time. How exactly do you propose anyone, not just Muslims, show their patriotism. Should Muslims fly a flag? Put a bumper-sticker on their cars?
    Further, your allegations about Feisal Abdul Rauf DID NOT say the the U.S. deserved what happened on September 11, 2001. What he actually said was "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened," Rauf elaborated, "but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." Rauf further stated that “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.” There are many Americans, non-muslims, who feel the same. Also, the United States government obviously feels that he is patriotic or they would not have entrusted with the task of conducting post-9/11 sensitivity training for the FBI.
    Rauf had written many books about how Islam in it's embodiment is completely in agreement with democracy and the American constitution.
    Have you ever read the Koran? Or have you read what people have said about the Koran? My question is not meant to embarrass you at all I am jut curious.


    VWiggins,
    I am not sure what you're advancing. Are you arguing that because terrorist tend to be Muslim than its ok to associate all Muslims as terrorist?
    Throughout history and today American's stereotypically have perceived African-Americans as lazy criminals. Is that correct because 70% of the prison population is African-American?
    I don't think a lack of formal education is a reason to hold a belief and not test it. But even assuming that we can attribute the formulation of stereotypes on the basis of lack of advanced education, isn't that Americas elected officials and spiritual advisers should speak about and offer guidance on. Sound guidance not biased or bigoted.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No, I'm not saying that stereotyping Muslims as terrorists because of their religious association is okay. Actually, what I said was that "it isn't fair, but it is a fact." Proponents of this mosque can say that this isn’t fair until they are blue in the face, but it still won’t change the fact that the majority of Americans are still holding a grudge against Muslims, displaced as it may be.
    In order to change this fact they must begin by first understanding the rationale of America’s anti-Muslim sentiment: the attacks of 9/11/01 having been executed by Muslims; terrorist attacks that are consistently funded by Muslim regimes; and the current war that America is engaged in against a faction whose population is entirely Muslim.
    Secondly, they must recognize that America’s failure to trust their motives and embrace their culture is a logical result, even if the rationale is illogical. To give you an example, if I believed that my neighbor stole my bicycle, it would be logical to assume that I won’t trust my neighbor, even if the truth were that my neighbor did not steal anything from me.
    Thirdly, they must do what they can to change the rationale; changing the rationale will change the result. They must educate the American people about the differences between (and I am generalizing here) Muslims who harm and Muslims who are peaceful. How else are we to know the difference? They must speak out; not just about the harm that they are suffering, but about the reasons that such logic perpetuating the harm is misplaced. At this point, we can safely assume that collectively we aren’t either able or willing (I’m not sure which—or maybe both) to educate ourselves to a level that would ensure meaningful debate on this issue.
    Both Jeremy and Kate made good points. Jeremy said that “American-Muslims need to win over the rest of America.” Kate said that “they shouldn’t have to” (I’m paraphrasing here). The fact is that both of them are correct. And, again, just saying that it is not fair will not change the fact. Setting the record straight is necessary, even if it shouldn’t be.
    By insisting that education is a mainstay, I simply mean that those who have studied the issue understand it better than those who have not. I am not implying that formal education is a requirement; I am simply stating that if people haven’t grounded their opinions in education on the issue, they cannot really even begin to understand the question, let alone develop an opinion that is consonant with their belief systems. And, I agree with you that much can be learned from our elected officials and spiritual advisers because, assumingly, they have educated themselves on matters which they advise on.

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0

    ReplyDelete
  12. In response to Kate's link...

    This is exactly the kind of education that I spoke of earlier. Americans need more information like this. Thank you for sharing it with us.

    ReplyDelete