Before I say anything, I just want to make it clear that it is somewhat amazing to me that this even makes national news as it should have stayed in the confines of the Lower Manhattan Zoning Office, thank FoxNews in all likelihood for that.
The debate is being framed as, if you're for freedom of religion then you are for the mosque's construction, if you are against the construction of the mosque then you have some questions to answer about freedom of religion, but one of the unlikely opponents, the Jewish Group - Anti-Defamation League somehow is for both:
"We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.
We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.
However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the
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
Obama, over the weekend has indicated he is for the mosque.
"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," Obama said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
Obama said that "my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion."
There are a couple interesting things that of course most of the media misses entirely. First, there are already two mosques in Lower Manhattan which have been there I believe even pre-dating the WTC itself, Al-Farah Masjid and Masjid Manhattan (see nytimes.com link for more information). Second, when some Christian Fundamentalist does something abhorrent like killing a doctor or blowing up a government building or whatever terrorist shit people have done in the name of Christianity, does anyone in that community call for a moratorium on the building of churches in a radius "x" (btw, what is the proper distance from ground zero where Mosques could be built? 1 mile? 20 miles?)?
Maybe, but I haven't heard of it.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/CvlRt_32/5820_32.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129188345
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion/14mosque.html
Posts
In regards to the first part, there's not any "news" aspect to it that people can really bring up if those mosques were already in place before the WTC. As long as there was no direct connection to September 11th from those mosques, it's probably tough to associate those with terrorism and instigate fear or hatred in the general public. But with putting up a new building, there is a "news" aspect to it, and you don't have to worry about tying the individual group to terrorism. Just let most people's association of Islam with terrorism run wild, and you're pretty much set.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the second point, no, I'm willing to bet that doesn't happen. But you already know that.
I happened to see Keith Olbermann's commentary on this topic this morning, and he made several interesting points about it. One among them was that a mosque was bombed in Jacksonville this spring and wasn't really reported (which includes MSNBC, presumably). When I searched for it, the first page of results basically showed only Florida news web sites.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730223/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-05-12/story/pipe-bomb-used-jacksonville-mosque-blast
Time Magazine had a front page asking "Is America Anti-Islam/Muslim?" I then watched the author of this article on Washington Journal this morning take calls from various people around the country. It was amazing to me the kind of piss-poor thought and articulation out of the callers (who are supposed to represent a cross-section of America) that this Bobby Ghosh then had to respond to. I was amazed to hear a pundit on Fox this morning say that 70% of Americans are against the Muslim Community Center in lower Manhattan, but judging by the callers on Washington Journal (n = 15-20), I'd say it's closer to 80% or 90% against.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to Time Magazines opportune question is, Yes, America is anti-Muslim. It would seem part of that is 9/11 (which shouldn't make sense since Al Qaeda is not Islam but we can discuss that in another thread I suppose), but another part of it is that perhaps Christians and Jews are anti-Muslim. - at least right-wing Christians and Jews or maybe the media since most of the hate rhetoric I've seen/read in the last two weeks from these religious leaders could be biased by the agencies reporting.
Discussion ensue!
First, never forget the self-selected nature of callers on the shows like this. Also, it wouldn't surprise me for the show to air the callers that are more opinionated because it makes for better television.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I don't think America is anti-Muslim, per se. A majority of Americans very well might be, but that doesn't necessarily mean America is. That brings up the issue of what politicians are elected to do versus what the popular opinion is. Americans seem more and more likely to think that every law should be based on majority opinion (ie gay marriage, smoking bans, etc.) and not on what is passed through in the regular legislative channels. So while they're often ranting on how we need to honor and respect the Constitution, they're also saying we need to make laws based on the will of the people, and I suspect these aren't mutually inclusive principles. But that's a bit of a tangent, and perhaps is another discussion thread in and of itself.
Third, I think anti-Islamic sentiment pretty much comes from two main issues that when combined are very dangerous, as both incite inflamed passions on their own. While these may seem obvious, I'm not sure a lot of people see it as such. I think Jarrod mentioned once that people always say religion and politics are the two things you don't discuss in mixed company, yet those are the things he most likes to discuss. I think the reason for avoiding them being that these are a couple things that people get most defensive about and may get upset if you challenge them on it. So if Islam is a threat to their way of life or to their religion, they will attack it almost as a matter of self-defense. Politics shouldn't necessarily come into play on this, though it certainly has. I'm rambling a bit, so I'll try to keep it short. Anyway, people also get scared/xenophobic at the unknown and when they feel threatened physically. When you combine these with the religious fear/zealotry, it's a dangerous mix. A lot of Americans have directly tied Islam with terrorism, as if muslims are the only terrorists and it's built into the religion.
I wouldn't say Christians and Jews are anti-Muslim, because to do that is to stereotype exactly as anybody saying Muslims are terrorists are doing. Even within any given religion is a highly diverse group of people and ideas. Many may follow blindly anything their church does, but many will not, as is the case with almost any group. For instance, here's a good blog post by a Christian reverend, titled "I Am Not a Christian Bomber.":
http://www.startribune.com/yourvoices/101160739.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUKcOy9cP3DieyckcUsI
I guess to summarize (and this ties back to the first point I made), don't let the views of people asked to represent a group (religious or otherwise) portend that they represent an entire religion or even that a number of people represent a cross-section.
Yeah but Steve, none of what you said addressed the apparent fact that 70% of Americans are against the mosque. This one seems pretty simple even for a layman in matters of law. Majority rules but minority rights (something I rarely hear brought up in the media but was thoroughly drilled into us during civics) means that the majority is the driving force for many aspects of the democracy but it's intuitively obvious and historically supported that the majority can use this given power to oppress various minorities. This clearly is happening hear, and I'd like to think any judge would agree. But ever since that Supreme Court ruling on expanding corporate backing of politics, I feel I have to be careful about what I expect a court to do.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if this will continue to be an issue the entire time the mosque is under construction. 70% remember. We might even see protesters at the construction site.
Also, the selection of callers on Washington Journal probably isn't too bad. They have different people call in for republican, democrat, or independent.
ReplyDeleteI briefly touched on it, but that was the part I said was a bit of a tangent. Though now that I think about it, it's not really a tangent at all. It's essentially the main point.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Washington Journal, I'm not familiar with it. Is it a regular call-in setup? If so, I mean that the callers are self-selected, so they're going to be more opinionated and I think usually also more negative than the general public will be.
It's a C-SPAN show During each show, the host often reads notable articles and editorials from current newspapers and periodicals, and interviews guests invited to discuss a particularly contextual political or legislative issue. The host generally does not ask challenging questions, instead leaving them to callers, but does in many cases ask for clarification on their contentions or assertions.
ReplyDeleteThe show is noted for the participation of its viewers. Usually a period of time (30 to 45 minutes) is set aside at the start of the show for "open phones", during which callers are allowed to discuss, on-air, an issue of their choosing.
Sorry I am entering this conversation late.
ReplyDeleteWhen observing a major social movement I try to step away and analyze both sides like a biologist would a group of primates. One core issue is Identity Contingency. Basically, each individual can be identified as being a member of a number of groups. For instance, myself, I would be white, male, 20s, educated...etc. I think individuals tend to gravitate strongest toward the identity they feel is being attacked. This collective group can then band together and become a strong force (Ex. Foxnews was never as powerful during Bush's term as it is now, even though there were just as many republicans).
Now, let's consider the mosque and fact that somewhere between 50-70% (depending on source) of Americans claim to be Christian. Now these individuals have more than just a Christian Identity, but right now I believe with Obama in office and the mosque and Foxnews they feel their Christian Identity is being most threatened. This is somewhat first hand knowledge from conversations with relatives from Ohio. Many of whom will say America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
In closing, the debate is about much more than the mosque, it is about the current Zeitgeist and that individuals identifying themselves as Christian, for one reason or another, feeling under attack.
Honestly I think its quite a bit more insensitive and offensive for Beck, Palin and company to use the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of the civil rights march.
ReplyDelete