August 17, 2010

• More on Mosque Madness

   

  “The plans include building a large mosque — and a 500-seat theater, swimming pool and food court — which makes calling it a “mosque” just slightly more accurate than calling a YMCA a “church.”"
  - Gene Healy

  This topic is and always has been beyond idiocy to me. So the fact that I feel compelled to expend not one, but two whole posts on this fills me with a sense of deep revulsion for the state of our society.  I strongly agree with Peter Daou who tweeted:

  “Orwellian ‘disappearing’ of #Gulf catastrophe and #Pakistan drowning vs. JetBlue attendant and mosque – which deserves more attention?“

  Or similarly there is Ezra Klein’s take on why this controversy really ought not even be worthy of our attention.

  “You get a lot of these mini-manias in the 24-hour news cycle, and it’s always hard to say which you should take seriously and which you should ignore. … The test I try to use is this: Could I imagine a world in which this thing was happening but no one ever thought to comment on it?

  Well, yes. I can’t imagine that world for unemployment, or financial-regulation reform, or the Afghanistan Wikileaks. But it absolutely could’ve been the case that Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf decided to build an Islamic community center and no one really noticed, or cared, and maybe a few local politicians from both parties showed up to help cut the ribbon. As it happened, a few opportunists went after it, which brought it to the attention of a few sensationalistic media outlets, and then some opportunistic politicians jumped on board, and then their colleagues felt compelled to comment, and then more legitimate media outlets had something to cover, and on and on. The story is a story because of the incentives of the people making it a story, not because there’s something about an Islamic community center a few blocks from Ground Zero that just screams out for national attention.

  Don’t believe me? Then ask yourself why you’ve never heard anyone complain about the halal food carts parked outside the Ground Zero construction site. This didn’t need to become a polarizing national issue. It was made into a polarizing national issue. And now the only thing to do is to wait for it to pass.”

  Only I don’t really agree with Klein. While Klein’s explanation of why this mosque non-issue became an issue is absolutely true, his belief that we shouldn’t talk about it now too so as to not feed into the media frenzy I disagree with. As much as I would love to leave this topic rest and never have to talk about it again, I think it’s become really important. Religious freedom really IS important. Not because religion has any special status of significance in our society. But because religious beliefs are just a subset of beliefs in general. And we must defend our freedom to come together and express our beliefs no matter what form they happen to take. That includes the psycho crazy beliefs. That certainly includes the beliefs of those who follow a mostly peaceful religion.

  What’s more this anti-Mosque business has gotten and continues to get really really ugly. It has nothing to do with the so called “ground zero” mosque (in reality neither at ground zero nor really a mosque) itself. It’s about hatred. There is a deep desire by some to promote and continue this idea of a grand war of the religions. Islam vs Christianity! And they want to paint Muslims as the badguys. Evil. Dangerous. Scary. They’re engaging in a great global jihad determined to as one commenter on my blog suggests “destroy free society” itself.

  So of course since those are the badguys, of course it’s fine for us to take away their rights. I mean they’re bad right? Who cares! Lock-em up and torture them!

  And that’s the ugliness. It’s two fold. On one side it’s the tarring of anyone who practices or is associated with Islam as evil. On the other it’s saying that because we don’t agree with them we have the right to do whatever we want to them including take away their fundamental human rights.  They’re the other. They don’t matter.  Only WE matter.

  To be fair, there are a lot of 9/11 families who are passionately against this Mosque (though there are others who oppose them). And I agree that we should be somewhat sensitive to their feelings but not to the point where we deny other people’s rights and freedoms.  Muslims died on 9/11 too. If someone who is ordinarily reasonable thinks that this mosque is a risk to free society, then it stands to reason that someone has been riling them up with lies and distortions. And there are. There are a lot of people who try to use people for their own gains and don’t give a damn about the truth.

  Glenn Greenwald explains the sheer ugliness of this business well quoting an exchange on CNN here:

  “Lemon:  I think that’s apples and oranges - I don’t think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building.  That’s a completely different circumstance.

  Patel:  And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either.

  • Continue reading

  That sums it up about as well as anything I’ve heard.  Nothing related to Muslims should be near Ground Zero, because it was Muslims generally — not the handful of extremists — who flew the planes into those buildings.  It’s just amazing that that last point from Patel even needs to be uttered, but it does.  This campaign is nothing different than all of the standard, definitively bigoted efforts to hold entire demographic groups of people responsible for the aberrational acts of a small percentage of individual members.  Congratulations to CNN’s Don Lemon for laying it all out in its naked clarity. This whole controversy is exactly that disgusting.”

  Challenging this “disgusting” rhetoric is immensely important. We can’t afford to become a country wherein this kind of thing is considered “normal”. That’s why one of the most disturbing facts I’ve ever learned was the fact that this ridiculousness was compelling enough to convince some 64% of the population to oppose the mosque.

  Which is why I and many others were pleasantly surprised when President Obama came out pretty strongly against this kind of hatred and villainy.

  
  
  

  “This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our founders must endure.”

  This was a powerful statement and it’s incredibly important to have a President going out there and saying something like this in spite of the extreme opposition to the mosque being whipped up by the dangerous hatemongers who oppose it. 

  Of course, sadly this cannot be the end of this story with regard to Obama since later he “clarified” by specifying:

  “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

  I’m honestly not entirely sure what that even means. But even so, I’m glad the President said something on the issue even if it could have been a lot stronger. 

  His party, sadly, though has been even worse. Senate majority leader Harry Reid came out with this statement:

  “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation.”

  Glenn Greenwald again documents a number of other Democrats caving to majority will on this issue rather than trying to stand up for their principles.

  Others have been better at truly challenging the spread of this hatred. The best, I felt was the Special Comment by Keith Olbermann on the issue:

  “There is no training ground for terrorists. There is no insult to the victims of 9/11. There is no tribute to medieval Muslim subjugation of The West. There is, in fact, no ‘Ground Zero mosque.”

  Almost as good is Sam Seder’s That’s Bullshit video on the Ground Zero mosque here:
  

  The best politician on the matter has been Michael Bloomberg who said:

  “The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

  “Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

  “This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

  “Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

  “For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.”

  Another fairly detailed defense I found posted in the comments of my last entry by Christopher Hitchens:

  “Where to start with this part-pathetic and part-sinister appeal to demagogy? To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is “offensive,” and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument. You are even allowed to admit, as does Foxman, that the ground for taking offense is “irrational and bigoted.” But, hey—why think when you can just feel? The supposed “feelings” of the 9/11 relatives have already deprived us all of the opportunity to see the real-time footage of the attacks—a huge concession to the general dulling of what ought to be a sober and continuous memory of genuine outrage. Now extra privileges have to be awarded to an instant opinion-poll majority. Not only that, the president is urged to use his high office to decide questions of religious architecture!
  …
  We need not automatically assume the good faith of those who have borrowed this noble name for a project in lower Manhattan. One would want assurances, also, about the transparency of its funding and the content of its educational programs. But the way to respond to such overtures is by critical scrutiny and engagement, not cheap appeals to parochialism, victimology, and unreason.”

  Now Hitchens I’ve always found to be fairly interesting. His intellect and skill with language is clear but I don’t often agree with him completely. This case is no exception either. While I do agree with him that it isn’t the case that we should always automatically assume good faith and accept the idea that any project whatsoever should be considered acceptable. There probably IS a level of obnoxiousness that a project could reach that would even sicken me even if it were technically in line with the tenants of religious freedom. For example I would oppose someone creating a monument to the glory of the KKK just about anywhere in the United States. But I would not support creating any laws against it or any violence done to the perpetrators. I would simply find it appalling and would expect and want the people to protest such a project because it is offensive. But even so you shouldn’t necessarily decide a policy decision on whether or not to allow the KKK monument based solely on my or anyone else’s feelings on the matter. I simply would hope that enough pressure is brought to bear that the creators of such a project change their mind on the wisdom of it. Hence I agree with Obama in that sense.

  Similarly, if this Mosque were built on the exact grounds of ground zero, were funded by and created by Al Qaeda and were a huge monstrous monument to terrorism, then I’d be opposed to it too.  Of course the reality of the project is vastly far from this as has been demonstrated again and again and again above. This is a made up controversy that exists because it is is some people’s interest to keep stoking the flames of anti-islamic hatred.

  Which brings me to thing that I disagree with Hitchens on. Earlier in his piece he describes the Imam who is behind the Mosque as shady and adopts the right wing smears against him to show it.  I don’t know anything about this Imam person but Hitchens arguments, at least, are grossly unconvincing:

  “The supposed imam of the place, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is on record as saying various shady and creepy things about the original atrocity. Shortly after 9/11, he told 60 Minutes, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” He added, “In the most direct sense, Osama Bin Laden is made in the USA.” More recently, he has declined to identify the racist and totalitarian Hamas party as being guilty of the much less severe designation of terrorist. We are all familiar by now with the peddlers of such distortions and euphemisms and evasions, many of them repeated by half-baked secular and Christian spokesmen. “

  The refusal to designate Hamas as a “terrorist” group is not the least bit damming.  Terrorism is a term thrown around and over used in an immensely dangerous fashion. It is often used to denigrate people unjustly, to paint the many as guilty of the crimes of the few, and to create some sort of superior “holier than thou” attitude in the speaker.  Hamas is a complex organization that has done terrible, even horrible things. And we should condemn them for those acts. But so do a lot of organizations that we explicitly avoid using the “terror” designation for because they happen to be seen as our allies.

  I believe in taking actions exactly as they are and not wasting time with ridiculous labels. The facts are that Hamas is the lawfully elected government of Gaza. The facts are that Hamas is responsible for kidnappings and rockets that have killed. Similarly the facts are that the United States is responsible for killing many civilians through drone attacks. And it is a fact that Israel has captured many palestinians and held them without charge or due process. Just as we have in the United States with people we accused of terrorism in Guantanemo Bay.

  Those facts are what matter. Not whether or not someone uses the word “terrorism”.  Refusing to use the term “terrorism” is not at all “creepy”, especially when that McCarthyeque question “Is or is not organization X a terrorist organization” is so often used as a distraction from the issues of importance as a kind of “gotcha” politics. It is used to explicitly attempt to either force the debate into terms where the speaker can control or else failing that paint the speaker as a “terrorist sympathizer” on those grounds alone.

  Unfortunately there’s no video on it up on youtube that I could find, but there was a fascinating interview where Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks interviews an adamant opponent of the so called ground zero mosque.  During this interview the interviewee does exactly as I’ve described here by demanding that Cenk answer the question of whether or not Hamas is or is not a terrorist organization! Cenk answers the question by talking about the facts of who Hamas is, not some capitulating to his opponents framing. Even though, by all rights he had no reason to answer at all since it manifestly has absolutely zilch to do with the issue at hand. But during the course of the interview Cenk had to deal with so many disturbing evasions and twisted manipulations of the facts that he became utterly frustrated with the interviewee that he totally lost his temper and finally just cut the guy off.  It wasn’t the most professional thing Cenk has ever done but it was genuine and understandable I thought, when dealing with this kind of manipulative testimony.  The interview was on the August 11th show of the Young Turks which you need to be a member to download at theyoungturks.com.

  As for the other Hitchens points about the imam suggesting that US policy actually does have something to do with 9/11 I don’t see why people would be upset or disturbed by that. It should be, by now accepted fact. Indeed it’s the position of the CIA that blowback over US policy partially contributed to 9/11.

  But the best answer to that comes, of course,  from Jon Stewart who tackled the whole Mosque controversy the other day:

  The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
  Mosque-Erade
  www.thedailyshow.com
  Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

  “Islam like every religion has to be responsible for its biggest a**holes”

  Stewart nails it in so many ways.  The last part of that interview I thought was fascinating because it reminded me of this controversy described here, here, and here between Roger Ebert and the right wing over whether or not kids can wear American Flags to school on cinco de mayo without getting sent home by the school administration.

  It’s sort of amazing that the same people who were outraged by the idea that this principle might dare to send a few kids home for a day over possibly offensive American flags are the same people who want to deny the muslim community their right to build a a community center with a place of muslim worship in it two blocks away from ground zero. So you’re free to wear American flags no matter who it offends, but political correctness has to come back enforce when it comes to muslims? How does that make sense.

  Undoubtedly there are those who are equally hypocritical on the other side. Those who will defend the right of muslims to build their mosque but will not defend the right of the children to wear whatever close they’d like.

  But most I think have a more rational and nuanced approach to the entire thing. The children on Cinco De Mayo were highly likely being deliberately provocative. Personally I think they were probably being dicks. But not knowing their motivations or even if they were aware of what day it was we can’t even say that with any certainty. Nevertheless, even if we could, they have every right to wear whatever they want in accordance with the school’s dress policy.But the school also has a right to try to maintain order and create a safe learning environment for their kids. Where you thread the needle on that issue depends largely on the conditions on the ground. Is wearing the flag shirts causing a big promotion, disrupting class, making it difficult for people to learn? Well then perhaps the school can ask that the kids change clothing just as they could if they were wearing any other offensive kind of dress. Or else separate the kids on both sides. Perhaps by sending any kids who make an issue of the clothing AND the kids wearing the clothing home. But if the dress is causing no  real harm, just upsetting people, then the administration has no grounds to send the students home on a mere whim or simply because they fear it might cause harm.

  We thread the needle in ways like this all the time. We allow bigots and monsters to march and express themselves freely because it causes no direct harm and it is their right to freedom of speech and expression. But at the same time we do what we can to minimize any possible harm often by sending police escorts to ensure that the marchers don’t provoke or get provoked into a violent confrontation. And if a group marches with the intent to create a violent clash then that group would not be excused from the consequences of those actions simply because they claimed first amendment rights.

  Similarly with the not quite a mosque formerly known as Cordoba. This is not a thing that would cause any real harm to anyone, nor is there any convincing or compelling evidence that I have seen that it was designed to do so.  The mere fact that some find it offensive is no grounds by itself to restrict their ability to build a mosque. If it were any of the things the critics were claiming it was, maybe it would be a different story. But its clearly not.

  But let’s get back to what the REAL problem is. It’s not whether or not this mosque gets built. It’s the fact that this mosque is just a proxy for fundamental religious intolerance that some want to revel in.  Indeed when you look at the history of the mosque controversy you can see how clearly it was made up. In this time line by Justin Elliott he shows how the Cordoba project started getting press waaaay back in early December of 2009 but back then nobody cared. Indeed the project was praised as a stance against extremism in the early days of the press coverage, even on Fox News.  However, Pamela Geller a viciously anti-muslim blogger pushed it until it started to get traction. Soon, other right wing noise machines picked it up because they started to see a way to spin it in classic demagogic fashion to inspire people’s fear and distract people from the real and more pressing issues in the country. In short, you could win a few news cycles and get people to not talk about stuff that really matters. Like suffering. Like jobs. So suddenly it became a big deal and Fox started pushing the evil and scariness of the mosque, relentlessly.

  It had its effect by creating outrage accross the country, not just at THIS Mosque, but at ALL mosques proving that it’s really an anti-Islam campaign, not just about this one issue.

  The whole thing was best described in yet another Jon Stewart segment:

  The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
  Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update
  www.thedailyshow.com
  Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

  
  

  “It appears distrust of Muslims is the one thing that goes from sea to shining sea”

  Do you see the pattern?  Hatred just spreads piece by piece, day by day. Fears are invoked and people become terrified of the “other” because it’s easier to be angry and afraid at them then to figure out what has really gone wrong in their lives and in this country and try to fix it.  Hint. It has nothing to do with this ground zero community center project.

  To end off I’ll leave you with a segment from Cenk Uygur on MSNBC that I felt, also, correctly identifies why we should all find this hatred campaign so offensive and dangerous.
  

  “Why should you punish me or my church for what some crazy person did? Exactly!”

  • 7:43 pm
  • 14 Comments