"Ground Zero mosque" opens, America still standing

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, Park51, the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" (though it was neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque), opened its doors on Wednesday "without controversy," the Daily News reports.

I can only assume that the various anti-Muslim bigots who made such noise last year, including not a few high-ranking Republicans, as if the presence of this community center so close to Ground Zero (but more generally, its very existence) would herald a new age of anti-American jihadism launched from within, had more pressing targets to vilify.

(Is that right, Newt?)

Meanwhile, most New Yorkers, including Mayor Bloomberg, who eloquently advocated for Park51 (and for religious freedom generally), took it all in stride.

And how could they not?

Upon opening, the center featured a photography exhibit of "city children representative of 160 ethnicities from around the world... compiled by a 44-year-old Jewish shutterbug from Brooklyn, Danny Goldfield."

Not exactly threatening.

Republicans fire up NY-9 race with their usual anti-Muslim bigotry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's what the GOP mailed to voters in NY-9 -- Anthony Weiner's district, where a special election will be held tomorrow:

And here's Politico with the details:

New York Republicans have sent out a kitchen-sink mailer in the hotly-contested Queens congressional special election depicting a mosque superimposed over the scarred Ground Zero site on one side, and Democrat David Weprin alongside President Barack Obama on the other.

The mailer is one of a string that the New York State Republican Party sent out in this close race between state Assembly member Weprin and Republican businessman Bob Turner for the 9th congressional district seat that was held by scandal-singed Democrat Anthony Weiner.

But it's also one of the more incendiary fliers in the contest that was supposed to be a lock for Democrats in a reliably blue district, but has turned into a dogfight in which Turner has the momentum.

The front of the flier features a golden-domed mosque rising in front of the demolished World Trade Center site, a shell of metal rising near a photo of Weprin and a quote of his from last September, saying: "I support the right of the mosque to buid..."

The reverse page is a picture of Weprin juxtaposed against a photo of the president, and text reading: "Weprin stands with Obama — and they stand together in support of the mosque at Ground Zero."

The piece was received by a registered voter in NY-9 in the past week, landing in the days leading up to the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Yes, incendiary is one word for it. Exploitational is another, but, then, when have Republicans ever shied away from exploiting 9/11 for personal or political gain?

And anti-Muslim bigotry is just part of who they are these days. They hardly shy away from that either (with a few exceptions, like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who went way out on a limb to distance himself from so much of the rest of his party).

And make no mistake, the virulent right-wing opposition to Park51, the proposed Muslim community center near Ground Zero, was essentially about anti-Muslim bigotry.

With a possible upset/pickup in sight, Republicans are returning to that well, exploiting 9/11, pandering to the basest prejudices of voters, and saying that a vote for the Republican, Bob Turner, is a vote against Muslims.

And therefore a vote against religious freedom, and freedom generally, particularly freedom for the "Other" as defined in narrow terms by these bigots.

A vote, that is, against all that America is supposed to stand for.

That's Republican America.

Isaac and Ishmael

By R.K. Barry

Just after 9/11, the producers of the The West Wing realized that, as a show all about politics, they couldn't very well ignore recent events. At the same time, they couldn't really make 9/11 an integral part of the show as the The West Wing didn't track current events but rather had its own story line about an imagined White House. The compromise was to have senior White House staff find themselves in a "lock-down" with a group of high school students during what turns out to be a not serious security breach. The episode was called Isaac and Ishmael.

For the episode, White House staff engage the students about a number of issues including the causes of terrorism and how to address it. In what I thought at the time was an extremely interesting exchange, the character of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman, played by Bradley Witford, asks the students what the American equivalent of Islamic terrorists would be. After some discussion, it is agreed that the Klu Klux Klan would fit the bill.

The point he was making was clear: sometimes extremists do awful things in the name of a twisted view of their own religion. But adherents to the same religion don't always believe all the same things (thank God). The KKK is ostensibly Christian, which you can tell by the crosses they like to burn, but very few decent church-going Americans would identify with them. Maybe we should start calling the KKK "Christian extremists" just in case the fact that not all Christians are extremists should need some clarification.

Watching Bill O'Reilly's recent appearance on The View reminded me of this West Wing episode. O'Reilly kept saying that the reason we shouldn't build a community centre within blocks of ground zero is because the terrorists who attacked America were Islamic. I know logic is not O'Reilly's strong suit, but he really should work on that and parhaps watch a few old episodes of the West Wing.

Another thing that bothered me greatly about what O'Reilly had to say is his blaring claim that 70% of Americans don't want the Islamic community centre there. I don't know, maybe that number is true, but what if it is? I have said this before and I will say it again, what if we did a poll of white southerners in the 1960s about whether or not schools and colleges in the south should be integrated? What do you suppose those numbers would look like?

For those who fell asleep during this part of their own education, America is a liberal democracy or constitutional democracy, not a direct democracy. We have a constitution that sets limits on what we can and can't do by a simple show of hands. I've always thought that was pretty sensible. For a bunch a people who talk a big game about adhering to the Constitution, O'Reilly and his bunch really have no idea what that would mean.

School's out.

(Cross-posted from Lippmann's Ghost.)

The Social Construction of Controversy

by Peter Henne

Observers and participants in the recent Park51 debate likely noticed some parallels to the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy. Potent religious issues mixed with a clash between freedom of speech and the protection of communal values. But, as Lawrence Wright has discussed, the real parallel is in the strange dynamics of both controversies. What started as relatively insignificant incidents became issues of global contention. Nothing in the nature of the issues changed, and the lack of initial reaction indicated the controversy was not inherent in either of them. Instead, it was the framing of these issues in the media, and their manipulation by elites, that mattered. The nature of this manipulation, and how it can create controversies out of thin air, will have significant implications for both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy.

Drawing from stands of sociology, international relations scholars such as Alex Wendt began in the 1980s to emphasize the "social construction" of politics. Things do not acquire an importance or meaning as a result of their material properties; instead, social interactions produce meanings, which participants then accept as "real." The example I like to give is of suits: there is nothing in the material properties of matching jacket and pants, shirt and tie that create formal attire, but meaning arises from shared understanding of the material properties. So for "constructivists," the dynamics of the two controversies would not be surprising: everything is socially constructed, including incidents of global significance.

Another set of academic arguments, however, are equally relevant to this topic. These are "instrumentalist" theories, which claim that ideas arise from elite manipulation of the public: elites propagate certain ideas they believe will advance their interests, even if this produces an unintended negative outcome. A notable example is Jack Snyder's 2000 book From Voting to Violence, in which he explains the rise of nationalist violence in many new democracies as a result of elites' manipulation of public fears and ethnic identities, a process facilitated by imperfect media.

There are thus greatly diverging explanations for the Park51 and Muhammad cartoon controversies. If the anger was inherent in the issues -- if Muslims will be inevitably angry about cartoons of Muhammad and many Americans don't want Islamic Centers in Manhattan -- then what we have is a classic clash of civilizations. If the contentious meanings of these incidents were constructed through a diffuse process of social interaction, then conflict is not inevitable, and propagating a less extreme set of ideas -- such as the oft-discussed "moderate Islam" -- will solve the problem. If, instead, elite manipulation of the planned construction of an Islamic center and drawing of offensive cartoons caused the conflict, then either undermining the power of those elites or correcting the media market to allow for a diversity of viewpoints is the solution.

In this case, the instrumentalists seem to have it right. The printing of cartoons about Muhammad or building an Islamic Center obviously did not lead to worldwide controversies by themselves. Neither did the meanings arise spontaneously through social interactions among Muslims around the world, or Manhattan residents and activists throughout America. Instead, as Wright notes, elites are responsible. Islamist networks in Europe and the Middle East spread the cartoons, amplifying their significance, while bloggers in the United States latched onto the Park51 story, inflating the contentious nature of the issue to what it is today.

An important element in all this, though, is the media. The media market in Middle Eastern countries is hardly perfect, with authorities restricting open debate; this has been replaced by official news outlets that serve state interests and Arabic-language satellite stations that -- while allowing greater debate than would be otherwise possible -- often provide a platform for radical voices, and are popular in both the Middle East and Europe.

Unfortunately, there are also issues with the American media. Mainstream news outlets are often guilty of either passing on politicized information or politicizing it themselves; "new media," like blogs, often selectively interpret events to support their authors' pre-existing viewpoints. As a result, the most dramatic and exciting news -- not the most accurate or valuable -- is highlighted, providing inaccurate details to Americans and a skewed perspective on most Americans' priorities to foreign audiences.

The parallel nature of the two developments makes a potential solution to seemingly irrational controversies like these widely applicable. It involves, in part, addressing the power of a small group of elites to manipulate information. It also involves ensuring open and high-quality debate in media markets, which translates to support for greater freedoms in the Middle East and a more responsible media in America. The problem is not conservatism, or the lack of a "moderate Islam." The problem, and the solution -- as Middle East experts have said of broader issues in the region -- is politics and institutions, and the particular forms of elite-led social construction they engender.

(Previously posted at The Huffington Post)

The war of ideas

Guest post by Jared Stancombe 

Jared Stancombe, a 2009 graduate of Indiana University, is currently an analyst for a U.S. government agency responsible for national security. He is also in the officer selection process for the U.S. Marine Corps. He lives in Washington, D.C. 

Ed. note: Jared has been a frequent guest blogger at The Reaction. He has posted on Afghanistan and the Afghan War (here, here, and here), airline security (here), and the various threats to U.S. national security (here). -- MJWS

********** 

The controversy over the proposed "Cordoba Center" in New York City has further demonstrated the toxic environment in which civil discourse takes place within the United States. One side states that it is their Constitutional right to build the center and that it will help develop relationships between people of other faiths to diminish perceived biases against the Muslim faith, while another side states that placing a "mosque" at Ground Zero is an offense to the families of the victims of 9/11 and that it could be a new base for Islamist militant terrorists. Demonstrations are held daily as the news pundits speak nearly 24/7 on the issue.

In Afghanistan, Afghans are rioting over the "International Burn a Qu'ran Day" recently proposed by Florida Pastor Terry Jones. General Petraeus and Defense Secretary Gates have personally pleaded with Pastor Jones to stop him from burning Islam's most sacred text.

In our connected world of social networking and 24-hour news, a little thing can make a huge difference given the right exposure. The fringe elements are gaining ground, showing an America that is fearful and hateful towards the Islamic faith. Republican congressmen and senators are using this environment to gather up potential votes before the midterm elections.

What does this show to the Muslims in America and all over the world? Muslims died alongside Christians, Jews, atheists, and people of other faiths in the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and on Flight 93. Muslims currently fight in the mountains of Afghanistan and in Iraq either in uniform or alongside our troops with local police forces, militias, and armies. Others have fled conflict in the Middle East in hopes that America will bring them a new, successful life, while others still have become prominent and vital members of American society. What does the current political environment tell these people? Are Muslims seen as a threat to American culture and the American way of life? How can America win the war of ideas while so many Americans themselves view Islam as an inherent threat?

Islam will never be a threat to America's freedom, independence, and culture. Just as countless other people of other faiths, creeds, and belief systems have, Islam has become a part of the national identity. Being American means believing in freedom and independence and that you're a part of a nation that will never back down in the face of tyranny and evil. Further incorporating Islam into the national identity, welcoming its spirituality and message of peace, will only enrich the American identity, not weaken it.

By burning Qu'rans and broadcasting that building a "mosque" at Ground Zero is akin to Nazis building a memorial next to the National Holocaust Museum, we are only showing our fear and disgust towards a faith and people that we need to help solve complex global social problems and make America safer. By broadcasting such claims, we are playing right into the hands of Islamist terrorists who want fuel to support their claim that America is at war against Islam.

How is America supposed to win a global war against terrorism if its message seems unjust and antithetical to the belief systems of the very people we must extend a hand to to solve the problem of militant Islamist terrorism? The Islamic world must view the distortion and perversion of their faith as the enemy, just as we see it. Fighting terrorism is not just about how many boots are in the ground but in the strength of conflicting ideologies. Militant Islam cannot win in the face of the American philosophy of freedom -- we must show our true American colors by embracing Islam while the terrorists preach evil and practice tragedy.

Quote of the Day: Colin Powell on the "Ground Zero mosque"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The one-time possible president, on The View:

The terrorists win if we become terrified and... change who we are and what we are.

In other words: build Park51 where it is planned to be built, near but not at Ground Zero, and don't give in to the bigots and haters, including those who say the community center (not, strictly speaking, a mosque) should just be moved uptown a bit but who are really expressing broad anti-Muslim sentiment.

And, I would add, Park51 has nothing to do with the planned Quran burning in Florida. Terry Jones, the pastor of that despicable church, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, spent today trying to connect the two, and trying to dominate the news, suggesting that he would refrain from burning the Quran if Park51 were moved. Park51 is intended to be a peaceful center for Muslims and for outreach to non-Muslims, whereas the Quran burning is intended to be an expression of Christian supremacism, an expression of hatred. In this sense, Park51 is deeply American, while the Quran burning is deeply un-American. Jones is spinning his bigotry as patriotism, and there is indeed a dark side to patriotism, but burning the Quran and expressing this sort of vilification of the Other runs counter, I would argue, to the core ideals that America purports to hold dear.

Thankfully, some major media outlets, including Fox News and the AP, have stated that they will not cover the Quran burning, should it take place on Saturday. Sure, the media have been drooling all over this story, just as I and many other bloggers have, but it's good to know that such bigotry would not be given the sort of attention that Jones so clearly desires.

Koran-burning could endanger U.S. troops, says Petraeus

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may know, a Florida church is planning to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11. It claims that the burning will be "neither an act of love nor of hate," but it is clearly the latter. Pastor Terry Jones has called Islam "of the devil," "a deceptive religion" and "a violent religion" that is "causing billions of people to go to hell."

This is despicable bigotry, of course, and the consequences could be bloody:

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Monday criticized a Florida church's plan to burn copies of the Quran on September 11, warning the demonstration "could cause significant problems" for American troops overseas.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan," Gen. David Petraeus said in a statement issued Monday.

I think that's right. Here's a church that no doubt considers itself patriotic, in that right-wing way that is really more nativist jingoism than patriotism, potentially putting American troops in harm's way as a direct result of its anti-Muslim bigotry.

But it isn't just Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center that's doing it. There is widespread anti-Muslim sentiment on the right, including among mainstream conservatives and throughout the Republican Party, and much of it, I think, adds to the existing anti-American sentiment among America's enemies, providing them with a rallying cry for action and support. More, I think, it reinforces the less intense and often non-violent anti-American sentiment within the Muslim community generally, pushing some towards violence and others towards skepticism of America's intentions at the very least. Anti-Muslim sentiment is undermining efforts of engagement with the Muslim world, weakening America's credibility around the world and threatening what limited advances America has made in building meaningful relationships with Muslim countries and reaching out to Muslims generally.

And yet it continues. There are those, for example, who call Obama a Muslim, implying that there is nothing worse than being a Muslim, that being a Muslim is being anti-American, with Islam and America forever at odds with one another. And there are those, like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, among so many others on the right, attacking the planned Muslim community center near Ground Zero, Park51, implying that being a Muslim is essentially the same as being a terrorist, that the Muslims who would go to Park51 are essentially the same as those Muslims who flew planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11. Why else, in their view, would it be disrespectful to have a Muslim community near Ground Zero?

If they even understand this, conservatives don't seem to care. And why would they? Many of them adhere to a radical right-wing worldview that pits America (and fundamentalist American Christianity) against Islam in a clash of civilizations to the death. Their ideology rests to a great extent on bigotry. And their electoral success relies on feeding the culture of fear and loathing at home, scaring Americans into being terrified of their defined Other (Muslims, gays, socialists, etc.).

But there are consequences. And like a boomerang, the hatred that goes out will come right back, a cycle that keeps feeding on itself, and growing, allowing extremists there and here to ratchet up the attacks.

It must be stopped, but how, with churches burning the Koran, conservatism moving ever further to the right, and the Republican Party descending ever further into madness? There is so much more to America than this right-wing and evangelical Christian bigotry, so much goodness and decency in the American soul, but it is that bigotry that gets the attention, and that gets projected, and perhaps Muslims and others around the world should be excused, short of responding with violence, for thinking that these bigots speak for America.

Letting the terrorists win: Newt Gingrich and the "Ground Zero mosque"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Like a shark drawn to blood, Newt Gingrich, whose nature apparently is to pick at painful wounds in the body politic in order to score partisan points and, more important for him, to keep his name in the news and feed his massive sense of self-importance, is still beating the drum of bigotry in opposition to Park51, the "Ground Zero mosque" that is neither at Ground Zero nor, strictly speaking, a mosque. And, faced with a New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who has been nothing short of brilliant in articulating a defence of Park51 based on a lofty sense of what America is supposed to be all about, not to mention the reality that the power-that-be have given the go-ahead for Park51 despite the uproar on the right, Gingrich is coming up with all sorts of new and stupid arguments and obstacles to block it. At TPM, Rachel Slajda has the latest:

In a radio interview today, he said he wants the national government to step in and stop the developers from building the Islamic community center by whatever means necessary.

"I think the Congress has the ability to declare the area a national battlefield memorial because I think we should think of the World Trade Center as a battlefield site; this is a war," he said, apparently thinking that if Ground Zero was a national park, Park51 would be restricted from building near it.

And if that fails, he said, the state government should step in and use its considerable power to stymie the development. 

Funny, isn't it, how the anti-government Gingrich wants the government to step in and tell a private religious organization what to do? I suppose it's okay for the government to be heavy-handedly oppressive when it comes to Muslims but not when it comes to Christians or the "free" market. Gingrich certainly wouldn't want the government interfering in his world, telling him what to do, and yet government control is a fine weapon to wield against undesirables.

The reality, of course, is that Park51 isn't at Ground Zero. It's some distance away from it. Even if Ground Zero were to be declared some sort of "battlefield site," some sort of eternally sacred area, there would still be any number of private interests -- religious, commercial, etc. -- in the area. If Park51 should move, why not, say, restaurants and sex shops, video stores and whatever else is in the neighbourhood? Because "this is a war," says Gingrich, which grossly misrepresents what is actually going on. Park 51 would be a Muslim community center, but, as President Bush himself stressed (to his credit), the U.S. isn't at war with Islam. It would be one thing if Park51 were some sort of pro-al Qaeda, pro-jihadist facility, a terrorist training camp, but of course it's not. In attacking it, and calling for it to be moved, conservatives like Gingrich are labelling all Muslims anti-American jihadists, an appallingly bigoted and disrespectful thing to do -- not least because there are many Muslims proudly serving in the U.S. military and because there were American Muslims who died on 9/11. (And, as has been noted, there's even a mosque at the Pentagon.)

Not that Gingrich cares about any of this. To him, this is merely a fantastic opportunity to keep up a visible media presence on an issue that Republicans have manufactured, with the media happy to oblige, to attack Democrats ahead of the midterms. But in portraying the "war" as both a religious and a civilizational conflict, he is playing directly, through fearmongering, to the deep-rooted nativism and ignorance of a large swathe of the American populace, not to mention of the Republican base.

I return to Bloomberg, who in contrast to Gingrich has spoken so eloquently, and so nobly:

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.

I am tempted to say that Gingrich and those with him on this issue are with the terrorists -- and I will say that, because they are. In opposing Park51 they are proving to be very much like those attacked America on 9/11, not in terms of their violence but in terms of their articulation of a worldview that pits "us" against "them," that divides people instead of seeking to unite them, that clamours for war instead of working for peace, that mirrors the hatred and bigotry of our enemies with hatred and bigotry of our own. And in trying desperately to capitalize on and benefit politically from this issue, they are indeed letting the terrorists win.

America is better than this, is it not? America is better than Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and all the others who are waving the flag and pointing it menacingly at Muslims, calling for the government essentially to crack down on a specific religion just because a tiny minority of that religion attacked America, and because they so badly want this "war" to rule our lives.

Gingrich passes himself off as an intellectual, but he's really just a thug who's read a few books and can speak coherently. He basks in bigotry and ignorance on this issue, as on so many others, and, no, Americans should not stand for it.

"Sharia" and American secularism

by Peter Henne

It's not often that academic issues like the relationship between Islamic thought and contemporary politics become relevant. So I was excited to see the Washington Post's story on the nature of sharia. This is connected to the Park51 debate, although the question of whether Muslims must follow sharia like an instruction book--and what this means for American society--periodically arises. The last time was an op-ed by Edward Luttwak claiming President Obama is a Muslim under Islamic law, and that all Muslims will be compelled to oppose him as an apostate.

The story includes blurbs by several experts--including Gallup's Dalia Mogahed--dispelling myths about sharia's totalizing influence over Muslims. And they are right; anyone who has spent even a semester studying Islam will have learned that sharia is not a fixed set of laws, but a set of principles drawn from diverse sources and about which there is much disagreement. Moreover, even if sharia does contain guidelines for Muslims, this does not mean all Muslims will follow it in their daily lives; Muslims are no more likely than Christians to check with their Scriptures before making a decision. This was covered well in the responses to Luttwak's piece.

The renowned Islamic scholar Olivier Roy--in his classic The Failure of Political Islam--describes sharia as characterized by both autonomy and incompleteness. That is, it exists independently of power structures but is constantly contested. The specific application of sharia in any context is based on contingent political, economic and societal factors, not any inherent aspect of Islam. Saying that sharia will lead Muslims in America to literally follow all aspects of their religious writings would be the same as arguing that medieval Catholic Canon Law not only represents all of Christianity, but drives the behavior of contemporary Catholics.

Of course, this does not address the question of what the effects may be of the infusion of Muslim values--whatever form they take--into American politics and civil society. This is a question that is worth pondering; we just need to ponder over the right facts.

Targeting Muslims, inciting violence

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Conservative fearmongers and hatemongers, including Newt and Sarah and all you Fox News propagandists, this, along with other such incidents, is at your feet:

In the latest in a spate of anti-Muslim incidents over the last two days, an intoxicated man entered a mosque in Queens on Wednesday evening and proceeded to urinate on prayer rugs, New York police officials said.

The man, identified as Omar Rivera, reportedly shouted anti-Muslim epithets and called worshippers who had gathered for evening prayer "terrorists." One witness told the New York Post the man was "very clearly intoxicated" and had a beer bottle in his hand at the time.

"He stuck up his middle finger and cursed at everyone," Mustapha Sadouki, who was at the mosque at the time, said. "He calls us terrorists, yet he comes into our mosque and terrorizes other people."

This, and worse, is what happens when you target Muslims, insinuating, or even outright declaring, that they're all a bunch of America-hating terrorists (including American Muslims who love America), that anyone who would attend a mosque or community center, near Ground Zero or elsewhere, must be a jihadist of some sort. You are stoking fear and inciting violence, and we will only see more of this as you continue to pollute the airwaves, and the air itself, with your relentless bigotry.

Quote of the Day

By Creature

"Last week I was in a cab when the sun officially set at 7:47 pm. My cab driver promptly broke out food for his iftar, and volunteered to me that he was Muslim that he could finally break his fast . Then he offered to share his food with me. It never occurred to me to stab him. I must not be watching enough Fox News." -- Gawker comment by doctorzizmore in reaction to the "are you Muslim" hate crime, cabby stabbing in NYC.

What the fight over Park51, the planned Muslim community center near Ground Zero, is really all about

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We really are in the dog days of summer.

Americans, apparently with nothing better to worry about, are still clashing heatedly over Park51, the planned Muslim community center (note: it's not really a mosque) near (note: not at) Ground Zero. I wrote about it before I went away on vacation a couple of weeks ago, my co-bloggers addressed it during my absence, and here I am writing about it upon my return. It's the story that just won't go away -- and understandably so, perhaps, as it has all the easy-to-digest and easy-to-regurgitate elements needed to keep the media interested and eager to feed it, including the language of the culture wars and the simplistic, self-serving conservative-spun narrative of us versus them, good versus evil, "America" (the distorted idea of America according to current conservative ideology) versus Islam(ism).

I don't need to rehash the clash here, and I probably don't need to restate my position on it. But let's go back to August 4 for a moment, when I responded to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's brilliant speech in support of the community center:

The conservatives attacking the "Ground Zero mosque" -- which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque -- do not honour those who died on 9/11, nor the Constitution, nor America itself. Rather, they spew bigotry, anti-Muslim bigotry, and seek to divide the country into "us" and "them," in so doing playing right into the hands of those who question America's commitment to its long-held values, proving America's enemies right. And in opposing the construction of the community center, these conservatives are proving to be a lot like al Qaeda and bin Laden, intolerant religious extremists who reject religious conciliation and understanding.

America should be better than that, and better than its enemies, and Michael Bloomberg clearly wants it to be. Ground Zero will remain what it has become, sacred ground, no matter what surrounds it, but the Islamic cultural center will be proof that America actually lives up to its values and principles -- to freedom -- even in the face of uncompromising adversity.

Nothing has changed -- other than the conservative attacks, which have gotten uglier, nastier, and stupider -- and I stand by that today.

**********

Bloomberg has continued to champion the community center, putting in the larger context of what this is all about. As he put it yesterday:

But if we say that a mosque and community center should not be built near the perimeter of the World Trade Center site, we would compromise our commitment to fighting terror with freedom.

We would undercut the values and principles that so many heroes died protecting. We would feed the false impressions that some Americans have about Muslims. We would send a signal around the world that Muslim Americans may be equal in the eyes of the law, but separate in the eyes of their countrymen. And we would hand a valuable propaganda tool to terrorist recruiters, who spread the fallacy that America is at war with Islam.

Islam did not attack the World Trade Center -- Al-Qaeda did. To implicate all of Islam for the actions of a few who twisted a great religion is unfair and un-American. Today we are not at war with Islam -- we are at war with Al-Qaeda and other extremists who hate freedom.

A stirring speech, and a stirring articulation of what America should be fighting for.

**********

Let me be clear about something, though. While I applaud the Cordoba Initiative's efforts to bridge the divide between Islam and the West, as well as to "[seek] to actively promote engagement through a myriad of programs, by reinforcing similarities and addressing differences," as it states on its website, it's not like I think Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the head of Cordoba (which is closely involved with Park51), is such a wonderful guy. As Christopher Hitchens noted at Slate on Monday, Cordoba "full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy." That might be overstating it somewhat -- Rauf is closer to Fox News (as Jon Stewart has pointed out in some fantastic reporting recently) than to jihadism or theocracy -- but it's fair to say, I think, that Rauf's record is not without its troubling points. (Fox News is gleefully reporting Rauf's remarks made at a 2005 conference in Australia that "[w]e tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims." But Rauf obviously wasn't excusing al Qaeda, he was just pointing out an undeniable fact, one that Americans, who generally have no idea what the world thinks of them, and why, would apparently rather ignore.)

As a liberal, I agree with Hitchens that tolerance must be a two-way street. Rauf, Cordoba, and Park51 ought to be tolerated, not least in a country that claims to value liberty and diversity, but there must also be tolerance by Muslims as well. And, yes, tolerance is sorely lacking in some quarters of the Muslim world, including among some American Muslims. (But, then, it is also sorely lacking in many, many quarters of American society, including among conservatives, as this clash has highlighted.) So while I object to the efforts to stop the community center, I also object to efforts, whether by Muslims or non-Muslims, to restrict liberty generally. America should be welcoming of Muslims and Islam, but, in America, Muslims and Islam also need to play by America's rules.

That applies, say, to Christian fundamentalists as well. I abhor Islamic theocracy, but I also abhor Christian or any other kind of theocracy. Liberals, after all, must be vigorous in the defence of liberty and must not let tolerance subvert freedom. There is nothing wrong with not tolerating theocracy and jihadism.

**********

But let us not go too far the other way either. What we must strive for, even as we promote and defend liberty, is balance. The question comes down to what ought to be tolerated.

It would be one thing, obviously, if Rauf were setting up a terrorist training facility at Park51. That would be acceptable neither close to Ground Zero nor anywhere else. But he isn't. He's involved with setting up a community center that "will be dedicated to pluralism, service, arts and culture, education and empowerment, appreciation for our city and a deep respect for our planet. Park51 will join New York to the world, offering a welcoming community center with multiple points of entry," one that "[u]phold[s] respect for the diversity of expression and ideas between all people." And the project is hardly disrespectful of the victims of 9/11: "[T]here won't be any views of the Ground Zero memorial from the building. To honor those killed on September 11th, we have planned for a public memorial within our future facility as well as reflection space open to all.
"

But of course the demented conservative worldview has no place for such things, so inflamed is it with fear, hatred, and loathing. Which means the clash isn't over, not with Republicans hoping to cash in politically on a manufactured controversy like this come November, not with conservatives seething with rage and spewing propaganda, and not with the media more than happy to play into conservatives' hands by keeping the story alive.

The fight for liberty and diversity, for the very heart of what it means to be American, must continue, even as the un-American ideas and activities of conservatives spin further and further to the extreme.

Quote of the Day

By Creature

"The only way to get offended by the community center is to fully buy into the clash of civilizations rhetoric and believe that terrorists didn’t attack us on 9/11, but Islam did." -- John Cole, with the bottom line on the Park51 saga.

Embarrassed

By Creature



It's hard to watch this video and feel pride about being an American right now. It seems the man being harassed for being Muslim (and, it's absolutely irrelevant if he is or not) was simply a "union carpenter who works at Ground Zero." As I said earlier, I really don't want to talk about Park51 anymore, but it's hard to ignore when the hate looks like this.

My problem, among many, is that I know a few good people who are on the anti-Park51 side. They don't pay close attention to the news, they read a few headlines, they hear their friends talk, and their opposition is born. These people are not bigots. However, they are a bit too knee-jerk patriotic and I fear this is what makes them easily susceptible to the lies being told. It pains me. All of it pains me.

Irony

By Peter Henne

In an episode in the second season of "Family Guy," the people of a post-apocalyptic town destroy all their guns in protest against their society's militarization. An army of mutated squid-babies then attacks the town, and one unnamed character says to another, "remember when you asked me what the definition of irony was?"

I had a similar reaction this morning, when I saw that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf--an organizer of the Park51 Islamic community center in Manhattan--is currently on a State Department-run trip in the Middle East to showcase US tolerance and pluralism. Ironically, as some denounce him as a "radical" in America he is being touted as a symbol of moderation abroad.

That being said, President Obama's detractors could attack him for sending this supposed "radical" on a Middle East speaking tour; this would thus not be irony, but just another mark on the Tea Partiers' "con" list. Indeed, this criticism has emerged from a few Republican legislators, including the ubiquitous Peter King. It is ironic, then, that Rauf was part of a similar effort by the Bush Administration: when Karen Hughes ran Bush's outreach to the "Muslim world," Rauf participated in a US-Islamic World Forum in Qatar.

There are, of course, various types of irony, with the classical definition being "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of the literal meaning." The irony surrounding Rauf is more a situational irony, in which an outcome differs from what was expected in an often perversely comical manner. And it is difficult to describe the current state of American political discourse as anything but perversely comical.