My thoughts on the Lower Manhattan Islamic Center.
Funny. I posted this entry on another social network I belong to -- the very different site "VampireFreaks.com." We're having an engaging conversation on the much abused Ground Zero Mosque Park 51. My thoughts below.
I not only support this project, I enthusiastically support it.
1. Ethical Reason #1: As to their right to build the center, there is no debate: it is explicit in the constitution. They have the right to build it, period.
2. Ethical Reason #2: It is a local issue. The way Republicans have tried to leverage this issue (the same way
Republicans have pretended to own a tragedy that happened in one of the nation's great progressive cities) is offensive. These are the people who still get up in knots over state rights, but they're happy to intervene in municipal matters on the federal level.
3. Ethical Reason #3: As they said on the Daily Show, "Sure we have the right to build Catholic Churches next to a playground, but *should* we? I mean, it's too soon." As a practicing Catholic, I wound this quite a propo.
There are multiple churches near Ground Zero, and for that matter, multiple churches near the Oklahoma City Federal Center (McVeigh was Christian). There is no way to oppose this without being hypocritical.
4. Ethical Reason #4: Contrary to the standard Communist credo that religion is "the opiate of the masses" I believe that the "marketplace of ideas" is the *only* free market that really works over time, and religion is an important component of this. By preferring one religion or belief system over another by law, we are taking de facto control of citizens power to choose and judge.
5. Ethical Reason #5: I grew up in an atheist family, and I have Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Buddhist, Hindu, and friends of other faiths. I have worked for the Parliament of Religions, which is one the world's largest and oldest interreligious organizations. I have read the Qur'an and the Hadiths. Islam embraces the same spectrum of ideas and beliefs that any religion does, and by judging all members by a subset, we are no better than judging all Christians by abortion clinic bombers or all Hindus by Sati.
6. Ethical Reason #6: The structure isn't a mosque; it's a community center with a prayer room. It isn't at Ground Zero; it's several blocks away.
7. Ethical Reason #7: For years New Yorkers and Americans haven't objected to a nearby strip club... is a prayer room in a community center really worse than a lapdance?
8. Practical Reason #1: The public opposition to the center belies the notion that we are the land of religious freedom. By our own actions, we evidently are not.
9. Practical Reason #2: Support for the center would convey to the Muslim world specifically that, despite their foreign policy disagreement with us, the U.S. is still a civil society that provides for religious practice, including Islam. This was an opportunity wasted.
10. Practical Reason #3: Such unfair opposition inflames the fundamentalists we oppose, gives them more traction with moderate Muslims, and empowers an insurgency that is militarily engaged with the U.S. abroad. In this case, I agree with Gen. Petraeus. This fiasco against the U.S. constitution endangers the troops.
I not only support this project, I enthusiastically support it.
1. Ethical Reason #1: As to their right to build the center, there is no debate: it is explicit in the constitution. They have the right to build it, period.
2. Ethical Reason #2: It is a local issue. The way Republicans have tried to leverage this issue (the same way
Republicans have pretended to own a tragedy that happened in one of the nation's great progressive cities) is offensive. These are the people who still get up in knots over state rights, but they're happy to intervene in municipal matters on the federal level.
3. Ethical Reason #3: As they said on the Daily Show, "Sure we have the right to build Catholic Churches next to a playground, but *should* we? I mean, it's too soon." As a practicing Catholic, I wound this quite a propo.
There are multiple churches near Ground Zero, and for that matter, multiple churches near the Oklahoma City Federal Center (McVeigh was Christian). There is no way to oppose this without being hypocritical.
4. Ethical Reason #4: Contrary to the standard Communist credo that religion is "the opiate of the masses" I believe that the "marketplace of ideas" is the *only* free market that really works over time, and religion is an important component of this. By preferring one religion or belief system over another by law, we are taking de facto control of citizens power to choose and judge.
5. Ethical Reason #5: I grew up in an atheist family, and I have Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Buddhist, Hindu, and friends of other faiths. I have worked for the Parliament of Religions, which is one the world's largest and oldest interreligious organizations. I have read the Qur'an and the Hadiths. Islam embraces the same spectrum of ideas and beliefs that any religion does, and by judging all members by a subset, we are no better than judging all Christians by abortion clinic bombers or all Hindus by Sati.
6. Ethical Reason #6: The structure isn't a mosque; it's a community center with a prayer room. It isn't at Ground Zero; it's several blocks away.
7. Ethical Reason #7: For years New Yorkers and Americans haven't objected to a nearby strip club... is a prayer room in a community center really worse than a lapdance?
8. Practical Reason #1: The public opposition to the center belies the notion that we are the land of religious freedom. By our own actions, we evidently are not.
9. Practical Reason #2: Support for the center would convey to the Muslim world specifically that, despite their foreign policy disagreement with us, the U.S. is still a civil society that provides for religious practice, including Islam. This was an opportunity wasted.
10. Practical Reason #3: Such unfair opposition inflames the fundamentalists we oppose, gives them more traction with moderate Muslims, and empowers an insurgency that is militarily engaged with the U.S. abroad. In this case, I agree with Gen. Petraeus. This fiasco against the U.S. constitution endangers the troops.
Comment
-
Comment by Devin O'Rourke on September 16, 2010 at 3:42pm -
Connor,
I like your post, and I think you've done a good job of laying out some short, lucid, and concise reasons why the Park51 Center doesn't pose a threat to the American people, democracy, or any of the other reasons antagonists have been spouting in recent months. I do want to bring attention to you sixth reason, however, because I think this "clarification" actually implicitly damages the perception of Islam in the U.S.
I was reading an article somewhere recently where this same issue was raised. I believe it was Religion Dispatches, but I'm not certain. Anyways, the author pointed out the fact that many pro-mosque commentators, including Imam Rauf and his wife, have sought to win over the public by pointing out that Park51 is not really a mosque, it's actually a community center. Morever, there seems to have been a strategic effort made on the parts of the planners to remove all semblances of traditional Islam from the building. This ranges from the unassuming and ambiguous name, Park51, to the structure of the building itself. There remains hardly any ways to correlate the Park51 building with Islam, at least from the perspective of a unkowing passerby.
My question is this: why should these factors be seen as aspects that make the building more acceptable? Assume, for a moment, that a different Islamic group had purchased the grounds for the proposed Center, a group just as peace-loving as Imam Rauf and his investors, the only difference being the second, hypothetical group wanted to make the building as traditional as possible. They chose the name "Masjid al-Islam" to be emblazoned on the exterior in Arabic and English characters, in addition to minarets, a dome, and crescent moon extending from the top. Would this latter building be any less acceptable? If so, why?
I believe that by emphasizing that Park51 isn't really a mosque, it implicitly assumes that a full-blown mosque would be inappropriate, which contradicts the principles of religious liberty and tolerance that so many mosque-proponents are beseeching. I think this is an oversight that is occuring in many of the debates, and it actually has a parallel to the 2008 elections. Some Americans were up-in-arms because they believed Barack Obama was Muslim. Of course, this deserved clarification, though many commentators didn't aknowledge that these fears originated from a form of Islamaphobia. Why the preoccupation with Barack Obama's religion? Thankfully, a comment made by Colin Powell at the time helped to bring this issue to the surface when he simply stated that Barack is in fact a Christian, but what if he were Muslim? Would that affect his qualifications for the presidency?
Anyways, I'm not intending to berate the point, I just believe this one, short little point carries with it some fairly complicated and deep-seated presuppositions.
-
Comment by Paul Williams on September 12, 2010 at 7:17pm -
I concur with this blogger's views. Now what do we do with the atheist Australian academic who rolled mock joints with pages of both the Koran and the Bible and smoked them?
Fortunately Pastor Terry Jones (of the Dove World Outreach Centre) showed that he did in fact have a bit of 'dove' in him by calling off the burning of the Koran in Florida, but only to have his place taken in the reckless antagonism of fundamentalist religious communities by a self-serving twit with a different kind of point to prove. Surely there are other ways than this to suggest we learn to 'chill' about religious dogma and diffference.
© 2012 Created by The Parliament of Religions.
You need to be a member of PeaceNext to add comments!
Join PeaceNext