As debate continues between those favoring and those opposing what has been unflatteringly termed “the ground zero mosque,” I find myself supporting its construction.
A good deal of my opinion comes from my being a minority in this country.
An issue this entrenched in religion—like an issue dealing with race or sexual orientation—runs the risk of demagoguery and reductionism of a group of people and turning the Muslim community into a bogeyman.
I can’t help but be defensive when another minority group becomes caricatured and unfairly judged.
However, what cannot be discounted are the emotional wounds of New Yorkers: those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks.
I couldn’t fathom the depth of their grief and anger. There is real pain and emotion fueling this debate, a pain that should be understood and respected.
Misdirected emotion can be dangerous though; it can too easily veer into scapegoating, a mistrust of Muslims when the vast majority are upstanding Americans.
Sept. 11 affected all Americans, not just those in New York City. It is an indelible wound on our national psyche. The terms “hallowed ground” and “sacred space” are bandied around in reference to ground zero. Certainly the events that occurred there, the lives lost, give that land a special importance. But can those against the planned Islamic center and mosque privatize their grief? Can the site of a national tragedy be considered a local issue?
Everyone was affected by 9/11; the attacks weren’t purely acts against New York City. It was an attack against the entire country, against our shared values—among them religious freedom and acceptance. The construction of an Islamic center near ground zero would be a fitting tribute to those lost that day. It acts as a monument that exemplifies our ideals: No matter who you are, where you come from, or where you pray you are welcome here.
In Europe, Muslim communities face national culture clashes with their non-Muslim neighbors—for example, the banning of veils in France or the difficulty of building a mosque in Catholic Italy due to political backlash. This more often than not isolates both communities from each other. It would be an ideal gesture for the Islamic Center to be developed here, a gesture of acceptance and a gesture of healing.
In Murfreesboro, Tenn., a possible arson destroyed an Islamic center causing Muslims in the area to fear anti-Islamic fervor.
Last week, in Fresno, Calif., vandals left two signs at the Madera Islamic Center:
“Wake up America, the enemy is here,” and “No temple for the god of terrorism at Ground Zero.”
In New York City, a Muslim cab driver was stabbed after revealing his faith to his passenger.
Then there’s also the nonsensical belief held by some that President Obama is a Muslim—which he isn’t—but even if he were, would it matter?
Unfortunately, there is anti-Islamic sentiment in the country. While the ongoing controversy in New York City certainly didn’t start these feelings, it isn’t helping the nation’s climate.
People are not as simple as a flag or a faith.
We can’t isolate each other with the easy labels of religious conviction.
This Islamic Center would be a public symbol of our nation’s ability to transcend ignorance.
Carolina Olaya can be contacted at colaya@live.fr
“I took the point you were making, took it down its logical path to its conclusion, and illustrated how your point refutes itself in terms that most reasonable people can understand.”
Sadly, you didn’t take it down a logical path; you reduced to absurity an argument that I did not make. Ad hominem, strawman, reductio ad hitlerum.
You are -so- convinced that I am some sort of clone of a conservative talking head that your only recourse is to pull out talking points that could be applied to that talking head. You have to engage with the arguments you are given, not engage with a model of who you think you are debating.
(Of course, you don’t yet realize the the labels of ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’, ‘left’ and ‘right’ are so bereft of any real meaning as to be nothing more than babble!)
If I were grading your posts as if they were a paper in my class, I would give an AB for effort, but you don’t earn a passing grade for actually engaging with your debate opponent. Try again.
Well Mr./Mrs. Questioner, my argument was neither an ad hominem, nor a straw man argument in essence. My argument was Reductio Ad Absurdum. I took the point you were making, took it down its logical path to its conclusion, and illustrated how your point refutes itself in terms that most reasonable people can understand.
The premise of your initial point was that my analogy between Christianity and Islam was inadequate. Therefore I felt it necessary to draw the parallels between the two in order for you to comprehend how the gulf between the two is not as wide as is popularly believed. My point, now that I have to spell it out for you, is that most religions could be portrayed in the way that Islam has been, especially Christianity. The large discrepancy in how we treat different religions is purely subjective when viewed in this manner.
There is nothing to carefully examine in your words, because you offer nothing of value that someone couldn’t find from reading the logic page on Wikipedia for 10 minutes.
I find it odd that you have difficulty understanding how I would mistake your words for Glen Beck’s. What you said is the exact mantra that several pundits on Fox News tend to babble about. Perhaps you prefer Sean Hannity, but to be honest, they all kinda blur together in redundant parakeet fashion in my opinion.
–
Jason,
I see that I struck a nerve; as certainly you have gone into full strawman/ad hominem mode to deal with it. It didn’t even take you more than three paragraphs to reach reductio ad hitlerum; which by any measure is an impressive feat of declaring that you have lost before you even came close to finishing your first point.
You have introduced a counter argument of wholly your own invention, attributed your counter-argument to me, and then proceeded to refute it. Good game. I’m sure that you win a lot of debates on the interwebs.
Next time, perhaps, you should take the time to read carefully and come up with a thoughtful response. In fact, it may behoove you to admit that you were incorrect to equate the Oklahoma Bombing to 9/11 in terms of religiously inspired motivation. You did, however, accuse me of ‘regurgitating Genn Beck quotes’ (which is amusing given that I didn’t actually quote anyone but you in my post) and the ‘opinion’ of my own can be found in the very first post on this story.
I invite you to read carefully, for my thoughts are quite nuanced – an admitted rarity in this era of hyper-polarized idiot-blabber talking-points politics – perhaps you will learn something; or far more likely, be exposed to an argument outside of your echo chamber. “Isn’t that what a Liberal Arts education is all about?” – quoth the Gateways Prof.
Questioner:
You are right, Christianity has never killed people in the name of god. Well minus 9 crusades.
But at least Christians have never killed in the name of god outside of war, right? Well let’s not count that whole Spanish inquisition stuff.
But at least Christian’s are non-violent in modern times. That’s as long as you haven’t seen the fundamentalists in Jesus Camp, or pay attention to the KKK who believe they are God-chosen as the superior race.
Christians don’t commit acts of terrorism at least. But I guess you really don’t have to practice guerrilla warfare when you have the world’s strongest army. But I’m sure we don’t count the minute men as terrorists. Only the British would consider them terrorists.
But overall you are right: we have the right to vilify an entire religion of 1.2 billion people based on the actions that 19 people took. That’s just the same as me assuming you are a buck-toothed hill-billy who sleeps with his cousins because you are just as white as some inbred country bumpkin in Tennessee. You are also a war-mongering, genocidal, modern terrorist based on the actions that others of your ethnicity and religion have taken. You sound an awful lot like Hitler at this point. In fact you must be Hitler since you share a common trait with him.
Or you can realize that you can’t judge someone’s character based upon the actions that other people have taken. Someone could go out and kill in your name right now, does that mean we should ban you from America and burn you down? The simple answer is NO.
I do see you are excellent at taking a valid point of mine and using some trivial reasoning to inadequately refute the point I was making. I suggest you stop regurgitating Glen Beck quotes, as he is not the most critical of thinkers.
I also note that you were only critical of my point without offering any opinion of your own. That is wise, you don’t want me to be critical of your thoughts.
More to say, I’ll stop here, Pac-10 is on.
“If Islam is a terrorist religion because of the hijackers then so is Christianity because of the OKC bombings.”
This is a false equivalence, as the WTC attacks were carried out in the name of Islamic imperialism, while the OKC bombings were carried out to further the cause of overthrowing the US government.
There was no invocation of Christianity in the OKC bombings.
“Allahu Akbar” – Allah is great – is the battle cry of Islamic Imperialism.
Feel free to trash organized religion; but at the very least, get a better analogy.
I say we tear down all mosques. Along with all churches, synagogues, temples, and other religious symbols. To me, Islamic people didn’t attack the WTC, a religious person did. Since I now fear religion, all symbols of religion must be demolished.
Or you can realize your hypocrisy in attaching one of the most evil acts in recent history to an entire religion of 1.2 billion people. 19 people do not speak for an entire religion. Islam does not equal terrorism. If Islam is a terrorist religion because of the hijackers then so is Christianity because of the OKC bombings.
Attaching symbolism where it is unwarranted is a terrible trait of humans. Slaughtering pigs because we had the “swine flu” resulted in a pig genocide. Realize your illogical ways. Get over them.
Personally, I have a very very strong connection with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and it chokes me up to even think about it. I consider myself to be very accepting of other cultures and people of the world and yes I do believe that they have the right to build it wherever they chose, but why would they want to build an Islamic Center in that location? Places of worship are supposed to be about connecting with people and being in a place of peace. If you are going to build an Islamic Center in that spot, all thats going to happen is everyone will get upset about it, there will be protests, and possibly even violent attack from radicals. Bottom line is..why would the Muslim people want to make a place of worship near ground zero? To prove a point to the rest of the world that they are allowed to? Thats rediculous…pick a new spot.
The United States was attacked by terrorists of Muslim religon. Why then would you put a place with origin related to the people who carried out these attacks. You don’t have anyone trying to put up a memorial to Nazi Germany right next to the Auswitch Camp. If this happens its going to get vandalized non stop, and then it’s going to turn into “Look at this racist Americans…” No! Don’t put it upnd the problems won’t happen. And people try to argue that there are strip clubs near Ground Zero as on the news, that’s totaly different. The strip clubs were part of the reason why the attack happened.
Many people have come to this country and we have let them. My grandparents came through Ellis Island, had their names forceably changes, and had to learn English to survive. Now people come here and I have to press one for English? This is America, if you don’t like it leave
The issue with you saying that in Italy Mosques aren’t built in fear of political backlash is in a way hypocritical in that it’s the same in Muslim countries! My mother who is catholic recently went to Istanbul, Turkey while there she wanted to go to mass and she tried looking in the phone book and registry everywhere and didn’t even find one church to attend. If you do research you will find that 99.9% of Turkey is Islamic which equals to +/-72.3 million and Christian and Jewish combined make up less than 100,000 people. Now granted that is on Turkey but if you look at other countries whose main religion is Islam you will see that they are not very tolerant of other Religions such as Christian and Judaism! So here in the states yes, we prefer not to have Mosques but that is because if you look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and other terrorist anti-American countries you see Terrorists coming from Mosques and even some operating in/harboring them. One last thing when you look at all terrorists or anti-American Muslims they say nearly all the time “death to the infadel” (one who doesn’t practice their religion Islam)
I don’t care what religion you practice but I don’t believe that there should be a Mosque near ground zero and really I believe that there should not be any religious center should be built near it.
In the case of the Muslim cab driver who was attacked; his attacker was someone who was a member of a group which supports the mosque. That case isn’t so much of a case of bigotry as a case of, I would think, drunken insanity.
A lot of the opposition to the Mosque is fueled by a fear of symbolism. During the Islamic expansions (Between 700-1400 AD) Muslim ‘crusaders’ would regularly tear down temples and churches and build Mosques on top of them, or repurpose them as mosques by whitewashing walls and destroying priceless artwork (such as the case of the Hagia Sophia in what is now Istanbul).
The terrorists that destroyed the World Trade Center style themselves after these early Islamic triumphalists. Even the name ‘Cordoba’ symbolizes a deeply rooted western fear of the Islamic expansion that conquered Spain, and threatened Europe.
Now, it is not to say that that the group that is proposing this construction is related to terrorists or Islamic imperialism. They may not be. But it is naive to think that they do not know they are doing something provocative and symbolic – and not symbolic of American tolerance.