Obama finally weighed in on the “mosque at ground zero” kerfuffle. From how the heated rhetoric is flying, one would imagine that the proposed mosque and community centre is right at the site, which it isn’t. Yesterday, at the White House, Barack stated::
“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country…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…This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable…Time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, and stay true to our core values and emerge stronger for it. So it must be and will be today.”
While NYC Mayor Bloomburg expressed support for Obama’s message and the mosque and cultural centre, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and other Republicans have used the mosque as a wedge issue.
Debra Burlingame, an activist representing some of the 9/11 victims and sister of one of the pilots killed in the attacks said::
“Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see…Building the mosque at ground zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah.”
Burlingame warns of the fundamentalist nature of Islam in the following video, invoking talk of conspiracy theories::
The framing of Islam as a monolithic “other” in direct opposition of American values seems a bit extreme, let alone equating the religion with terrorist acts or organizations. Others are offering a slightly softer criticism by saying that a mosque near ground zero does violence to the families of the victims. Again, the problem is that Islam is being equated with attacks.
Globalization is laying the groundwork for increases in such “clashes of civilizations”, as anti-Islamic sentiments rise in both Europe and the North America. Public opinion in the U.S. isn’t with Obama on this one 52-31%.
I get a sense that many can separate the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church from all Baptist or Christianity. Equating Islam with the actions of Al-Qaeda and placing limitations on Islamic religious institutions to be built near “hallowed ground” out of a sensitivity for victims fosters values that are unable or unwilling to make fine distinctions.
I’m reminded of Richard A. Clarke’s 2005 fictitious dystopic vision of the United States in 2011.
“Perhaps, too, we could have followed the proposal of the 9/11 Commission and engaged the Islamic world in a true battle of ideas. Indeed, if we had not from the start adopted tactics and rhetoric that cast the war on terror as a new ‘Crusade,’ as a struggle of good versus evil, we might have been able to achieve more popular support in the Islamic world. Our attempts to change Islamic opinion with an Arabic-language satellite-television news station and an Arabic radio station carrying rock music were simply not enough. We talked about replacing the hate-fostering madrassahs with modern educational programs, but we never succeeded in making that happen. Nor did we successfully work behind the scenes with our Muslim friends to create an ideological counterweight to the jihadis. Although we talked hopefully about negotiated outcomes to the Palestinian conflict and the struggle in Chechnya, neither actually came to pass.”
Within the context of globalization, the mosque at ground zero is the wrong stand to be taking.
Song:: Les Negresses Vertes-“200 Ans d’Hipocrisy”
Twitterversion:: [blog] @BarackObama weighs in on ground-zero mosque issue. Those framing Islam as the “other” missing bigger picture. @Prof_K @ThickCulture
Comments 4
Bob Boynton — August 15, 2010
I believe we would have been better served if he had addressed this as a matter of our history -- the Mayflower -- and a constitutional matter. Instead of a right he might have said we do not have constitutional provisions for some and not for others. Of course, that is what is implied by his use of "right," but it would have been more persuasive to more people to talk about our constitution than their rights.
Steve — August 15, 2010
I agree with you Ken, and Obama. It's a noble perspective from which to evaluate this issue. (And, given that the President has chosen to weigh in on this controversy, really the only stand he could have taken).
However...
Wind the clock back to 1954, and McDonalds want to open a burger joint anywhere in downtown Hiroshima. In the name of economic freedom, cultural acceptance, American values, call it what you will, who should be shouldering the responsibility of this bad idea - the Japanese people, or McDonalds?
Any imam interested furthering acceptance of Islam into the American culture, for all of the right reasons, has simply got to see that trying to stick a mosque anywhere near ground zero will a terribly counterproductive idea. Keep in mind, those that survived 9/11, those that were working in and around the blocks surrounding the towers, are likely much more scarred by the event than you and I could even imagine being (victims families of course notwithstanding). A new mosque anywhere near lower Manhattan for the next 50(?) years? Seriously?? Ken, what is your aversion toward asking the same value-motivated standards of the mosque supporters that you're asking of those opposing the idea? I'm just sayin...
jose — August 15, 2010
Nice point Steve, but Islam isn't a nation state we were at war with. It would be more akin to saying the Taliban wanted to put a "cultural center" near ground zero. Your argument implies that Islam should be held to account for 9-11. If true, then should all of Christianity be held to account for extremism. Should there be no churches anywhere near the OKC federal building because Timothy McVeigh was an extreme christianist? The idea wouldn't fly in OKC, but because of the "srangeness" of Islam in the US, we are comfortable with conflating Islam with racial Wahhabism.
Steve — August 16, 2010
Jose, I think you've misinterpreted the point of my McDonalds/Hiroshima analogy. First, my intent is to focus through the socio-cultural lens rather than the nation-state lens. Second, I'm much more interested in McDonald's role as the protagonist in the relationship than I am the US nation-state as a contextual backdrop agent. In other words, while the broad context of WWII was certainly a case of Japan and the US, two nation-states, warring with one another, ten years after the fact I'm looking at this example as a cultural relationship between the Japanese people and a small aspect of American corporatism in the aftermath of an intensely violent experience. Indeed, as you argued Jose, and I agree with you completely, McDonalds is no more equatable with the nation-state that warred with Japan 10 years earlier than is Imam Feisal (and his mosque intentions) with the extremist forces that unleashed the violence of 9-11. Violence was perpetrated on Hiroshima by an agent only remotely related to McDonalds. Similarly, violence was perpetrated on NYC by an agent only remotely related to Imam Feisal.
I also want to restate that I agree, in theory, concept, and hope, with what I interpret Ken's thesis above to be -- that ideally the American people, the antagonists in this case, should not equate Imam Feisal with the progenitors of the WTC attack. Similarly, back to my analogy, I would hope that the Japanese people would not equate McDonalds with the progenitors of the Hiroshima attack -- again, in theory. That said, I cannot imagine any of us in 1954 asking the Japanese people to accept and embrace a McDonalds attempt to place a franchise in downtown Hiroshima on the premise that it's wrong to equate McDonalds with the agent that perpetrated the atomic bomb -- but I digress... This argument is about the protagonist's role, NOT the antagonist's.
My entire point of the McDonalds/Hiroshima analogy was to use the responsibilities of McDonalds in this relationship as a means to illuminate those of Imam Feisal--an aspect of the current issue that seems to escape criticism entirely. In 1954, I'm suggesting it would have been appropriate and reasonable to expect McDonalds to "get real." Forget the obvious affront, intended or not. From a self-interest perspective alone, we would implore McDonald's to see the obvious short-sightedness of their choice. We would probably also stand in judgment of that choice, and, I THINK, reasonably so. Similarly, by analogy, I was simply suggesting to Ken that he apply the standard of conduct he assigns the antagonists (Americans/NYC citizens) to the protagonist, Imam Feisal, as well. Through the analogy, one sees that while it would be great of the Japanese and American people to be more open-minded and value driven, the real responsibilities here lie with the choices of McDonalds and the Imam, who are both, given their respective contexts, acting in ways that are unrealistic, unreasonable, and affronting to boot.