sophiaserpentia | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

Look, I have to say something about the 'Ground Zero Mosque,' because frankly, what I'm seeing disgusts me to no end.

First of all, I'm appalled by the very fact that anyone opposes it. I am not personally a huge fan of Islam, any more than I'm a fan of Christianity, generally speaking; the two religions are about 97% identical and mainstream versions of both think I am hellbound. But I do think that Muslims, like Christians, as members of our society have the right to practice their religion openly, in peace.

Muslims were among the Americans killed on 9/11. Muslims are among the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Muslims pay taxes (or avoid them, hehehe) just like everyone else in the US. To say that a mosque near Ground Zero is an 'affront' to survivors' families (1) overlooks the families of Muslims killed there and (2) papers over the distinction between peaceful Muslims and Islamist terrorists. It is thus a position rooted in sheer prejudice. Opposing the mosque near Ground Zero is like opposing a church near the spot where the Murrah building once stood in Oklahoma City.

Second of all, the ADL can take a flying leap into the Hudson River. They showed their true colors with their self-serving opposition to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, and they show their true colors again by adding their voice to those of the haters on this issue.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

My take on this has largely been to try to mentally flip the circumstances. The one that comes to mind it maybe over blown but I use it because I have actually read about plots to attack the site.

If a group of Christian terrorists succeeded in blowing up the Dome of the Rock, killing lots of muslims in the process, how would it be viewed ten years later if a Christian organization wanted to build something large close to the sight.

My guess is there would be outrage from the muslim world and the same people who are calling the bigots "bigots" in NYC would think it was totally inappropriate for the Christians to build.

I don't think its that shocking that people are outraged. I am not particularly outraged, but neither am I outraged that people are outraged. My take is that 9/11 happened... but that its repercussions are largely the result of joint propaganda projects by muslim extremists, conservative western extremists, a US administration that had much to gain, and the mainstream muslim world that really hesitated to "fully" condemn the act for far to long to make their disapproval believable. So the project was successful on many fronts and people that condemn the response aught to point so something other than simple bigotry.

There are a few problems with this analogy, not the least of which is that the WTC is not a Christian or even religious symbol (unless perhaps one worships free market capitalism).

I think there are plenty of people who believe it is "inappropriate" to create an Islamic Cultural Center near ground zero yet find it far more inappropriate or even horrifying to call for actions to be taken to disallow its creation. Given that the principles Western society is supposedly built on aren't supposed to be a mirror of Muslim theocratic societies, saying the reaction is a mirror of probable Muslim theocratic reaction ought to be a cause for concern and analysis rather than feelings of justification, I would think.

Also, I don't think many people have said it was "simple bigotry." But clearly a significant part of the reaction is built upon a basic "insider-outsider" dynamic that places "Muslim American" in the "outsider" group.

Please give me an example of a non religious symbolic target in the muslim world.

The west is actually more bent out of shape with the deaths of innocent people than symbolism. The governments are more concerned with the financial and the political but the people of the west don't love civilians in offices getting killed.

I was speaking of the population most affected by the propaganda. Are you really expecting mom and pop to express horror at the rights of muslims to express bad taste being infringed upon? Im talking about reality not ideological perfection.

I think if you don't explain things better than using the word bigotry you have said "simple bigotry"

I live in NYC. Muslim Americans do as much or more to place themselves in the outsider group as whitey does to put them there. The Orthodox Jews in my neighborhood do it even better.

Well, the "muslim world" is a bit of a problematic concept, but one that immediately comes to mind as a bit more apt is the Burj Dubai/Khalifa.

If it were true that the west is "actually more bent out of shape with the deaths of innocent people than symbolism" it would be recognized that some of the innocent people killed have been Muslim. Thus, it's not as simple as you want to frame it.

I expect what "mom and pop" think to largely reflect what they're told in the media and what their political leaders say. The nationalization of the debate has been fueled by Tea Party activists, conservative pundits, Republican leadership, and the Fox News media machine. The earliest media account objecting to the building of the mosque I can find is by Mark Williams, a Tea Party activist and right-wing talk show host ( http://www.marktalk.com/blog/?p=9636 ) and the latest round of media attention, from what I can tell, is based on a Tweet by Sarah Palin. I have pretty low expectations for Mark and Sarah, but I have somewhat higher expectations for the Republican leadership and conservative pundits as a whole, and particularly for groups like the ADL. What you seem to take as a given I take as the important piece that could show variance from what we see.

Maybe

sophiaserpentia's analysis focused on bigotry (although I think talking about "self-serving opposition" complicates that somewhat) but I took your comment to be about the more general reaction. If that was not your intent my bad.

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between an ethno-religious minority seeking to preserve its distinctiveness and the majority treating an ethno-religious minority as second class citizens.

I don't think the trade center was actually a symbolic target at all. I think it was a financial one. The symbolism was to Attack "innocent" Americans on their own soil. Part of the reason that I picked the Dome of the Rock is that it is an actual target for Christian and Jewish terrorists. I don't think any financial target could rock the muslim world. But I don't know that. You're an academic. If you were also a terrorist what would you attack? Do you really think the Burj Kalifa would have the desired impact in the hearts of the Muslim mom and pops?

The point is that most of us (americans) are not seeing this as a Christian/Muslim conflict. Most of us are seeing it as a good team America vs bad team Muslim world because that is how it has been painted. The specific issue of the construction may be being inflamed by the tea party and Sarah Palin but the propaganda is almost a decade old. If you don't think the exact same propaganda is working the exact same way on the other side go take a trip.

Please find me a place any where on the planet anywhere in history where self segregation led to equal consideration by the majority. America is as close as it gets and we really aren't doing bad considering.

If there were such criticism leveled at the hypothetical project you describe, it would be out of concerns that the church was an emblem of a sort of neo-colonial encroachment on sacred Muslim space. But there are a few ways in which I think the analogy (while I see what you're saying) doesn't quite apply.

Is the church being built by a Christian version of al Qaeda? Or by Christians who are already members of the community in Jerusalem, some of whom are relatives of people actually killed in the terrorist act?

These are important distinctions, because it does come down to this: it is unfortunate and unfair to paint all people of a group based on the actions of a few. (Mea culpa, but I'm trying to get better about it.)

The point I was trying to make is that the project was to divide the world into "us" and "them". "Us" being the west, not Christians. Much Muslim propaganda has had to do with equating the west with Christendom and current movements with the historical crusades. They want to see it as a religious war and its useful to suggest that we have a religion even if most of us only pay a bit of lip service to one.

The point is that muslims have a very strong sense of themselves as a group that needs to be protected by the group. The reality is that all but a few Christians do not share idea.

Any Christians building a church in the vicinity would certainly be perceived as part of the Christian invaders.

I used the dome of the rock partly because it is not in the heart of the a muslim country, but a contested area. Part of the propaganda of all sides is to perceive america as a contested area to. "We are being invaded and settled by the Muslims"

Im not saying this is a perfect analogy. Its meant to bring up a point and the point is that we more liberal sorts of people would not likely defend the rights of Christians in a similar situation. We would more likely state what terrible taste was being shown by the construction.

The "most watched news network on television" is a Muslim-propaganda machine? I'm not saying the FRC brand of Christianity which is prominent in politics ( and almost exclusively the only (self-identifying as) Christian voice in US media is necessarily representative of Christianity or even of US Christians, but if you want to convince a population that US is building armies of God to protect the highly persecuted religion of Christianity, one would only have to turn to mainstream U.S. news and talk show programming to "prove" this.

Part of the propaganda of all sides is to perceive america as a contested area to.

And that is where the outrage at the outrage stems from. America is not a contested area. Certainly not (if you believe reality more than Fox news) a religiously contested area. The WTC was not a holy site (much less one of the most holy sites of a religion) which is being replaced by the holy site of another religion. The only fight for religious supremacy is in the minds of bigots. So there is no reason for the mosque to be consider in poor tastes.

Really, let's not pretend that the objection to the mosque is even related to its location. The amount of news coverage it has received is located to its location. People are protesting the construction of new Islamic centers and mosques - as well as existing ones - all across the nation. Because our media has handed them the lies of "invasion" that they can use to justify their hatred.

I used the dome of the rock partly because it is not in the heart of the a muslim country, but a contested area.

Which would make an attack on the Dome of the Rock a clear attack on the Islamic faith itself. Not an attack on a nation with a majority of members who practice that faith. Not a financial attack to upset a government. Even if it could have political implications. If a Islamic terrorist group destroyed a place like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or the Vatican and an then later an Islamic group then wanted to build a mosque in that vicinity then that would be in poor taste.

The WTC was not a holy site (much less one of the most holy sites of a religion) which is being replaced by the holy site of another religion. The only fight for religious supremacy is in the minds of bigots. So there is no reason for the mosque to be consider in poor tastes.

Nobody said the WTC was a holy site. Again, find me an important site in the middle east that is not a holy site. It was an important financial center and a very impressive target. It was a target that was destroyed killing many many innocent people by a group of people who enjoyed folk hero status throughout much of the muslim world for what they did. There were many half hearted condemnations of 9/11 before there were any strong condemnations coming out of the muslim world. How long was it before the fatwa was leveled against Osama Bin Laden? It was after the train bombings in Spain. That was the first official response from Muslim Clerics.

I think that there is a fairly justifiable reason to feel resentment against the Muslim "mainstream" response to 9/11. Only a few Muslims did it but large numbers idolized them across the world and at the very least had to give qualified answers when asked if 9/11 was wrong.

I certainly understand why people find it in poor taste to build a mosque at or very close to the site. I have to admit I find it difficult to understand how anyone could not at least acknowledge the poor taste.

The objection to the mosque is totally related to its location. I have heard of objections to the construction of mosques in Europe but I have honestly not heard of objections to the building of mosques in the US before this.

Are you unaware of the significance of the location of the Dome of the Rock in Christian and Jewish faiths? They could totally want to just get rid of the Mosque so they could rebuild the Temple (and start the rapture). It would certainly be seen as an attack on Islam even if the terrorists were not really that interested in sending a message to Muslims. If the jews rebuilt the temple and the christians built a church nearby both would be seen as very poor taste. They would elicit more than angry attempts to block the construction.

In what way would blowing up the Dome of the Rock to pave the way for the rebuilding of the Temple NOT be sending a message to Muslims that their faith is in the way of what the bombers would see as the glorious future of Christianity?

Again, find me an important site in the middle east that is not a holy site.

Why do you insist that the site be important to the Middle East as a whole? As opposed to individual nations or certain cross-national factions? The area is divided against itself in some ways. Not without help from outside nations. And bin Laden himself was gained power from playing of that internal divisiveness.

The "impressiveness" of the WTC not so much the grandeur of the building, or its importance to the US economy, as it is that it was a target on soil physically untouched by war in the modern era. Much of the Middle East has been touched by war, including US troops. Even prior to 9/11.

Why do you insist on equating "Middle East" and the whole complexity of Middle Eastern politics with Islam? There are over twice as many majority Islam nations than there are nations which can be included in even an expanded definition of the Middle East. Your analogy is demanding that the target be something that has religious significance to an entire faith, regardless of political affiliation. Whereas the WTC was all about political affiliations.

Only a few Muslims did it but large numbers idolized them across the world and at the very least had to give qualified answers when asked if 9/11 was wrong.

So you are saying that Muslims have to take the high road where Western Christians do not in order for people to not be offended? I mean, lots of Americans see the wars in the Middle East (pre and even more so post 9/11) as a war against Muslims. Not a war against certain regimes/in support of our economic policy. And support it for that reason.

I don't understand how people can not be offended by the persecution of Christians in Middle Eastern countries. I don't understand how people here can discriminate against Islam because of political wars. And I certainly don't understand how anyone can be against one discrimination but for the other.

The objection to the mosque is totally related to its location.

There are protests against planned Mosques in Staten Island, Murfreesboro, TN; Temecula, CA; and Sheboygan, WI? Bryan Fischer of the AFA has stated "Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America."

This is not even counting the rise in protests outside of Mosques during worship hours and the increase in vandalism against Mosques. Or protesting outside Mosques.

In what way do you think that Christianity does not see all other religions as inferior in the exact same way that Islam sees all other religions? Christian and or Jewish terrorists blowing up the Dome of the Rock could "could" be seen as reclaiming sacred space. In that sense it is irrelevant that it is being reclaimed from this guy or that guy.

Who would the Jewish/Christian terrorists be attacking? The government of Sudan? I feel like you are completely ignoring that I am discussing the western and muslim tension that has been building for a few hundred years. The nations are irrelevant in that sense. I am not endorsing this world view I am discussing a reality that exists. And I am repeating points from other responses but muslims have a very strong sense of themselves as a group that needs to be protected by the group. I wouldn't group them all together if they weren't doing it themselves.

I think this discussion is rapidly breaking down through the internet. I am finding it incredibly difficult to even understand what you are saying. For example:

The "impressiveness" of the WTC not so much the grandeur of the building, or its importance to the US economy, as it is that it was a target on soil physically untouched by war in the modern era.

I think you are trying to say that the WTC was an important target because the US was previously untouched by war but the way you said it is a little hard to follow.

"So you are saying that Muslims have to take the high road where Western Christians do not in order for people to not be offended? I mean, lots of Americans see the wars in the Middle East (pre and even more so post 9/11) as a war against Muslims. Not a war against certain regimes/in support of our economic policy. And support it for that reason."

I love this comment because you defend the rights of muslims to say that 9/11 was justified but deny the rights of the families of the dead to be offended by it. We are in America. Our media covered 9/11 a little more than it did the internal wars of the middle east. For muslims, particularly American muslims, to hang it out there that 9/11 was justified in the immediate aftermath was a little much, and it is no surprise that mom and pop in the midwest were and are still offended. Any real awareness of the middle east started for many americans with 9/11 and how did it start? With many muslim americans hemming and hawing about whether 9/11 was justified. Great P.R. move. The western propaganda machine went into overdrive after 9/11 to see things as the class of cultures/religions. The muslim propaganda machine had been working that angle for some decades before that.

"I don't understand how people can not be offended by the persecution of Christians in Middle Eastern countries. I don't understand how people here can discriminate against Islam because of political wars. And I certainly don't understand how anyone can be against one discrimination but for the other. "

No offense but I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Who isn't offended by the persecution of Christians in Middle Eastern countries? You mean the muslim majorities in those countries? And what does this have to do with what I was talking about? Maybe the average american needs better news but I still think they are more concerned for their own kin. Which is a lot of the point I was making. We are not a unified "Christian body" that is hyper concerned with the treatment of christians around the world. That is much more of a muslim thing.

I still say that the objection to THIS mosque is totally related to its location.

Lame about the protests except that the post 9/11 P.R. that I mentioned set them up for it. Obviously not everyone believes that 9/11 was justified but instead of stepping up and self policing the dialogue within their communities and making sure non muslims know its happening, people are screaming about their rights. And while I agree that their rights are being infringed upon they are not helping mom and pop's view of them by in one breath justifying 9/11 and in the next complaining about their right to build new mosques for their kind and gentle religion.

Protests and vandalism... Again, should have taken the moral high ground as you put it when they had the chance.

And no, I don't think Muslims should be discriminated against. I do however believe that muslims and especially western muslims have been having a very difficult time assimilating into secular society. If it is all a matter of discrimination please explain why hindus and sikhs and buddhists and well, pretty much every other religion is not having as difficult a time with the transition.

And I completely agree that it is unfair to paint all people of a group based on the actions of a few. Its predictable though and I wish christians, muslims and jews were more self policing so violence was not part of the religious dialog.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only