I think, in a wider sense than this discussion, some of the people supporting the Mosque/Community Centre/Interfaith Prayer Centre (I'm still not certain what it actually is because it changes depending on who you're talking to, but it doesn't really matter either) should stop acting as if the people who find it insensitive are not worthy of consideration. That's not because I find it insensitive, but because I think large groups of people who feel strongly about things should always be considered if only on for their potential to engage in acts of violence or ability to spread further hatred. I should express my own personal views very clearly before I go on though:
- I don't have strong feelings about 9/11 or ground zero. I have strong feelings about controversies and political drama which can have real-world consequences.
- I make no attempt to align Islam or the majority of Muslims with Islamic terrorists, but I acknowledge there are people who do and many who believe them.
- No amount of protest, outrage (or faux-outrage as some would have it) or objection can justify abrogating certain rights (freedom of religious expression) but that doesn't mean people won't try. Sometimes they will use violence, threats, and other underhanded tactics to do so.
- Having the right to do something is not a good reason to do it. Nobody in their right mind would cheer for someone who owned a vast cache of deadly firearms in the absense of any need simply because he or she is exercizing their right to bear arms, and nobody would cheer on loud-mouth jerk for viciously ripping into others simply because they have a right to free speech.
However much you dislike the people opposed to the idea, however insensible you feel their opinions are, you cannot simply ignore them. It does not even matter if you can objectively prove their fears to be completely baseless. None of this is going to get them packed up and shipped out of the country, and in lieu of that they have as much right to be outraged, angry, stupid, loud, intolerant and annoying (however you wish to categorize them) as the Mosque/Community Centre/Whatever does to go up. The truly important things to consider are how many of them exist, and how willing are they to translate their real or imagined grievances into political or politically motivated actions.
In other words whether you think it should, or should not - whether in a perfect world it would or would not - its clear this is straining the already strained relationship that many American citizens have with the Muslim world: an issue of significance to some one point three billion people, or about one sixth of the entire planets population, or more given that there are even Westerners outside America who are taking issue with it. Is that really worth it to make some abstract point about freedom of religion? Are there not thousands of other examples you can point to which do, indeed, demonstrate that, yes, freedom of religion does exist in America? Could one not simply invite a group of Imams to join an inter-faith prayer service on Ground Zero itself, rather than create a structure which will go on existing and potentially become a magnet for protests and even acts of violence?
Is anyone honestly of the belief that this will help, and somehow soothe the aggrieved feelings on both sides? I can, in ten years, see it being known as simply 'that stupid building that led to the big shit-storm and all those problems,' and that’s about it. That's what I can see, though I'm sure plenty of people disagree with me, and that's OK. I don't claim to be right.
I have yet to hear a single person explain what important function this building is going to serve. All I have heard about is that it has a right to be constructed.
On the subject of rights, though, I have a right to try and seduce my eighteen year old cousins friends if they're not underaged. I mean I have that right. Hell I have the right to buy them sex toys with money held jointly between my partner and myself; I have that right too. It does not mean it would be a wise course of action. It would get me socially castigated by some, beaten up by others, and certainly raise more than a few incredulous eyebrows. I mean you could make a case that the people objecting to such behaviour are sexually repressed, and so on and so forth. In some communities I am sure you could court the barely-legal friends of a young relative, but in some you couldn't. Its worth finding out which sort of community you live in before going ahead. So the question needs to be asked of Americans, what sort of community do you live in? It is worth finding out.
That means finding out what sort of community you actually live in. Not the sort you wish you lived in.
Were I to say I was going to go and try my luck with said young girls, and someone came out with, 'Perhaps you shouldn't do that,' would that make this individual a lunatic worthy of being shouted down? Of course I agree some people are objecting to this building on ridiculous grounds; I agree that it is not a 'Victory Mosque,' or an attempt to slap America in the face. That's one thing, but there are some people (like me) who are objecting to it on the grounds of controversy which cannot really be argued: it already exists. The building is not even up yet, but the controversy already exists. I cannot see how it is going to decrease in intensity rather than increase when the building is being constructed, or when it exists and is functioning.
Does anyone think that there are not extremists on both sides for whom this will become a political symbol? Right wing bigots will point to it as an example of how 'The darn lefties dun let the Ay-rabs git one over on 'Merica again!' while encouraging more violence and hatred, and Islamic extremists will point to it and howl about the moral weakness of the west, while encouraging more violence and hatred. It doesn't matter if none of this makes sense. The people who are already inclined to believe such things will cheer, clap, and believe it even more. Some of them will go out and act on those beliefs.
That could mean anything from beating up someone who looks middle eastern, to publicly flushing a holy book down a toilet, to blowing something up, to organizing protests, to forming a right-wing anti-Jihadist militia. Are these things we need more of?
I'm not going to pretend I live in a world where the majority of people are reasonable. Especially not when it comes to politics and religion. Nor will I act as though unreasonable positions should simply be called stupid, and ignored with regard to all policy and future planning when they are being advocated by any kind of sizable percentage of the population. A landmine's position is inherently unreasonable as well, 'Step on me and I'll blow your leg off. Friend or foe. Even if the war that saw me placed here is over,' that's a very unreasonable position, but it is also worth listening to if you want to keep your leg.
It doesn't help to ignore things which exist simply because you disagree with them on a moral or political level, not even if you can prove they're nonsense. No amount of strident dissertation on the inherent unreasonableness of certain positions is going to make them go away. In some cases (where people adopt these positions out of a romantic obsession with flaunting authority) it will encourage them.
I believe this building is a bad idea not because of what it is, but because of the reaction to it, and I'm shocked nobody has thought to sit down with the people planning it to say, 'Maybe you should move it. Of course you can build it there if you want to, but the reality is there are pundits and politicos, extremists and self-styled-patriots who will seize upon it as an excuse to stir up hatred and resentment against Muslims, hurting the very people you're building this to assist. Lots of people listen to them. Those people are going to foam and clatter. Other people are going to foam and clatter at them. Its going to be a shit-storm all around. Yeah, you have the right to build it, but - at this point - it'd be rather like spitting into the wind (something else you have a right to do,) and there are a minority of Muslim extremists whose reaction we should consider as well, the type that celebrate every Mosque built in a non-Muslim country; this will be a feather in their cap. There is no point bringing up sectarian differences. The people at the sharp end of terrorist actions are not award winning, independently minded critical thinkers who are going to subject what they're told to that sort of analysis, most of them are illiterate. Unless you don't mind that the people using this facility may be harassed, possibly even targeted for violence, unless you don't mind that it may attract picketers, possibly even bomb threats, or even acts of domestic terrorism then you may want to build it somewhere else.'
Lastly I'm sure there are people who will take issue with my attitude, and see it as opposition to the project. Really, the project is neither here nor there. I oppose the controversy and drama it is likely to, and has already created. I have no moral objection to such a structure being built anywhere, and that includes the neighborhood of ground zero, but I have an objection to it being built in a location which will lead potentially large numbers of people to resent its existence, or to crudely celebrate its existence, in ways that will promote hatred, racism and cultural tension as none of these things are desirable and I have a right to object to anything which I feel promotes them. I also question the motives of anyone building such a structure when it can so clearly be seen that this is exactly what their actions are most likely to reap. If it could go up without that I would support it, and simply talking about rights does not invalidate my position. We advise people against exercising their rights all the time. There is nothing wrong with that. One can even take a moral stand (though that's not what I'm doing) against someone exercising a basic right (as in the above example) and that's alright too.
I do not think making an abstract political point is worth anyone being beaten up or possibly even killed over. Not when there are thousands of ways of making the same point without such controversy and drama. The people pointing to this as a wonderful example of American-style tolerance are people I will never understand. It is doing nothing more than highlighting the intolerance of many Americans as well as the obvious seething resentment between some of them and the Muslim world as a whole. In other words simply imagining that a country is more tolerant than it is will not make it so. This is hardly the first instance of a gulf between what the constitution says is right, and what large swathes of the American public think is right either. The consciousness of a country cannot be dictated by high-minded declarations written down on paper. It is what it is, a changing, many-faceted thing, and it is only sensible to analyse it, and take stock.
In summation it's one thing to wish that stupid, intolerant people could be shipped out of your country. It is quite another to behave as if they have been or will be, and to completely disregard their potential to act, or create problems as a result.
Your support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)
