But just 20 minutes earlier, as Bill Finnegan stood at the microphone, came the meeting’s single moment of hushed silence. Mr. Finnegan said he was a Marine lance corporal, home from Afghanistan, where he had worked as a mediator with warring tribes.
After the sustained standing ovation that followed his introduction, he turned to the Muslims on the panel: “My question to you is, will you work to form a cohesive bond with the people of this community?” The men said yes.
Then he turned to the crowd. “And will you work to form a cohesive bond with these people — your new neighbors?”
The crowd erupted in boos. “No!” someone shouted.
The Cultural War is a Civil War
4 hours ago
Definitely not the kind of meeting at which I'd want to hang out(bigots aren't really my thing).
ReplyDeleteSeparating from that specific meeting ('cause I'm not defending those people), the issue of Mosque funding is an interesting one I think. Saudi Wahabiis pour millions and millions of dollars into building mosques around the world that are aimed at preaching the most extreme forms of Islam.
Without being able to really articulate it, my general instict is that mosques that preach mainstream, non-violent Islam should be welcome whereever they'd like. Those that advocate extremist, violent Islam shouldn't be. (Similarly, a "Catholic" church that preached violence should likewise be banned). It's not the belief as much as the advocation of violence that's the issue for me I guess.
It's a difficult argument about whether or not a ban would be permitted from a Constitutional perspective. I don't really know the answer. I view extremist Islam as not so much a "religion" in the normal sense, but as a political ideology of subjegation and domination. As such, it can be regulated. It's sort of similar to whether or not overtly Soviet Communist organizations should have been permitted in the US during the Cold War. Again, I'm inclined to say no. And if I remember, they were banned in many states. Similarly, I don't think pro-Nazi parties were permitted after the onset of hostilities in WWII.
All of it though is a difficult free-speech/free-expression legal issue. Unfortunately, when you have issues that are difficult even for reasonable people to hash out, it just opens the door for wackjobs and bigots to open their mouths.
(Lastly, with regard to that article, I will say that a pet-peeve of mine is when some Muslims are asked if they condemn Hamas (or some other terrorist group), they give a weasely answer of "I don't condone any terrorist organization," which of course isn't an answer (since it doesn't say if they consider [insert terrorist org here] a terrorist organization.) There refusal to do so speak volumes about their politics.
In that sense--and again, without defending the stupidity of the questions--I suspect that the 3 panelist aren't the peaceful, mainstream muslims the article would have us believe.)
I largely agree, though I have some quibbles:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I don't think your distinction between religious and political expressions finds much refuge in modern-day First Amendment jurisprudence. If anything, political viewpoints enjoy even more legal protection than religious ones (though, as you know, I'm no legal scholar). That's why, for instance, the Supreme Court allows neo-Nazis to march, even in predominantly Jewish towns (I speak, of course, of the famous Skokie case).
Secondly, I don't know enough about the panelists either, so I'll side-step on that more sensitive question. But I would find it incredibly, unbelievably annoying, if I were a Muslim and were regularly besotted with questions aimed at proving my non-violence and political assimilation. As litmus tests go, it's fairly insensitive.
As for Hamas or Hezbollah: obviously, I'm not for either one, but I can understand why certain people of Palestinian origin, who may have even received donations or services from those affiliated organizations (keep in mind, also, that Hezbollah has a political party in Lebanon), may not view it simply as a murderous organization hell-bent on Israel's destruction (which is the perspective we rightly focus on here in the United States).
I'm reminded of right-wing Hindu organizations in India, many of which preached the most vile rhetoric on minorities (Muslims and Christians, mostly), but found followers more interested in their charitable and patronage opportunities (which were, of course, numerous).
And another thing!
ReplyDeleteIt annoys me when people say: sure, we'll let you build mosques in America, but only once Arab countries with deplorable laws on freedom of religion allow missionaries and church-building there.
Very, very silly.