1. I find it hilarious that several conservative commentators, including ex-office holders like Newt Gingrich (and current political candidates), have argued that building mosques in America should be contingent on the conduct of Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East (especially Saudi Arabia, which apparently doesn't show as much respect for "people of the Book" as prescribed). This is funny to me for two reasons: A) It's ludicrous to suggest that time-honored (some would say "natural") principles like freedom of religion and association should be defined based on the question, "What Would Saudi Arabia Do?" But B) it's especially silly for conservatives, who generally take the "originalist" approach to constitutional interpretation, to take this position, not only because the Constitution doesn't really endorse Gingrich's curious argument, but also because conservatives generally have a dim view of what foreign countries and jurisprudence can offer to their own.
2. OK, so Gingrich is an easy target, and I should move on. But then, Sarah Palin posted another item on her Facebook about the proposed mosque near the World Trade Center, which then splashed across all the (left-wing, pinko, biased, slanderous, anti-Palin) media websites I read (that is, they all reported, without being able to question Palin, what she said -- ah, the perfect megaphone). Basically, the ex-governor conceded that Muslims had a right to worship where they wanted (how kind), but asked them to 'refudiate' the project because the wounds of 9/11 were still too raw. In a nutshell, her message is a paean to political correctness, that supposed conservative bugaboo: please, your right to practice your religion, even though a firmly ingrained principle of our Constitution, hurts people's feelings, and we wouldn't want to offend anyone, now would we? (I always find it curious when conservatives bash 'political correctness' that they don't want to admit that they have their own set of taboos and speak-no-evils.)
3. I've yet to see a better explanation as to why a project like the Cordoba House should not be allowed, other than Muslims worshiping may or may not worship the same God as the terrorists who blew up the Towers. The Weekly Standard, bless its heart, did recently put out an essay that purported to explore the deep, hidden radical views of the preacher leading the project. I'll let Robert Wright summarize my views on the piece:
Its latest issue features an article about Park51 chock full of angles that never would have occurred to me if some magazine had asked me to write an assessment of the project’s ideological underpinnings. For example: Rauf’s wife, who often speaks in support of the project and during one talk reflected proudly on her Islamic heritage, “failed to mention another feature of her background: She is the niece of Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its Web site to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America (I.C.N.A.), the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami.”Wright's essay also includes a helpful distinction about views on Hamas. Read it in full. (By the way, Vade Mecon, it's good that you add a comment once or twice every other fortnight, but that doesn't really count for intellectual credibility much these days. Write, or get off the pot.)Got that? Rauf’s wife has an uncle who used to be “a leader” of a mosque that now has a Web site that links to the Web site of an allegedly radical organization. (I’ll get back to the claim that the Westbury Mosque is itself a “center for Islamic radicals.”)
I'd be more interested in hearing the ways in which you think that the discomfort lots of people seem to find with the mosque is understandable (if not justified). Unless you don't think anything about it is understandable?
ReplyDeleteThat is to say, I'd rather analyze the merits of the best arguments about the issue; not the stupidest ones. (I'm stipulating that their arguments, as you present them, do seem ridiculous to me.)
That said, I find the excerpt about the Khan family to be naive, unconvincing, and totally without cultural context. It's more about "clever" world-play than intelligent analysis. For starters, the ol "brother's friend's uncle's roommate's half-cousin" routine doesn't work when you're talking about muslim cultures (particularly immigrant ones from Middle/Near-East/AfPak) that are extremely insular and therefore by necessity operate extensively across extended families.
I take issue with people that never cease to explain away every example that might force us to challenge our most cherished PC notions. There ARE an inordinate number of radical imams, both globally and in the United States. One can argue about whether that says something about Islam or not, but this knee-jerk reaction (coupled with a sense of moral superiority) by people who think they'll get bonus PC karma points by refuting that notion that any (or many) exist are obnoxious and dangerous.
Here's perhaps a starting question for discussion:
ReplyDeleteWould you take issue if in the 1980s the South African government spent billions of dollars to build community centers across the United States that advocated beliefs that 1)all non-whites were inferior, sub-humans, and 2)that Americans should overthrow the system and instill Aparteid government policies?
Esquire, to reply to your points:
ReplyDeleteA. I do not understand opposition to the Cordoba House. I just don't. From what I've read, the leader of the project has been a presence in New York City for a long time and has preached tolerance.
B. Relying on generalizations about the Muslim world -- Everyone Knows Muslims Love Their Uncle's Husband's Sister Like Their Own Daughter -- doesn't impress me much. And, again, even if this particular family followed the template you outline, it isn't a damning offense. Even if my brother, whom I'm close to, said or did certain things, it does not impugn my own reputation. (See: "Guilt By Association, Stupidity Of.")
C. There are NOT an inordinate number of radical imams (see how I too can strategically use CAPS Lock?). Most imams in the Muslim world are not radical, therefore, number of "radical imams" relatively small.
But again: say I agree with you. What does that have to do with the Cordoba House? At least try to put forward evidence that there is, in fact, a radical conspiracy behind the project to threaten Ground Zero once more. Otherwise, stop relying on conservative talking points about political correctness and people not examining whether or not radical Islam says something about Islam itself. That's not the debate here.
D. As to your absolutely ridiculous analogy comparing apartheid South Africa to the Cordoba House: yes, I would take issue with the South African government (and, let me just say, right-wing conservatives, including William Buckley, had an absolutely shocking record on apartheid and in South Africa) investing their resources in such a manner.
Again, this analogy only works if you prove that this is what the Cordoba House seeks to do is on par with the violent rhetoric the South African government embraces in your hypothetical.
Prove it. I'm all ears.