Sunday assorted links
3 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogroll
-
-
-
An Unlucky President, and a Lucky Man3 years ago
-
Search6 years ago
-
32+ Years...6 years ago
-
A Glimpse of Hell6 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
Farewell!15 years ago
-
-
I think we're having two separate debates, which is 'causing problems for our discussion. I'm not really talking about the Cordoba House. Or at least not yet.
ReplyDeleteAs it my typical approach in addressing an issue, I'm trying to find the overall principles that guide our logic, and then working my way down to address specific instances. I think it we can start at the beginning, we can find the first principles that we agree on, and then work our way down until we come to understand where it is that our logic diverges. When I "debate" stuff, I'm not doing so with the intent of changing your mind. I'm just trying to understand where our disgreement stems from, as mechanism to help me analyze my own thoughts. (I'm self-centered, clearly)
Now...
My point about South Africa is that I expected you'd have an issue with it. I would too. So I suspect we both have some sort of principle involved where we object to foreign governments trying to influence politics/philosophy in the US, particularly when the things they advocate are objectionable to our values (though not exclusively so; I object to foreign bodies trying to influence us on almost anything related to our democratic/philosophical decisions).
So there is perhaps a principle we share. Now, I suspect that sentiment is something that lots of people intuitively feel (And not just Americans; I think it's one thing that engenders a lot of dislike of US activity globally).
I think a lot of Americans are angered when they see how Saudi clerics (which btw have been indistinguishable from their government ever since the al-Saud family worked out their power-sharing agreement to gain the throne) finance Wahabbi mosques the world over as part of an effort to change the shape of Islam in an extremist direction. Particularly when it seems pretty clear that our enemy in this war is the Islamic Fascism that Wahabi's export.
I believe it's that anger/distrust that has fueled most of the reaction to the Cordoba House. Is that fair? Well...I don't know. It really depends on if the Cordoba House is one of those Saudi Funded mosques or not.
But whether it is or not (which, again is another the debate...ie the one you're having and I haven't addressed), my entire commentary has been aimed to establish that there is at least some context for why so many people have reacted negatively to the Cordoba House. It was my sense that you (or at least the people you're citing) are either explicitely or implicitely saying that anyone who doesn't immediately applaud the building of the mosque is some sort of crypto bigot. I strongly object to that notion.
It isn't anti-muslim bigotry or something similar for most (though I don't doubt that for a small minority of people that is the case). There are rational, understandable reasons for why people instinctively feel squeemish about the affair, even without knowing much about it.
And really, I'm self-referencing on that point. I haven't had the time or inclination as yet to really get into the nitty gritty and understand the people involved (nor do I think it likely that I'll be able to settle that issue anyway, since I don't actually know the people). Which is why I haven't commented in depth on the details. I've read some, and I'm not entirely convinced that the backers are as "moderate" as you think they are. But I don't really know.
Again, I'm simply trying to establish context for the whole debate. From there, I think we can have a more interesting discussion (esp b/c as I mentioned previously, the philosophical discussion over whether we could/should ban foreign building of religious (or political) institutions is an interesting one without a real easy answer.
As is my wont, I find the broad, philosophical discussions more interesting. Not the least of which is because so many commentators on the specifics are mouth-pieces and idiots (such as the people you've already cited).
Forgive all the typos above. Was typing quickly because I had to get back to work.
ReplyDeleteEsquire --
ReplyDeleteI better understand our discussion now. I still think, however, that your description of the context excuses ignorance and credits opinions that have no basis in fact.
Michael Kinsley once wrote a collection of essays in the 1980s entitled "Big Babies." He explained that the title was partly inspired by a study that found that a) Americans think the government's foreign aid budget was too high and, at the same time, b) Americans overwhelmingly overestimated the actual government's foreign aid budget.
Kinsley's point was that any political discussion required informed citizenry, otherwise, we would be talking without purpose or fact. That people offered opinions on America's foreign aid budget without bothering to find out how much money was in fact being donated troubled him.
I think Sarah Palin illuminated the other side in this debate -- if it can be debated -- when she wrote that her description of the "death panels" in President Obama's health care package was accurate because it resounded with millions of Americans. (Whether or not it did does not have anything to do with its factual basis, of course).
So, when you say that Americans have an instinctive problem with new mosques in their country because of larger, reasonable concerns (Wahhabbi mosques, as an example), I can understand. My problem is simply that too many people in this debate have not produced conclusive evidence that this proposed mosque would be anything like a Wahhabbi variant. If the standard is just squeamishness -- again, such a politically correct position of you to take! -- it could potentially halt all mosque construction in the country.
In the absence of evidence that connects the Cordoba project with some larger nefarious plot, it's not unreasonable to assume that those opposing it believe that one Muslim is another potential Wahhabist, which is a silly -- and racialist -- position to hold.
As for the other principles you mention: foreign governments already sponsor many cultural exchanges within the country (I think France sponsors "Alliance Francaise" and the U.K. supports British Councils). I do not have a problem with other countries engaging in democratic discussion, but I do draw a line with institutions that would encourage, say, violence or ends that conflict with our country's interests. We can slice that salami some other time, though.