This whole "Ground Zero (sic) Mosque (sic)" thing isn't sitting well with me. I tried desperately to avoid writing about the most overplayed story of the year. At this point, after weeks of coverage, it seems there isn't anything left to say on the issue.
What's amazing is that it started as a political ploy. Rick Lazio, a candidate for governor of New York, brought the issue to the public to generate buzz for his campaign. He succeeded to a fault, as the proposed center grew out of his control into a national story.
Now, it's the latest sign that America hasn't lived up to the promise its founders made more than 230 years ago: "All men are created equal."
But it's really not that easy. On the one hand, I'd sort of like a little bit of transparency with the Islamic Center---just some reassurance that the financing is in no way connected with terrorism, lest the center become a symbol of their triumph. Let me be clear, when I say "their" I'm referring to terrorists, not Muslims. That's key. The September 11 attacks were not carried out by Muslims against New York City infidels; rather, they were carried out by terrorists against Americans. Muslims were killed in the attacks, too. So in a sense even asking for some transparency with regards to financing concedes legitimacy to the idea that Islam is inherently connected to terrorism.
(Which, by the way, it's not. Islam is not any more violent a religion than Judaism or Christianity. In fact, in some places--I haven't read the whole thing--the Qu'ran encourages acceptance of Judaism.)
So what does that say about me? After all, I wouldn't need transparency if it were a Jewish or Christian center. So much for my belief in religious equality.
See, it's kind of complicated in that way. It would be so much easier if, cognizant of the controversy, the Center's builders just said: "You know what, forget it. Let's just build this thing somewhere else." Then again, that would be even more of indicting of America's alleged religious liberties.
(Check out this great Jon Stewart clip on the Islamic Center)
Not so complicated is another Islamic controversy that's surfaced in recent weeks. Republicans claiming that not only is President Barack Obama a socialist (gasp!), but he's also a Muslim.
The fact that it's a ridiculous theory notwithstanding, who even cares? What if, somewhere in Obama's lineage, he has Muslim roots? What's the difference? America lawfully elected him president. End of story.
Right-wing leaders have latched on to this theory, not necessarily because they believe it to be true, let alone care, but because they knew it would resonate with American people. That's how leaders lead. They recognize hot topics, play up the importance of that topic, and take a stand that garners a widespread following. Considering many Americans associate Islam with terrorism, this jives perfectly with that leadership model.
And that's what's really at the heart of both of these issues. Americans have, incorrectly, come to link terrorism with Islam. I don't think it's baseless hate, as much as it is a naive, but real concern that Muslims are out to kill Americans. The intelligent among us know it's fundamentalists--who harbor power in impoverished countries, which happen to be disproportionately Muslim--that hate Americans. As we know, without poverty and illegitimate governments, fundamentalists and terrorism might not even exist. But rather than analyze the situation carefully, many Americans have become fundamentalists themselves. They've ignored conflicting evidence and have come to accept the most radical perspective: all Muslims, even those attempting to build a center for cultural acceptance, are connected to terrorism.
Unless, of course, they're the Palestinian Muslims trying to force the Jews out of Israel. As has been the case throughout history (see: Holocaust, the) even "terrorism" is preferable to those big-nosed, money-hungry capitalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment