The latest news I've heard is that Pastor Jones and his church have called off the Quran-burning for good--not postponed it, but cancelled it without conditions. This is great news, of course, and hopefully, the radical Muslims who have used the incident to whip the uneducated into a homicidal frenzy will be forced to call them off.
Don't take that last sentence to mean that I think radical Muslims were the only ones offended by the proposed burning. Such an act would offend not only decent people of other (or no) religion, but moderate and even secular Muslims. I'd like to think that last fact might have influenced Pastor Jones' decision--he'd made it clear he was aiming at the radicals, but perhaps he realized there would be a lot of collateral damage.
So, this particular crisis appears to have been averted, and a collective sigh of relief is warranted. But the underlying issues are not going away. Indeed, there is an ongoing manifestation of them in the mosque at Ground Zero controversy, and I suspect there will be more controversies to come. The issues include: is 'tolerance' a one-way street that goes from America outwards, and, who is shaping the debate about what 'tolerance' entails?
Today is certainly an appropriate day to address the mosque. I am one of the 70 percent of Americans who think that Imam Rauf, and whoever his partners/backers are, should choose to change their minds and change their location, out of sensitivity to our national wound, respect for our repeatedly expressed wishes, and in the interests of MUTUAL tolerance.
I know they have the right to build it there, but if their professed goals of 'building bridges' and promoting understanding are genuine, why do they determinedly rebuff a clear and overwhelming majority who tell them that the way to do that is pick a different spot? It's funny, but when Pastor Jones announced that he had been promised the Ground Zero mosque would be moved (an announcement contradicted by Rauf only minutes later) my initial reaction was shock--could that possibly be true?--closely followed by the thought 'maybe they really mean it?! Maybe they are really are trying to promote understanding and reconciliation!'
Well, maybe not. Or, if you believe them, they are, but it can't possibly be done anywhere but on that exact piece of real estate. My prediction is that the mosque will be built. Not only do I think they have no intention--and have never had any intention--of considering other options, but we have somehow reached a point where the will of the people--and the goodwill of the vast majority of Muslims--is not what is shaping the debate. I'm not entirely sure how that's happened, and much less clear on how to change it.
But, one thing I am sure of--if we dig in our heels and stop listening to one another--if you decide I'm a 'bigot' because I think the mosque should be moved, or I decide you're one of those 'useful fools' because you think it should be built--then we're playing right into the hands of those who ARE shaping the debate.
**That point, and some others, are made in the following comment, which was sent to me by e-mail, because the poster had problems trying to comment on the blog itself. Please let me know, at anotherangle03@yahoo.com, if you have encountered similar problems.
Have a wonderful weekend, but take a moment to remember.
9/11/2001
"I see similarities with this "pastor" and self-syled "imams" in, say, Pakistan , who destroy the spirit of their respective religions and foment antagonism against others. These types have psychological problems (e.g., "unresolved past conflict issues") or use their positions for personal gain, or think they are being religiously authentic. Their positions are anti-intellectual, for sure. Many of these types are apocalyptic thinkers as well. Perhaps they should simply meet each other on the plains of Megiddo and leave the rest of us out of their simple-minded plots.
Finally, I detect a lot of squaring off in this matter ("Yes Jones is wrong but you don't see a bunch of Christians threatening death when Christian interests are not being tolerated"). These types of comments can become the seeds for escalating separations between Muslims & Christians, and is exactly what these extremist types desire. All who are intolerant are wrong, and both religions contain plenty of members who refuse to play this deadly game."
No one has (to my knowledge) argued that he has no right to speak his mind. At the same time, no one has ...ever argued that any of us are free from the consequences of doing so. There may be social consequences of speaking one's mind. Friends and associates may decide to distance themselves from the speaker as is their right. There may be economic consequences. Sponsors may choose not to have their products or services associated with the speaker. There might even be legal consequences. Libel laws exist so that the 1st Amendment isn't used as a shield to defend those making false, damaging accusations.
ReplyDeleteYou write that it is hyporcitical to expect a measure of tolerance from Americans that is clearly not present in the inflamed protests of other groups and countries around the world. Guilty as charged. In proof of my own hypocrisy (perhaps even of my own bigotry) I do indeed expect more of us.
You write that fear of what may follow is the thing driving many Americans to speak out against the idea of a small church in Florida burning copies of the Quran. Again, I know for myself this is true. I fear that until we find the strength and courage to break old cycles of cause and effect then nothing is ever going to truly change.
You write that a facile media ignores one group's actions and focuses on anothers even when their actions are the same, and that it also perpetuates stereotypes about entire populations based on the actions of small, radical subsets of those populations. This too is true. A few minutes of footage of loud, angry and overzealous Christians with hate filled eyes can create the false impression in the minds of people around the world that all Christians feel the same way. But replace the word 'Christian' with the word 'Muslim' in the previous sentence and it is just as true.
You choose to give this pastor the benefit of the doubt saying that even though you disagree with his positions you believe him to be motivated by an honorable intention to do the right thing. You may be right in saying that if someone can't give him the same credit it speaks to their closemindedness about the faith he represents. For myself, I can't give him the benefit of that particular doubt even with his announcement today that he will not in fact be burning any Qurans. And yes, my own experiences with the kind of fundamentalists he speaks for certainly color my take on him and on his actions.
Thats the consequence of such people excercising their freedom to label as 'sinners' some of the finest and most beloved people in my life. As a white, heterosexual male I know there is room for me under his tent. But it has been made clear that most of my friends are not welcome there. I'm okay with that. So are they. He is selling something we don't want to buy.
And that is his cross to bear.