Let me say, right from the start, that the term "Ground Zero Mosque" bugs me. I decided to go with the name, because that's what everyone calls it (and I'll explain my objections in a moment). I've taken a little while to write about this, because everyone is getting very uptight about it and I didn't want to be yet another clanging gong in the cacophony of worldwide opinions. However, CNN ran a story today that tickled my rant reflex.
Let's just go over a few facts (aka my objections to the name) before we get onto the point of this post.
1) The proposed site is two blocks away from where the World Trade Center stood (that's about 200m, given the average size of New York City blocks), not on the site, as the common name for it would suggest.
2) It's not a mosque. It's a cultural centre - the plans include a gym, pool, performing art centre, and restaurant, among other facilities. The point (allegedly) is to foster inter-faith engagement by creating a safe space.
3) The building is proposed on a piece of land the Islamic Center already owns. The Islamic Center didn't go out and buy land in a culturally sensitive spot, they just want to upgrade their facilities.
Obama has given a statement to the tune of "there is nothing in the US Constitution that will prevent them from building the facility" that caused massive outrage among non-Muslim Americans. What nobody seems to realise is that Obama was simply stating that there was no legal prohibition to the construction of an Islamic community centre on that site. He was not moralising or engaging on the sensitivity of the issue; he was stating the obvious.
So, the article. Firstly, it was entitled "new details emerge" - we've known for a while now that the facility would be inter-faith, and that it would be a cultural centre in addition to a religious facility (approximately 8% of floor space will be devoted to exclusively religious purposes). Secondly, the article ends with a description of September 11, highlighting the death toll - as though anybody alive in the last decade could possibly not know what happened in Midtown New York on the 11th September, 2001.
Okay, now the point. Yes, almost three thousand people died. Yes, it was a tragedy. No, I am not a Muslim. No, I do not condone the events of 9/11 (genocide, generally, disgusts me. This is not a sentiment reserved only for the men who attacked the WTC). However, let us make a distinction between extremists with anger issues and peaceful citizens who want a place to hold community events.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US Constitution have a clause about freedom of religion? Does that not include the freedom to be a Muslim? Are Americans scared that if Muslim people are allowed to meet, they're going to cause a mass uprising? Yes, because the Taliban will encrypt information into the ballet recitals in the performing art centre.
At the risk of disappearing off into an idealistic hippie-rant, why can't we just agree to disagree? This has turned into a big deal, because for years the Bush administration has been fostering ill feeling towards followers of Islam in order to justify a war for fossil fuels and mineral resources. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by the reaction of the general populace, given the level of brainwashing they've been exposed to over the last decade. It is possible that they also think Obama is taking the Muslims' side, since 20% of them think he is himself a Muslim (some even went as far as to say that he talked about his faith too much. WTF? Have they been awake for the last two years?).
In the end, it's simple. Maybe the facility will be built, maybe it won't. Maybe it'll be bombed/torn down by anti-Islamic extremists (since religion brings out the worst of the crazies), maybe it will stand until the end of time (or the water levels rise and flood it, whichever happens first). This isn't about past grievances, it's plain old xenophobia. Should I venture a parting shot about forgiving and forgetting? No, I'm not good enough at forgiving people to climb up on that soap box.
Let's just go over a few facts (aka my objections to the name) before we get onto the point of this post.
1) The proposed site is two blocks away from where the World Trade Center stood (that's about 200m, given the average size of New York City blocks), not on the site, as the common name for it would suggest.
2) It's not a mosque. It's a cultural centre - the plans include a gym, pool, performing art centre, and restaurant, among other facilities. The point (allegedly) is to foster inter-faith engagement by creating a safe space.
3) The building is proposed on a piece of land the Islamic Center already owns. The Islamic Center didn't go out and buy land in a culturally sensitive spot, they just want to upgrade their facilities.
Obama has given a statement to the tune of "there is nothing in the US Constitution that will prevent them from building the facility" that caused massive outrage among non-Muslim Americans. What nobody seems to realise is that Obama was simply stating that there was no legal prohibition to the construction of an Islamic community centre on that site. He was not moralising or engaging on the sensitivity of the issue; he was stating the obvious.
So, the article. Firstly, it was entitled "new details emerge" - we've known for a while now that the facility would be inter-faith, and that it would be a cultural centre in addition to a religious facility (approximately 8% of floor space will be devoted to exclusively religious purposes). Secondly, the article ends with a description of September 11, highlighting the death toll - as though anybody alive in the last decade could possibly not know what happened in Midtown New York on the 11th September, 2001.
Okay, now the point. Yes, almost three thousand people died. Yes, it was a tragedy. No, I am not a Muslim. No, I do not condone the events of 9/11 (genocide, generally, disgusts me. This is not a sentiment reserved only for the men who attacked the WTC). However, let us make a distinction between extremists with anger issues and peaceful citizens who want a place to hold community events.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US Constitution have a clause about freedom of religion? Does that not include the freedom to be a Muslim? Are Americans scared that if Muslim people are allowed to meet, they're going to cause a mass uprising? Yes, because the Taliban will encrypt information into the ballet recitals in the performing art centre.
At the risk of disappearing off into an idealistic hippie-rant, why can't we just agree to disagree? This has turned into a big deal, because for years the Bush administration has been fostering ill feeling towards followers of Islam in order to justify a war for fossil fuels and mineral resources. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by the reaction of the general populace, given the level of brainwashing they've been exposed to over the last decade. It is possible that they also think Obama is taking the Muslims' side, since 20% of them think he is himself a Muslim (some even went as far as to say that he talked about his faith too much. WTF? Have they been awake for the last two years?).
In the end, it's simple. Maybe the facility will be built, maybe it won't. Maybe it'll be bombed/torn down by anti-Islamic extremists (since religion brings out the worst of the crazies), maybe it will stand until the end of time (or the water levels rise and flood it, whichever happens first). This isn't about past grievances, it's plain old xenophobia. Should I venture a parting shot about forgiving and forgetting? No, I'm not good enough at forgiving people to climb up on that soap box.
No comments:
Post a Comment