Islam and the US of A

I think we've already been over the Brij-is-not-a-Muslim thing, but I have a few more things to say on the subject in light of recent developments.

Firstly, let's start with the Quran-burning protest. Fair enough, the Quran isn't exactly on my daily reading list, but it's a religious text. I get offended when I hear of people using the Bible to roll smokable items (I'm told it makes lovely rolling paper); some right-wing religious radical burning the Quran is exponentially more offensive. It's the deliberate destruction of a religious text with the intention to provoke a response. I fully support the right of people to protest, but destruction of sacred items is taking it too far in my opinion - an opinion that is shared by the Vatican (not that I feel that justifies my opinion, it's just interesting to note).

Terry Jones (the pastor who started the burning initiative) says he's sending a message to radical Muslims by burning their holy book on September 11. Yes that's, like, a fantastic idea, because radical Muslims, like, totally don't take the Quran seriously and, like, won't find that offensive at all. They, like, totally won't retaliate (because, you know, like, 9/11 wasn't about the US's attitude towards the Islamic world at all).

In response to his hate-crime (vandalism is a crime, even if it is a relatively petty one), people are organising to distribute copies of the Quran to replace those that are being destroyed (full stories here and here). I think Jones's mission missed the point. Not only is the entire Muslim world offended, non-Muslims are joining in the fight against Jones's brand of "Christianity" (yes, I put that in inverted commas. I can't believe that a God of peace would sanction ignorant, offensive actions like that). If he was trying to make people like Christians more and Muslims less, I think he failed (and if he is killed by someone over this, I would like to nominate him for a Darwin Award).

Secondly, a quick word on the "Ground Zero Mosque". An interview has been released with Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam driving the project. The imam sounds very balanced, very moderate, and very keen to start the healing process between the Islamic community and the rest of America. Okay, he was possibly a bit mis-guided in terms of his assumptions about American feelings towards Islam, but his heart is in the right place. He has been running a mosque within ten blocks of Ground Zero for a number of years now, and, it would seem, is only interested in the wellbeing of the community.

So, in the end, we get back to this: tolerance. If one live in a country where religious freedom is legislated, one should respect the religious freedom of others while being free to practice one's own. Actually, even if one doesn't live in a country with legislated freedoms, it should still happen as a matter of course, simply because it's the right thing to do.

"Ground Zero Mosque"

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.

The Sights of London

Red Bull Racing's Mark Webber had pitstop practice with the team outside the Houses of Parliament. Bear in mind that this is a country where closing a public road requires an act of parliament. Yet, apparently, having pitstop practice on a public road isn't regarded as a public safety hazard.

Take a quick look at the second picture. In the background, there are a bunch of tents. Those tents belong to a bunch of peace protesters. Said protesters are being evicted imminently. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a die-hard F1 fan and I think it's really awesome that there's finally been some street action in the UK, but isn't there something wrong with the world where a government is fine with people driving racing cars capable of 300km/h around a city centre and yet objects to a peaceful protest?

For more info on Brian Haw's protest, click here.
Photos by Mark Thompson and Peter Macdiarmid, respectively, both of Getty Images, Europe

Boycotting for a massage

Picture in your head, for just one second, the kind of person you think goes on strike about conditions in the workplace. You probably think of workers and teachers and civil servants, right? People with low wages, striking for better work conditions; the backbone of the economy asking to be taken more seriously. Those are the ones who go on strike, right?

You may have noticed that there weren't many drivers on the grid in the build-up to today's Grand Prix in Bahrain. The ones who were absent were participating in civil action. Now, before you judge the overpaid (fine, some of them are self-funded, and they do a dangerous job, but they still get paid more than the GDP of several countries around the world) for being particular, they're protesting their personal physios being witheld from the grid. It's important for them to have massages before the race.

(I hear the sound of disgusted snorting.)

In their defense, they do get bashed around a lot. They might get paid ridiculous sums of money, but they do a difficult job. As well-fitted as those seats are, there's still a lot of lateral forces that they're subjected to. The force of the lateral G necessitates static muscle contractions. For those of you who haven't studied biomechanics, static muscle contractions are the hardest to maintain. Think about it, which is easier: to hold your arm out level with your shoulder for a minute, or to lift your arm through its full range of motion for a minute? Go ahead, try it. Moving is easier. (It's easy to explain in terms of capilliary pumps and stuff, but I won't bore you with the details.) So, imagine sitting in a cramped cockpit and having to resist moving against a force twice or three times your body weight for a few hours at a stretch. That must give you a bit of muscle ache. In addition, epidemiologically, sports people suffer fewer injuries and the injuries they do sustain are less severe if they have a trainer/physio schedule. Healthier drivers are better for the sport, yes? So we all agree that they need physios to be around before/after a race to make sure the boys are most able to perform.

Bernie Ecclestone (the FIA boss, for the non-motorsports folk among you) says that teams should arrange to have the physios to be on staff lists. That's all well and good, except that this year, there are limits on the number of staff that a team can employ. Good old Bernie and his cost-cutting strategies! (Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the F1 cost-cut. It's allowed three new teams on the grid [as controversial as some of them might be], and it's allowed smaller teams to actually have a fighting chance against Ferrari and McLaren.)

The bottom line is this: for every driver, there are a hundred people making him able to perform - physios, nutritionists, personal trainers, race engineers, mechanics. Everyone has them. Everyone needs them. However, do they really need them on the grid? It would seem from pre-race coverage that the sole purpose of people's trainers/physios is to be a water bottle holder/umbrella holder/towel holder...basically, they're walking carrier bags. Perhaps instead of the drivers on the grid before the race, they should organise for the physios/trainers to stand out there singing "Umbrella" a la Rhianna just to prove their point.