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.

Peace

I don't really have time for a full blog post about this, but it does warrant a bloglet post. Obama has declared that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (Bush's campaign to procure foreign oil) is over. The nation of Iraq is now responsible for its own security. This will free up troops to focus on Afghanistan (the war that's actually about terrorism, however misguided a decision it was) and squish Al Quaeda. All I can say is this: at long f**king last. *hi5* Obama.

"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.

Fabulous marriage

Yes, I've used the word "fabulous" and "marriage" together. There is, however, a reason. Imagine the fabulosity that's going to happen at weddings in California after the 18th! Yes, isn't it awesome, Judge Walker has ended the stay on the Prop 8 verdict! Now, I'm fairly sure that the only people who still get excited about getting married are gay, so this is a truly awesome thing. Not only does everyone in the state of California have equal rights, but marriage will be fashionable again! *hi5* Judge Walker for bringing the voice of reason back to California legislation!

Obama had a dream

Since OBama got into office, he's been pushing for healthcare reform. He has tweeted non-stop about it, encouraging people to call the health care reform call centerand write letters to their congressmen to help push the bill through. (As an aside: Oh! how my liberal, free-speech-loving heart wishes I could do that in Zimbabwe without being slightly concerned about abduction and/or torture and/or execution [speaking out against Mugabe is considered treason, we still have the death penalty for treason]!)



Well, last night, the bill went through! What this means, in a nutshell, that TV characters will stop whining about having no insurance (except for on Weeds; since they're all living off-the-grid, they can't really afford to have insurance). No, seriously though, this is actually an awesome thing. Let me clarify that: it'll be an awesome thing for the people; it'll be a terrible thing for the insurance companies. This article explains it quite simply (as in, summed up in ten points, rather than rambling on, lawyer style, about the multitude of implications that will need to be clarified in case law. I mean that in a nice way), if you're up to a bit of extra reading. Basically, people will be encouraged to provide more of the country access to insurance.

Speaking as the daughter of an insurance broker and an accountant (yes, I'm also quite sure I'm adopted), this is quite revolutionary. Insurance companies tend to exclude people from coverage if they're going to cost the company a lot of money. I suppose that's understandable, given that they need to pay their staff too (and earn enough for executive country-club memberships). So, if you have heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, a history of cancer, you can't buy a normal insurance policy. If you can afford it, you can buy MHD (medical history disregarded) policies for double the price of an ordinary one. The new bill stops exclusions like that, and gives more options to the early retirement demographic (if you're over 72, I'm sorry, most companies will not let you have health insurance).

I think this is quite a novel approach to providing universal healthcare. Instead of doing as the UK did - increasing tax and then providing a no-frills medical service - they've taken the Robin Hood path - taking money from The Man and using it to provide health care to the Little Guy. While many (including every Republican senator, none of whom backed the bill) balk at the prospect of rearranging it that way, this is the most utilitarian way of going about it. It means that many international insurance providers will, most likely, pull out of America, because it will become a less profitable market. However, it sets an interesting example.

Imagine if we could do that in other places - Zimbabwe, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which, for the record, is not very democratic, practising succession of the presidency and things) - how much simpler life would be. Unfortunately, the people we'd be taking it from wouldn't be the corrupt government officials, we'd be taking it from people also trying to keep their heads above the water. Oh well, it would've been awesome if it had been a viable plan. Still *hi5* to the US Senate for passing such a controversial bill! (Even if it will lead to a dip in the American economy.)