How terrifying is it that a substantial share of the population wants to prohibit the peaceful construction of a place of worship? This opposition has gone thoroughly mainstream. What on Earth is going on here? It's absolutely incomprehensible to me.
I don't even know what links to provide - you all can find them, and nothing has stood out as being notable in the opposition to the mosque, and no opposition to the opposition to the mosque has perfectly crystallized my thoughts on all this. But that's part of what's so scary about this - that so many people can so non-chalantly tell American citizens that they can't build a place of worship simply because they are Muslims.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Less terrifying than a mob murdering a bunch of Mormons - think of the various "Mormon Wars" of the 19th century.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it is totally comprehensible to me ... religion tends to divide people.
History seems to do weird things for you, Xenophon.
ReplyDeleteSure - we've done worse before. But really, it's the knowledge that humans have done worse, and it's the knowledge of where that leads, that makes me even more concerned about the (comparatively) mundane injustices today.
And like I said - it's not the sentiment itself that bothers me. It's the how routine it is for these people. And not just the critics of the mosque either! The mainstream media initially made a bigger fuss about Palin likening herself to Shakespeare in her tweet on this than they did about the fact that she wanted to prevent New Yorkers from building a mosque!
*it's not JUST the sentiment itself that bothers me
ReplyDeleteIt allows me take a long view ...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think the "debate" such as it is a good thing. Allows for the venting of collective anxieties.
"It's the how routine it is for these people."
Every few months one religious group or another is pissed off about something ... wishing to shut down one thing or another they find offensive. Remember chocolate Jesus?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/
This is just the latest incarnation of such.
I would argue that, as bad as that is, this is somewhat different.
ReplyDeleteI would liken "chocolate Jesus" to the Mohammed cartoons, and you know which side I firmly took on the Mohammed cartoons. These are often slander/public decency type complaints that don't personally hold water for me - but nonetheless, that is their basis. Think of it this way - the people complaining about "chocolate Jesus" probably wouldn't have complained if the author wrote a scathing rebuke of Christianity. There's something about visual communication that makes misguided people attempt a public nuisance case, even if its doomed to fail.
To me, that's very different from this situation where the only reason why this mosque is being opposed is because... well... because they're Muslim. There's no alleged offensiveness involved to hang this on. Nothing like "oh we're fine if you want to be an atheist, but just don't be offensive in public". No. It's simply "you are a Muslim and simply being in this space as a Muslim is offensive".
Personally, that's a lot more disconcerting for me, as someone who has always been against people who would criticize the Mohammed cartoonist, for example.
I just don't see the distinction. It is a bunch of people ticked off by something that they believe offends their religious and/or ideological sensibilities. Whether that comes in the form of a book they want to ban (think here of the effort by some Christians to ban the Harry Potter books) or a Cholocate Jesus or a mosque, it amounts to the same thing.
ReplyDelete"It is a bunch of people ticked off by something that they believe offends their religious and/or ideological sensibilities."
ReplyDeleteThat's precisely the difference! To be offended by a statement/action can at least be mangled into an affront or intrusion of some sort. In this case, people are arguing that the mere idea of the presence of a religion - it's mere existence - is unacceptable. That's very different from Chocolate Jesus or Harry Potter.
In the case of the Harry Potter novels it was mere existence of something - magic (and there are lots of people who claim to practice real magic - which those opposed to the Harry Potter novels saw as the main beneficiary of those novels*) - that pisses people off.
ReplyDelete*To paraphrase the sentiment: "I don't want my kids to become Wiccans!"
Right...
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point?
The argument was still just that they didn't want the books in their libraries and they didn't let their kids read them.
Be serious, Xenophon - what is a more terrifying sentiment:
1. I do not want that book on my school library shelf and I don't want my kid to be Wiccan, or
2. I do not think that Wiccans should be allowed to practice Wiccanism freely.
I don't want my children to be Austrian economists, and I'll raise them to be good Keynesians (I won't, of course, oppose the presence of Austrian books in a school library). That is worlds apart from saying that I don't think the Ludwig von Mises Institute or George Mason University should exist.
Actually, they were burning Harry Potter novels (in Arizona as I recall).
ReplyDeleteI don't see that as the distinction ... I think all of these are efforts to suggest that the practices which are opposed are illegitimate and thus should be ended and no longer allowed. Mayhaps this is just my "atheist lenses" in action, but when a religious person tells me - as is often been the case - that they have a problem atheism (they think atheists are untrustworthy, etc.) I know what they are getting at. These are all efforts to expel something which "God" has forbidden from the polity.
Burning their own property seems to me to be a little different from telling others they don't have a right to their property.
ReplyDeleteLet me put it this way - I would oppose but not intercede to stop the Harry Potter book burnings. I would both oppose and intercede to stop an effort to deny the mosque the right to be built.
Which would you do in each situation, and why?
"When a religious person tells me - as is often been the case - that they have a problem atheism (they think atheists are untrustworthy, etc.) I know what they are getting at. These are all efforts to expel something which "God" has forbidden from the polity."
Isn't there something with which you have a problem, but which you would not "expel from the polity"?
I wouldn't oppose the former (it just makes them ludicrous for one thing). Anyway, the sentiment by both groups is the same.
ReplyDelete"Isn't there something with which you have a problem, but which you would not "expel from the polity"?"
Not really. Then again, I'm a libertarian. Though I guess it depends what you mean by "having a problem" with something. I mean, I'd never get a tatoo, so I do have a "problem" with it, but I don't oppose it either.
On a somewhat related note...
ReplyDeletehttp://reason.com/blog/2010/07/23/time-for-your-shotits-just-a-l
I like the vaccine line of reasoning. Probably something similar going on with the whole "I hate Muslims" crowd spouting off.
I once saw a comic where Americans were getting angry over mosques being built where "those people" killed "our people."
ReplyDeleteAnd in the next panel, it was a group of Native Americans getting angry over churches being built where "those people" killed "our people."
And why don't you want your children to become Austrian economists? :( What, are we way off the mark for you?