ISLAMOPHOBIA and its opposite
Next Saturday, 9/11/2010, a protest will take place against the building of the ICC at 51 Park Place. Pamela Geller is an organizer of the protest and a vociferous critic of Islam. Here is part of a speech she gave last April at a pro-Israel rally.
“Text of Pamela Geller’s remarks at Pro-Israel Rally, NYC April 25, 2010
“First of all, I want to thank my Yid Army for showing up. I love my Yid Army! Thank you so much for coming out in the rain. And thank you, Beth, for putting this together. I think it’s appropriate that it’s raining. There’s a reason why it’s raining. For the first time in American history, we have an anti-Israel president. His premise is false. The narrative is false. The Islamization of the narrative must stop. (Cheers) It must stop with the truth. And truth is the new hate speech. (Cheers)
“I ask you, what is a settler? I reject that term. I don’t want anyone ever to use it again. It’s a Jew living in the Jewish homeland. There are no settlers in Israel. What is the West Bank? It is not the West Bank. It is Judea – Jew-dea – and Samaria. There is no occupation except the Muslim occupation of Israel. (Cheers)”
Read the rest here: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/04/unabridged-text-of-pamela-gellers-speech-at-proisrael-rally-against-obamas-antiisrael-policies.html
UPDATE: In Contrast, Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the ICC project has this to say in Wednesday’s Times: “Our broader mission — to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds and to help counter radical ideology — lies not in skirting the margins of issues that have polarized relations within the Muslim world and between non-Muslims and Muslims. It lies in confronting them as a joint multifaith, multinational effort.”
Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html
And this: “Vatican: Burning Quran Is Outrageous…” http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/09/08/world/AP-Quran-Burning-Vatican.html?hp
The saddest part of this whole condundrum is that it brings out hateful and ignorant people. Muslims in the US are now quite fearful as the fallout is affecting Muslims everywhere in the US with demonstrations at Mosques to opposing anything built by Muslims to frequent acts and threats of violence. Many Muslims now oppose the building near Ground Zero as a way to lighten the atmosophere. It is a situation which is profoundly shameful. Is the answer to have a national day of prayer or reconciliation? Like anything else it will probably take the reporting of execrable acts to Muslim women and children to wake everyone up. It is a sad time for the dignity of the human person.
First, it’s Islamophobia, whether upper case or lower.
And Geller isn’t the worst of it. Dutch anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders is supposed to be there. I guess he couldn’t get to Florida for the Koran-burning.
It’s an astonishing time. Very nineteenth century. The past is always with us…
Just in case anyone is interested, the theologian John Milbank was recently grousing that radical Islam is attributable to “the lamentably premature collapse of Western colonial empires.”
http://religionbulletin.wordpress.com/
Ah yes, the good old days of Winston Churchill, who as colonial secretary in the 1920s cheered on the use of mustard gas and aerial bombardment against recalcitrant Iraqis. Like the ghoulish Madeleine Albright, I’m sure he thought the price worth paying — especially as the currency was that of other people’s lives.
Geller is a certifiable loon. Milbank is a distinguished theologian. Both are disgraceful.
You know, I was thinking recently that the Obama administration should get in touch with George W. Bush, and ask him to come out and speak out strongly — I mean, VERY strongly — against Islamophobia, and in favor of building the “Ground Zero Mosque” or whatever in its current place, etc. He should repeat the “Islam is a religion of peace” line, etc. I think that would really shake things up, and also do a lot to reconcile Bush with many in the American community who dislike him.
Barring that, Obama should strongly speak up forcefully about it — “damn the midterm elections, full speed ahead.”
I’m in favor of building the mosque AT Ground Zero if they want to, with flashing minarets and loud speakers ostentatiously blaring a call to prayer if need be — after all, given that many Americans are drifting from so-called “organized religion,” I say the more prominence for religion in public the better. The mosque/center can shame all the “post-Christians” and non-practicing Jewish people back into the churches and synagogues. If you’re mad about the mosque, put down your placard and start going to Mass again, darn it!
(That’s odd — why is it displaying my email address instead of my name like it usually does? Is there a way to fix that?)
Is hate speech legal in the US?
Peggy, thanks for this heads-up! I’ve posted the Pamela Geller video on my *Facebook* page with the following comment:
Together with writer Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, the lady in the above video, is largely responsible for having provoked the current furor surrounding plans to locate a mosque in lower Manhattan. This video confirms the need for Americans of all backgrounds to have a civil, but candid, discussion of the relationship between ardent Zionism and organized opposition to the New York mosque (and other mosques). This dialogue should include a consideration of the relationship between inflammatory rhetoric concerning Islam and views favorable to a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran–an attack that should be vigorously opposed by everyone who understands Catholic teaching on war and peace (*CCC* 2302-2317). We should apply comedienne Joan Rivers’s line to these serious topics: “Can we talk?” I thank Margaret O’Brien Steinfels (no relation) of the *Commonweal* blog for alerting me to this video.
Geller seems to come at the issue from a right-wing Israeli politics point of view that probably wouldn’t strike many chords in, say, Murfreesboro, TN. Interesting how these different POVs coalesce in the great melting pot.
JP: Would Murfreesboro have gotten quite so much press if the New York media wasn’t primed because of the ICC controversy?
“Is hate speech legal in the US?”
Are you not concerned that your enemies will be the ones to define “hate speech”? I take it you are not from the US…thank God for the 1st Amendment.
Without regard to the merits of the Ground Zero Mosque, pro or con, it is an inarguable fact that if it had not been forced against the will of the vast majority of citizens, there would be no Koran burning event scheduled in Florida. “Root causes”, anyone?
Margaret – interesting question. I believe developments in Murfreesboro have now sunk to a new level of appalling – didn’t they burn the construction site, or some such? That might be newsworthy on its own. But Murfreesboro was popping up in stories even before that.
The Catholic church has an opportunity here to witness to the Gospel. We needn’t wait on the bishops; but it would be even better if the bishops were out in front on this issue.
Interesting to read this post in connection with the one just below it about diversity in the Muslim world.
Should sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander? Is it bigotry to expect less from members of one group than from members of other groups? Is it bigotry to decry the radicals from one group while demanding that we “interact creatively” with the radicals from another group?
————
To all Jews and friends of Jews: May the New Year, 5771, be a sweet one. L’Shanah Tovah!
As I have only intermittently followed the news from Murfreesboro and only recently, it appears that as in NYC, there are distinct groups. A local citizens group that has objected by testifying at zoning hearings, etc., to the (re)building of the mosque and for reasons to do with parking and traffic. A local citizens group that has supported the mosque by peaceful demonstration. And an unknown group that has set fires to construction equipment…. I think the issue went viral when the equipment was torched. It’s the latter that gets the press and the attention. Obviously the latter group is a small minority with an out sized impact on the discussion.
While it is easy to jump all over Muslims these days, it seems that regarding Muslims, we would do well to recall the approach of John Paul II:
—————————–
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1982/february/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19820214_musulmani-nigeria_en.html
Excerpt: “… All of us, Christians and Muslims, live under the sun of the one merciful God.
We both believe in one God who is the Creator of Man. We acclaim God’s sovereignty and we defend man’s dignity as God’s servant. We adore God and profess total submission to him. Thus, in a true sense, we can call one another brothers and sisters in faith in the one God. And we are grateful for this faith, since without God the life of man would be like the heavens without the sun.
Because of this faith that we have in God, Christianity and Islam have many things in common: the privilege of prayer, the duty of justice accompanied by compassion and almsgiving, and above all a sacred respect for the dignity of man, which is at the foundation of the basic rights of every human being, including the right to life of the unborn child. …”
Like the crazy in Gainsville ready to burn Korans, craziness is often more than tolerated but blown up by the media, interviewing him all over the place.
And crazies on the right will just shout “free speech”, “first amendment”, because they can perpetrate lies and half truths like the swift boaters or birthers etc, for political gain, even if it divides and is grounded in ignorance.
So it goes in our “toleranT’ USA…
Burning the Koran is intimidation, a form of terrorism, and should not be legal under any circumstance but clearly there are those who believe that terrorism is neutral and should be tolerated in some cases, because terrorism is relative and not all terrorist groups are participating in terror 24/7.
Well those folks planning to burn a Koran in FLA ought to be ashamed of themselves.
People should not burn the Koran or the Bible – or the flag for that matter.
Today at Truth Out Henry A. Giroux has an article about his terribly racist childhood. It shows racism from “the other side” and how it works against the interests of the racists themselves, though they don’t see it that way. Not very encouraging.
messenger@truthout.org
Geller reminds me a lot of Ian Paisley.
Although he’s supposed to have mellowed, Old Ian seems up to form in his remarks against the Pope’s impending visit to England: http://ian-paisley-news.newslib.com/story/2595-3084805/
I wonder if Lord Bannside will be invited to the festivities? Think not!
Why are there two standards here?
This Quoran burning is reprehensible and deserves full throated condemnation by Christians everywhere. Terry Jones’s behavior is shameful and an afront to all Christians. Hear hear! And as the father of two soldiers – one soon to be in harm’s way, I’d frankly like to wring his neck.
Why don’t we hold Feisal Abdul Rauf to the same standard? He makes broad generalizations about moderation and terrorism and extremism, but he has not once actually condemned a terrorist or terrorist organization specifically. Hamas leaders specifically, continuously, and publicly advocate the use of terror tactics, including suicide tactics, they fund and train terrorists, and yet he cannot say they are terrorists. 9/11 is a horrible act of terrorism, yet understandable according to Rauf. It would be like someone saying “I think burning the Quoran is inappropriate, but I can understand why someone would do it” in response to Jone’s outrage. You wouldn’t accept that as reasonable, yet Rauf is the “opposite” of Islamophobia.
SH: You may not find this convincing, but it is illuminating” “Parsing the Record of Feisal Abdul Rauf”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imamfacts.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
I suppose one could argue there is a correlation between relativism and truthophobia.
Sean, I will keep your sons in my thoughts and my Prayers.
“The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. … Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’ ”
–Feisal Abdul Rauf, “What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America.”
The NYT has more on Rauf’s statement about American policies being “an accessory” to 9/11:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imamfacts.html
I will pray for your brave boys, Sean, and hope they stay safe. My niece and nephew were both in Iraq at the beginning. It was very difficult for them, and for us who had loved them since they were just little kids.
I thought this thread was perfectly titled because it notes the craziness, “phobia” an airrational fear.
And, as Kristof pointed out in his nYT op-ed Sunday, it is fear that’s being manipulated
for political purposes.
Worse, it’s fear that incites bigotry for some.
“You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear…
It’s got to be drummed in your dearly ear.
You’ve got to be carefully taught.”
I am edified that civilized people all over are one in condemning intolerance and hatred of Muslims. Impressed that General Petraeus got into the act. The Cardinal emeritus of Washington deserves credit also. There is a substantial backlash on the hate mongers. Overcome evil with good seems to be working here. Hope it continues.
Hi Claire – Welcome to the blog and yes, we Americans allow several forms of unpopular and-or disagreeable speech.
From what country do you hail, and how do they (you) define so-called “hate-speech” or hate-speak in your country?
Thanks -
France, 1990 law Gayssot « Toute discrimination fondée sur l’appartenance ou la non-appartenance à une ethnie, une nation, une race ou une religion est interdite. » (Discrimination founded on belonging or not belonging to an ethinicity, a nation, a race or a religion is forbidden). For example, negating the Shoah is illegal. In another example, the French ministry of the Interior was fined 750 euros three months ago for racist insults.
The law was controversial because of conflicts with liberty of expression, of course; but wouldn’t it feel good to be able to fine those people expressing hatred of Muslims?
Or tape their mouths shut!
Again, I am not saying Rauf hasn’t spoken out against “terrorism” writ large – he has, but that’s the easy part. What he never, ever does, is condemn, without reservation, specific acts of terrorism or terrorists.
I believe he does this because to do so would mean he loses all credibility in the Muslim world. That should concern us.
There is a clear double standard, and there will continue to be as long as people like Rauf are considered the moderating influence. Just look at this situation. Some nut in charge of a group of 50 people in Florida puts up some signs and says he will burn the Quoran and we expect that it will be used as an excuse to murder Americans, and we react as if this is the most normal thing in the world.
Everyone from the CinC of our combat forces to the Secretary of State, to the Attorney General, and every major news outlet is falling all over themselves condemning the nut, but not a soul in the Islamic world is warning against violence in reaction. No one is condemning the riots that have already occurred in Afghanistan. So when this nut does what he says he will, and Americans are killed, no doubt every finger both here and in the Islamic world will point at the nut, and the people who do the killing will get a pass – including from “moderates” like Rauf.
Your prayers for my boys are appreciated.
Hi Claire – It might feel good to judge other peoples’ speech and penalize them accordingly, but under our system of a democratic constitutional republic it would not be correct to do so. That simply is not our way.
We Americans believe our individual rights come from God, not from the government. In other words, we believe that we (all humans) are “endowed by our Creator” with our inalienable rights. We Americans believe that human dignity and human rights come from God, and not from man.
And so while we Americans often do not agree with each other, unless someone is making a bodily threat of violence, inciting violence or is plotting some other crime, he or she is free to speak their minds.
And we get these people in Florida who plan on burning a Koran this weekend. Most Americans think – and will say publicly – that those folks planning to burn a Koran are very wrong to do so.
On the other hand, in the USA over the years, people have burn the flag, burned the Bible, placed crucifixes in jars of urine (as art) and have done other objectively offensive things as an expression of their protest. When this latest incident is over, we shall likely see what the law says; someone will sue and the law will become involved.
Still – Personally I think it is wrong to burn the Koran, the Torah, or the Bible – or the flag.
Ken, I agree with you.
not a soul in the Islamic world is warning against violence in reaction.
Sean, how can you know this?
The anti-muslim rhetoric in this country is horrible as well as embarrassing. I am worried that it will lead to attacks against muslims (it already has of course).
Having said that I believe as Christopher Hitchens has stated that tolerance is a two-way street. It is offensive to burn the Koran — or any object held as sacred by a group with the intention of being insulting toward that group. Still — when “The Last Temptation of Christ” came out or when that art exibit in NYC with the Piss Jesus picture inflamed Christians and led to some big protests, no one was killed.
But because of radical muslims — and there are lots of them — people may well be killed. Salmon Rushide had a price placed on his head for writing and publishing The Satanic Verses. A dutch filmmaker was killed for making an anti-Islamic documentary. Yale Unviersity press published a scholarly book about the impact of anti-muslim cartoons but did not repprint the cartoons themselves for fear of their editors being killed (that’s what they said). Women are beign stoned to death for adultery.
Moderate muslims are failing the world by not speaking out against their radical cousins who are violent and tyrannical.
The Vatican and Christians all over the world are speaking out loudly against the self-proclaimed “Christian” in Florida who plans to burn the Koran on 9-11.
Where are the voices of moderation in the Muslim community loudly condemning the acts of violence committed by murderous people who do so in the name of their God? They are no where. AT least not in any meaningful way. Perhaps they too are fearful of infmaing the passions of Islamofascists as well. Which should tell us these radical groups have more infleunce than people with good breeding and education care to admit.
Sean – I understand what you say and agree Islamic leaders should steer clear of such broad tones and should call out specific instances. Regarding the planned Koran-burning day in Florida this weekend, some Muslim leaders are warning of violence already:
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE6872Y520100908?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0
“…In Iran, the planned Koran-burning drew protest from a leading cleric. “I along with 1.5 billion Muslims … condemn this brutal and savage spirit … I warn about its consequences,” Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Safi-Golpaygani told Iran’s Students News Agency ISNA.
“If it happens, Obama should be tried for it and this priest [pastor] should be arrested immediately and his church must be shut down forever,” he said.
(Additional reporting by David Alexander and Sue Pleming in Washington, Zeeshan Haider in Islamabad, Paul Tait in Kabul, Brian Rohan and Claudia Doerries in Berlin, James Mackenzie)”
One must admit Muslims do stick to their guns regarding these sorts of offenses. While we Christians in general, and Catholics in particular routinely, patiently, tolerate in silence any number of real and sorid offenses to our beliefs and sensibilities, when this is said and done, for better or worse, I doubt if anyone in Florida will burn the Koran a second time.
You are right Mollie – I don’t know what every person in the Muslim world thinks – hyperbole.
I will say I have not seen a single report of a prominent Muslim anywhere speaking out against it. Have you? Did any prominent US Muslim condemn the ruthless murder of 10 medical volunteers in Afghanistan last month? I don’t recall that either.
Even here, this is a double standard. If a nutty Christian is involved in violating the religious sensibilities of another faith, or committing viilence in the name of the Christian faith, we immediately expect prominent Christians to speak out, and rightly so. There seems to be absolutely no such expectation when it comes to Islam. One must prove their silence.
Point of clarification – I did not mean that they wouldn’t warn that violence will result – that they will do in spades – and many with approval.
What I meant is that they will not warn their fellow Muslims against commiting acts of violence.
Here is one, Sean. At he same time we have to stress your point which is not made loud enough. Leaders in the Muslim world do have to step up and condemn Islamic violence. There is no reason why we should all not be on board on this.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-patriotic-muslims-warning-on-ground-zero-mosque/
Bill,
I have seen this man on Fox News – an impressive guy and a patriot. But hardly a mover and shaker in the Muslim world. In fact, I suspect most of the posters here on Commonweal would not agree with 90% of what he says. He is a conservative afterall.
Sean, you don’t have to “prove their silence.” (Not that that’s the only reason your “double standard” argument fails to convince.) What you do have to do, or at least ought to do, is refrain from assuming all Muslims conform to your negative assumptions about them unless they demonstrate otherwise to your satisfaction.
The relevant question here is, why should any particular Muslim — especially one who has already condemned violence in the name of Islam — have to prove to you, over and over, that they’re not in favor of violence? That is an actual double-standard: Sure, I know he said terrorism and killing innocent people is always wrong and contrary to Islam, but I refuse to believe he really meant it because he hasn’t said it about this specific case.
If I were an imam I suspect I’d be disinclined to spend much time answering obviously hostile questions from non-Muslims. After all, a person (ideally) goes into ministry to minister — and that means their focus is on people who already know, and share, their abhorrence of violence and terror vis-a-vis Islam. Sometimes they do try, of course, to explain the tenets of Islam (as complex as it is), and sometimes they try to give Americans some idea of how other Muslims might perceive things, based on their faith or the government they live under or the impact of a particular war on their family life — and of course when they do that there’s always someone waiting to claim they’re really condoning terrorism. Perhaps the Muslim leaders you’re waiting to hear from think what you’re waiting to hear goes without saying — or perhaps they feel they’d be wasting their time saying anything at all in a climate where their every utterance is game for misrepresentation and outright distortion.
I have a Melkite Catholic friend in a mostly Lebanese-American, retired Air Force lifer, who shares Sean’s frustrations, and wants to see leaders in his diocese more strongly condemn terrorism–in fact, because they are Arabs, to take the lead in the condemnation.
His fellow parishioners and church leaders have condemned terrorism, but I suppose that, in the eyes of some, an Arab who, on the heels of such condemnation suggests that American foreign policy may have played into the hands of terrorists, seems to be mitigating the condemnation.
I wonder if there is a corrolary between these Arab Americans and American Catholics who condemn priest sex abuse, but point out that such abuse happens in other denominations and public schools.
Margaret, you beat me to the link while I was typing; sorry for the duplicatation.
Interesting ads at the right. Muslim singles. Muslim dating.
(And a big one that comes and goes — new president wanted for St. Joseph’s Academy in St. Louis: http://www.stjosephacademy.org/about/employment.asp )
(I wonder if many disaffected Catholics are converting/submitting to Islam.)
I totally agree that burning sacred books is disgusting. Why not follow the American Catholic custom of just throwing them in a dumpster? After all that’s what we do every few months with the missalettes which contain the Word of God and the treasury of the Church’s prayers.
Are missalettes sacred books? Doubt it.
It’s 8:00 p.m. Central Time. Iman Rauf is on Larry King live. (CNN)
Mollie
I am not even talking about his not answering hostile questions. I am talking about him never ever taking it upon himself to condemn any act of terror – only terrorism in some general sense. If a group of madmen Catholics decided to behead a Jewish journalist in the name of their faith, wouldn’t you expect pretty much every priest and bishop to speak out against that act? Would you expect them to qualify what condemnation they did make with explanations and excuses as to what “drove” the executioners to do what they did?
Jean,
I don’t think there is a corolary, and here is why. I and others who have made those points re: the abuse crisis don’t do so to excuse or explain the abuse. There is no excuse. I do it to make two points. First, to put the situation in context, and also to address the motives of some of the Church’s critics who use the abuse situation to further other (usually longstanding and pre-existing) agendas. For example, if abuse is as common (in many places in fact more common) in public schools and other publicly run institutions, and the real motive is to prevent abuse, why should there only be a move to eliminate charitable immunity from law suits and not sovereign immunity?
There is no excuse for abusing children, and those that do should be punished harshly in my opinion. But they should be punished harshly whether they are priests, ministers, school teachers, foster parents, or coaches. The bureaucrat that covers up abuse is just as culpable as the bishop that does.
Mollie writes “The relevant question here is, why should any particular Muslim — especially one who has already condemned violence in the name of Islam — have to prove to you, over and over, that they’re not in favor of violence? That is an actual double-standard.”
Sorry Mollie – you’re wrong on this.
No double standard. Because Muslim leaders must condemn over and over again each act of violence that is being committed in the name of Islam. They don’t have to prove anything but they do have to keep stating it. That’s called leadership.
Hmmmm. What would the pope do if a radical offshoot of Catholics — in the name of Catholicism — began terrorizing the world and killing people. Apologize once and move on? I don’t think so.
Suzanne — you are aware, I hope, that there is no Muslim pope? The structure of their “leadership” is just not analogous to ours. Neither is their position in American society.
Sean, let’s say your hypothetical bishop goes on Fox News and explains that killing innocent people violates the most basic tenets of Catholicism. Then the interviewer says, “But why would these radicals do something so heinous and claim it was in the name of your faith?” And the bishop does his best to explain how the radicals distort the faith to justify their acts, and what he believes is really motivating them. Is that so hard to imagine? If he were then labeled an apologist for terrorism — say by another program on Fox News, playing a selectively edited video of the interview — wouldn’t you be annoyed that his good faith had been abused?
These “what if a Catholic did it” analogies don’t strike me as serious attempts to shed light; they tend to be unrealistically self-flattering scenarios designed to reinforce the idea that we already know all we need to know about those incorrigible Muslims. If you’re plain convinced that Muslims — even the ones who come from a completely different faith tradition than the 9/11 terrorists — just have more to prove than the rest of us, I don’t know what to tell you, except to pray that we Catholics will keep on setting a good example with our high standards of public accountability.
Interestingly, we Christians are taught that when we suffer an offense (any offense) we are to turn the other cheek and also we are to pray for our enemy.
Of course there is no definitive word on Islamic teaching; no Islamic equivalent of Vatican or Pope, and consequently few are certain of Islamic doctrine regarding things like turning the other cheek and praying for ones enemies. I assume Muslims are taught some version of turning the other cheek and praying for one’s enemies.
Obviously Muslims will defend the honor of God, which is why they naturally will be upset if this pastor in Florida burns a Koran. Any reasonable person can understand why Muslims would be upset at someone intentionally desecrating a holy book.
One can object to the violence of Muslims’ reaction, but we must give credit where it is due. Muslims do not, and will not stand idly by while others offend God.
“I and others who have made those points re: the abuse crisis don’t do so to excuse or explain the abuse. There is no excuse. I do it to make two points. First, to put the situation in context, and also to address the motives of some of the Church’s critics who use the abuse situation to further other (usually longstanding and pre-existing) agendas.”
I would argue that Muslims who argue that terrorism is wrong, but that U.S. policies have perhaps contributed to it, are attempting to put the crime in context, as flabby as that might seem to someone who does not share their heritage or their religious views. Attempts to put the sex abuse scandal in context strike many non-Catholics (and some Catholics) as similarly flabby.
Moreover, some of Muslim Americans feel that any number of bigots have wrapped themselves in the mantle of 9/11 to excuse religious intolerance–i.e., to further other agendas. You could certainly read that into what Terry Jones and certain citizens of Murfreesborough have done, no?
So I continue to see something of a corellary here, though I am completely willing to accept that I’m not a sufficiently engaged Catholic to see the fine points that fail to persuade you. That old Universalist training dies hard.
When calling for moderate Muslims to single out specific Muslim groups to condemn for their terrorism, Americans are taking an unrealistic view. If a Muslim leader does this, he or she then is obliged to also condemn specific non-Muslim groups. And guess what would happen next? Those condemnations would be taken out of context, and used to smear the peaceful purposes of their work and to prove they are fundamentally political. All opposition to terror would be forgotten. The clips would be played out of context on Fox news, ad infinitum. To expect anything else would be naïve. Leaders are smart to stick to condemning terror. Let other people connect the dots.
Mollie,
I am not saying that Muslims have more to prove. You are saying we have less to expect from them. I don’t expect them to prove anything. I would like to expect that the result of something like this isolated book burning would not be death and destruction.
The difference in your hypothetical is that Rauf doesn’t just explain why they do what they do, he treats it as understandable even if it is wrong. When he says that US policy led in part to 9/11, he isn’t just stating what he thinks is a cause and effect relationship, he is saying that Americans share responsibility for the attack. Just yesterday Rauf hinted that his changing the location of his Islamic Center might result in violence – and he wasn’t talking about violence against him or his followers.
All I am saying is that we would not accept such a response from a leader in any religion other than Islam. Rauf is called on to answer these questions not in some vacuum, but because thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered by Islamic terrorists over the last decade. Further, despite the picture you try to draw, this violence is not being committed just one isolated “faith tradition” related to the 9/11 terrorists. It’s Wahhabist Saudis and Taliban, Sunni Hamas, Phillipine Abu Sayyaf, Indonesian Jemaah Islamiyah, Shiite Hezbollah.
This is a fundamental endemic problem, and it is not bigotry to point it out. I fully agree that Islam does not equal terrorism. But it is foolish and naive to deny the connection all together.
Rita -
Nonsense. Muslims don’t speak out because they either agree at some level wirth these groups or they are afraid of them. What groups would they be “obliged” to condemn?
Jean -
Sorry – I just don’t get it. There is a difference between putting something in context and excusing it. When I say put it in context, I mean that it is necessary to understand that the abuse situation is a serious problem for Catholics, but it is not (as it is protrayed) a “Catholic” problem. In fact, I believe by not putting it in context we put more children at risk.
The analogy to Jones is inapposite. For the analogy to fit you must analogize to Rauf and Muslim leaders since they are the ones making the excuse.
Actually at this point, sadly, Muslims do have more to prove as their radical counterparts are responsible for a shocking amount of violence throughout the world and kill people over cartoons and documentaries, and stone women to death for adultery. I feel sorry for Muslims – they are in a tight spot — they are through not fualt of their own otehr than associationtarred with the same brush – just as the entire church is tarred by the brush of the sex abuse scandal.
Noncatholics associate the Catholic Church with child abuse. And that’s about ALL they associate the Catholic Church with these days. The Catholic Church now has more to prove — like the Muslims – than say the Quakers, the Methodists or the Buddhists. Catholics have been undermined by serious scandal. Lots of PR work needed. Muslims need some good PR now too.
Yes, I know that there is no pope in Islam. But it is a heirarchical religion — and they have individuals who have a higher profile/position than others.
“Just yesterday Rauf hinted that his changing the location of his Islamic Center might result in violence – and he wasn’t talking about violence against him or his followers.” Yes, this s the problem you see. It is what Christopher Hitchensa says. There is always a vague gesture to some possible dark force or violence that could result not from them but from…others.
How abour Rauf saying “I won’t move the mosque because this is America – not an Islamic nation (with the exception of Turkey and one or two others) in which if we tried to build a church we’d be thrown in jail — and we have certain rights and freedoms, but if we are forced to mvoe it, we condemn anyone who uses that as an opprotunity for violence.”
Or “Anyone who kills Americans becuase one American burns the Koran is a terrorist not a true Muslim. In America, people are allowed to burn books, including the Bible. That’s how it works there.”
No, no instead, hints to “possible” violent reponses yet no preemptive condemnation….
Are there Muslim counterparts to Commonweal, NCR, and America? What are THEY saying about Islamophobia, Christianophobia, Judeophobia?
What is your point, Gerelyn?
Well imagine that.
I have to admits I had my doubts about this preacher in Florida, but one must admit it is amazing to watch.
After Mr. Bloomberg and all the other high and mighties in New York and DC (even in the white house) tried for several months but simply could not broker a resonable resolution of the NYC Mosque issue, this stubborn, small-town Protestant (Pentacostal) preacher in a little parish in nowhere USA has managed in a few days to get the would be mosque-builders of NYC to at least consider being more considerate of others’ feelings regarding that plot of land and 9-11.
Amazing.
Ken, as my mother used to say, “Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.”
It appears that Terry Jones the pastor planning to burn the Qu’rans has declared he has a deal that Mr. Ruaf in NYC says he never agreed too–i.e., moving the mosque. Whatever the slight of hand here, and we can discuss that later, I don’t think this is over and I don’t think triumphalism about Mr. Terry outsmarting NYC “high and mighties” is in keeping with the news–at least at the moment. Looks a bit like a shell game to me.
You may be on to something Margaret. Even though this Florida pastor has decided to forgo burning a Koran Saturday, he really has no control over what others in the area might do.
Now that the idea of burning a Koran to commemorate the attack of 9-11 has been put forth, it will be difficult to rescind.
It is like if you say something you later wish you had not said. No matter how much you would like to grab some harsh words that slipped from you mouth, grab them from the air and put them back into your mouth, you cannot do that; you cannot really “take them back”. You can and should apologize and try to make amends, but once you have said something, even if they forgive the mistake, others will remember the words.
It is difficult to say what other folks in the Florida, Alabama and Mississippi region might think about all of this.
I am also hoping Mr. Jones doesn’t come up to NYC on 9/11; there seem to be crazies enough without him and his matches. Is there a patron saint of “stay at home.”
“NEW YORK (Reuters) – The imam behind a proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque near the World Trade Center site said on Friday he has no meeting planned with the Florida pastor who had threatened to burn copies of the Koran.
“I am prepared to consider meeting with anyone who is seriously committed to pursuing peace. We have no such meeting planned at this time. Our plans for the community center have not changed. With the solemn day of September 11 upon us, I encourage everyone to take time for prayer and reflection,” Feisal Abdul Rauf said in a statement issued by his publicist.
“The publicist confirmed that meant there were no plans to meet with obscure Christian pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida.”
Who assigned the adjective “obscure” to Terry Jones, Reuters or the imam’s publicist?
(Googling Pastor Terry Jones brings up 33 million leads. Feisal Abdul Rauf only 714 thousand.)
The WashPost is calling Jones notorious. That better?
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sally_quinn/2010/09/the_notorious_pastor_terry_jones.html?hpid=topnews
Yes. Much better.
But Sally may have written her column before the news arrived that someone HAS died in a riot against the notorious and odious Terry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/asia/11afghan.html
(I parked in front of Sally’s charming Georgetown house last week on my way to lunch at Martin’s Tavern, where JFK proposed to Jackie.)
“Is there a patron saint of “stay at home?”
St. Benedict??
This is starting to look like Guy Fawkes Night. Read the other day that after 400 years is still celebrated in places on the west coast of England. Scary.
I feel like we need a reality check here.
Gerelyn writes: “But Sally may have written her column before the news arrived that someone HAS died in a riot against the notorious and odious Terry.”
Terrible, terrible news. But the fact that there are violent protests and people are killed in Afganistan is not the fault of Terry Jones. Terry Jones is hideous and hate-filled to be sure. But he is exercising his rights as an American. There were violent protests and people were killed in Pakistan over the anti-Muslim cartoons published in Europe. Are we to blame the cartoonist?
Jones is trying to spread hate and incite Muslims to be sure but the fact that radical Muslims are incited to kill people who are not in any way even participating in the act of hatred is the part that is outrageious. The whole world is brought to a standstill over one guy in Fl bruing books?
Where is the outrage in the world that Americans over seas should even be worried that their lives are in danger? That’s the crazy part.
Here is a quote from a “well known religious scholar” in The New York Times article Gerelyn quotes:
“If burning the Koran ever did happen,” he said, “every foreigner in this country, one hundred percent of them, will be in trouble. Every Muslim is responsible to show their reaction to that. It is the right thing to do.”
Okay, shall we have Catholic bishops saying that if anyone burns the Bible all Catholics are reponsible to react to that (including violence – which is as Muslim schoalr makes it clear), that it is the right thing to do?
Margaret – I don’t understand what your point is about all this. The mosque shouldn’t be moved and the guy sholdn’t burn the books. But the REAL problem is the constatnt veiled and not so veiled threats that people will die!
After 9-11, NOT one physical attack againist a muslim was reported in NYC. We Americans alwasy want to see the worst about our country but we are the MOST religious tolerant country in the world.
Susan Smith: “Margaret – I don’t understand what your point is about all this. The mosque shouldn’t be moved and the guy sholdn’t burn the books. But the REAL problem is the constatnt veiled and not so veiled threats that people will die!
“After 9-11, NOT one physical attack againist a muslim was reported in NYC. We Americans alwasy want to see the worst about our country but we are the MOST religious tolerant country in the world.”
My point is not that complicated. We are not Afghani rioters; they are not American debaters. Why should their standards be ours? We have a constitution, a political tradition of tolerance (more or less, though “not necessarily the most religious[ly] tolerant country in the world”!), and a cultural attitude of live and let live (not always to the good). We conduct ourselves according to our polity and traditions and regret that others (wherever they may be) don’t share those.
The constant veiled threats? They are as much a magnification of global media coverage (and in some cases political and media hysteria) as they are of “threats.” If I read the stories right from Afghanistan it was an Afghani and probably a Muslim who died, not a Westerner.
I have to say I don’t understand your point. You want us to behave like Afghani or Pakistani mobs? Is that it?
Or on careful reading, maybe we shot the Afghanis (it’s a complicated world, isn’t it?)
“Several hundred of the demonstrators, some on foot and others crammed into automobiles, broke away and stormed toward the Airport Road, where the Provincial Reconstruction Base was located. Four policemen were wounded by stone throwers among the crowd, which overwhelmed defenders at the base’s outer wall, the Afghan officials said.
“When the protesters tried to storm the inner wall, the defenders fired warning shots and then, when that failed, fired into the crowd, according to Aga Noor Kentooz, the provincial police chief in Faizabad. He said the shots were fired “by foreign forces” inside the base. The base is staffed by German soldiers and police.
“The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force disputed the shooting reports.
“Reporting indicates no I.S.A.F. troops fired shots during any protests today,” said Maj. Sunset Belinsky, an I.S.A.F. spokeswoman. “Initial reporting does indicate Afghan forces fired shots, but I would have to defer to MoI/MoD for confirmation.” Officials from the Afghan Ministry of Interior and Defense could not be reached for comment.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?_r=1&hpw
I thought Mayor Blomberg on Morning Edition today summed up the situation nicely.
Thanks Bob Nunz: Here’s the link, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129793951
Bloomberg begins at 1 minute into the clip and says what all public officials should be saying.