New Mosque (?) in TN makes folks nervous

[nathan]

http://www.dnj.com/article/20100718/NEWS03/7180311

[ggeezz]

At least one of the candidates spoke out for religious freedom.

[Kafir]

This seems like as good a place as any to note Sarah Palin's recent twitter comments on another proposed mosque:

Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate

And a recent piece from the Daily Beast:

The GOP’s basic problem is that many Republicans equate Christianity, or at least Judeo-Christianity, with Americanism. They do not believe it’s possible to truly uphold American ideals unless you identify with the religious traditions that supposedly underlie those ideals. In a country with a growing Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Mormon, and atheist population, that’s a significant source of political bigotry.

[nathan]

I don't actually get what Palin is communicating there. She's asking the supporters if it stabs them in the heart? If what does? the construction of the mosque? Why would it stab them in the heart? They support it. She's asking peaceful Muslims to "refudiate" what exactly? Twitter is killing us here.

[Kafir]

I don't actually get what Palin is communicating there. She's asking the supporters if it stabs them in the heart? If what does? the construction of the mosque? Why would it stab them in the heart? They support it. She's asking peaceful Muslims to "refudiate" what exactly? Twitter is killing us here.

I've just gotten back from a midnight croquet game and sixpack of locally brewed pale ale in a Portland park, but I feel that I can say soberly and with some confidence that trying to parse the precise nuances of a tweet from Palin is a fool's errand. I was tempted to insert "sic" about four times in that 109-character tweet.

These are her follow-ups, after deleting the original comment:

"Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real."
"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing,"
"'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!"

I do not got to celebrate it.

First, "refudiate" seems to me to be a type of error that people who know English by hearing to the exclusion of reading would make, which is one of several features that distinguishes her from Shakespeare. Second, her notion of the American "heartland" appears to be the national analogue of what "upstate" means in New York--she means everything apart from major cities. As a native Ohioan I feel qualified to point out that Alaska is not the "heartland" in any other sense. Third, "refute" is still not the word she wants. "Repudiate" would be better.

But the unintentional genius of Sarah Palin is that her idiosyncratic approach to our language leads pedants like me to critique her wording, rather than the theocratic populism of her substance (when there is any). And this allows her to paint her critics as "elites", and presumably elitists, who are out of touch with everyday, hardworking Americans in the heartland, doggonit.

[ggeezz]

rather than the theocratic populism of her substance (when there is any).

So do you think there is theocratic populism here?

I'm willing to stand up to support the mosque in TN, but I think a mosque at Ground Zero is a bad idea for the same reasons I thought the scripture verses on military scopes was a bad idea. There's nothing inherently wrong with either one**, but they're both hurtful to (what should be) our goals. If we want Americans to seek peace with Muslims rather than demonize Islam as a whole, building a mosque at GZ is a step in the wrong direction.

**At least some of the verses which were essentially easter egg pop culture references. I don't remember all of the details now.

[nathan]

If we want Americans to seek peace with Muslims rather than demonize Islam as a whole, building a mosque at GZ is a step in the wrong direction.

Actually, when you put it that way, I think allowing a Muslim cultural center within two blocks of ground zero would be a great way to seek peace with Muslims. Basically it says, "we don't blame your religion." I guess many people can't accept that.

[ggeezz]

If we want Americans to seek peace with Muslims rather than demonize Islam as a whole, building a mosque at GZ is a step in the wrong direction.

Actually, when you put it that way, I think allowing a Muslim cultural center within two blocks of ground zero would be a great way to seek peace with Muslims. Basically it says, "we don't blame your religion." I guess many people can't accept that.

That's a valid point. I think they're both valid points. But which is the greater need here?

There are many in America who are not ready to seek peace. Should we say "screw you" to them because we're more interesting in reaching out to Muslims?

[changa]

If we want Americans to seek peace with Muslims rather than demonize Islam as a whole, building a mosque at GZ is a step in the wrong direction.

Actually, when you put it that way, I think allowing a Muslim cultural center within two blocks of ground zero would be a great way to seek peace with Muslims. Basically it says, "we don't blame your religion." I guess many people can't accept that.

The precise problem is that, generally speaking, we do blame their religion. Islam is the modern image of hate and destruction -- which translates as a license to degrade, torture and kill any muslim (or look-alike) at any time without losing our "good guy" polish. I have yet to hear any Christian leaders apologize to the painfully peaceful Sikh community for what has been done to them in recent years.

It's bigotry, plain and simple.

[Kafir]

If we want Americans to seek peace with Muslims rather than demonize Islam as a whole, building a mosque at GZ is a step in the wrong direction.

Actually, when you put it that way, I think allowing a Muslim cultural center within two blocks of ground zero would be a great way to seek peace with Muslims. Basically it says, "we don't blame your religion." I guess many people can't accept that.

That's a valid point. I think they're both valid points. But which is the greater need here?

If we were talking about, say, a 9/11 Memorial Mosque on the site of the old World Trade Center, I would understand a plea for tact, taste, and sensitivity on the part of American Muslims. But when people object to the idea of a mosque a couple blocks away from the WTC (in some of the densest real estate in the country), it's harder not to see the message as being something like "You people all remind us of terrorists; please keep respectfully out of our sight".

So--as a hypothetical gesture proposed by non-Muslims, I think something along the lines of "chapels" of various faiths on the site of the WTC might be rather nice, and certainly good politics--but a mosque on the WTC site, proposed by Muslims, would show poor judgment. Neither is happening. But a mosque in the Financial District of Manhattan is not in itself a political statement of any kind, and it's in poor taste and judgment for non-Muslim Americans (kufar, plural of kafir) to treat it as an affront.

I may be assuming too much; quite possibly many of the people upset about the "Ground Zero Mosque" never bothered to look into its actual location.

Further comment from Jeffrey Goldberg:

On... the danger [Palin] poses to America -- and specifically, to American national security -- Palin has this week argued vociferously against the building of a mosque near the site of Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. She calls the idea of a mosque there a provocation. But it is her opposition to the building of a mosque that is provocative. The organization that hopes to build the mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, is a moderate Muslim group, striving for better relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. It is in the direct interest of American national security to strengthen those groups that argue against Islamism. Palin's opposition to the mosque -- and by extension, to the enfranchisement of moderate Muslims -- is a gift to Islamists, proof to their potential followers that America is as intolerant of Islam as Europe is, proof that it is America, not Islam, that wants to see our civilizations clash. We as a society should embrace those Muslims who want to live the American dream; their lives, as free, devout and proud Muslims in a diverse country, are a refutation of the radical notion that the West is forever aligned against the interests of Muslim believers. Opposing the building of mosques by anti-jihadist Muslim groups in this country is perhaps the best way to radicalize American Muslims not otherwise prone to radicalization.

It is true that this country is home to a non-insignificant number of already-radicalized Muslims. There's no point in denying that. But there's a war on -- a clash within a civilization -- and we can affect the outcome of this war by embracing those Muslims who are ready and willing to live in our multi-confessional country, while fighting those who violently oppose American values. Sarah Palin, from what I see so far, views Islam as a monolith, and because of this view, she argues for policies that could do severe damage to American national security. This is a complicated war we're in, and Sarah Palin is, by the evidence at hand, dangerously simple-minded.

I think Goldberg is onto something significant toward the end there--Palin (and I doubt she is unique in this) seems to see Islam as monolithic in the same way that (for instance) Sam Harris sees Christianity as monolithic.