Over 30 Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The people who want to establish a Muslim Community Center spoke out strongly against the 9/11 attackers and wanted to create a center that brings people together. Your lack of research and discovery on issues you voice opinion on is incredible and shows that you have low journalistic standards. Moreover, it shows your intolerance and desire to divide people.

Betsy; Betsy; Betsy; I read your article with great interest being a Muslim of Eastern European origin. How magnanimous we are to be civil to people who after all blew up the Twin Towers and gunned down a dozen soldiers at Fort Hood. We showed great restraint. The basic problem with your argument as with arguments citing sensitivity as a reason not to build the Mosque, is that there is a presumption that Islam was to blame for these events. How much restraint and good character does it take not to attack an innocent. Restraint is required to forgive a wrongdoer. There is no restraint required to be civil to “pro life” advocates even though there have been bombings of clinics and murders of doctors in the name of “pro life”. These acts were not the acts of the opponents of abortion but the acts of an extreme lunatic fringe. There is no magnanimity in restraining from attacking the great majority unless one views the bombings and murders as being the work of the larger group. Your article in essence assigns the blame for the horrific acts to Islam and praises our people of being tolerant and does not recognize the inherent flaws in this broad assignment of guilt.
A bit of a sidebar; you criticize the response of Islam to the attack on the Twin Towers. There were demonstrations in Tehran, the capital of Iran, an Islamic Theocracy, condemning the bombings while more than half the population of Italy, a Christian country, when poled, said that we deserved the attack.
This was the first time I read one of your articles, (my wife pointed it out since we just discussed the controversial Mosque) but from the first paragraph it was obvious where your heart lies. Along with other extreme conservatives I believe that in your heart of hearts you may pine for return to an America that never existed, a white, Christian, English speaking nation. This scares me, because if you succeed, there is no room for me since I only qualify in two of the three categories. Many on the right have been very vitriolic in their condemnation of Islam, your article is more dangerous because it assigns blame more subtly, disguising it in American exceptionalism.
I confess I could be wrong in my judgment of you and that I also am quick to jump to conclusions. I will follow your commentary and see. You have now gained another reader.

Ali

Wow, another mother raising her children with rose-colored glasses. American is tolerant???? There was a brutal attack on a Muslim cab driver, 5 people arrested in NY for firing shots at a Mosque, idiots peeing on prayer rugs, arson in Tennessee, a planed burning of the Quran in Florida, a 7/11 employee attacked in Seattle, hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, close to 1/2 million Iraqi babies dead because of American sanctions on Iraq over the course of 20 yrs….but hey Besty says we are tolerant. What a hoot!

Carol, I read and appreciate your response to Betsy’s article on Ispamophobia but would like to take issue with one point. I tried to point out to Betsy that it is wrong to paint Islam or anything else for that matter, with too broad a brush. The bombers of 9/11, though claiming to act in the name of Islam, do not represent Muslims and it is wrong to attribute their acts to Islam. This was an act of a fringe of a fringe of a fringe. I would like to encourage people, instead of lumping everything into one bucket and then attribute the act, belief or politics of a fraction to the entire lot, to give the content of the bucket more granularity and speak of the segments as appropriate. (I read or heard somewhere that the ability to make such differentiations is a sign of intelligence). Your response, though well intentioned, is mixing “apples and oranges”. The recent acts of violence against Muslims certainly fall into one category and represent Islamophobia. On the other hand, the blockade of and wars with Iraq were not. These were political actions against a country whose people happened to be Muslim and not an attack on Islam. I think it is important to continuously remind ourselves, especially in moments of passion, to make sure that our anger or love, for that matter, is directed at the right entity.

I appreciated Ms. Hart’s column, but I disagree with her notion that if more muslims had exhibited incredulity and outrage over islam-inspired terrorism that more Americans would be accepting, so much to the point of their incendiary feelings towards the Ground Zero mosque being assuaged. Please read the following: “Sword of the Prophet” by Dr. Serge Trifkovic; “The Great Divide” by Marvin Olasky and Alvin Schmidt; anything by Brigitte Gabriel and Robert Spencer; and jihadwatch.org.

Ali, the point of bringing up what America has done in the Middle East is to show their disregard for this area of the world which happens to be predominately Muslim. Don’t kid yourself on how linked this is to what is happening with the Mosque issue. I agree 100% that the broad brush used to paint the Islamic community is wrong. It is a deliberate attempt to vilify an entire people and it has been going on for a long time. The phobia now present in America is a result of our past behavior. It is an attempt to justify that behavior. They point back and say “see we were right to do what we did.”

Carol, To your point of some of our people pointing to the past to justify political actions, we don’t want to contribute to this by allowing everything to become a Muslim issue. I would like to diffuse the possibility of a war of religious ideologies by forcing people to look more closely and not make it easier, through rhetoric on both sided of the discussion, to put everything into either the Islam or the West bucket. Religious wars tend to be the most brutal whether the Catholic/Protestant a few centuries ago or the Hindu/Muslim around the formation of Pakistan.
Jihadism now has replaced terrorism in the common lexicon, Terrorism, though too broadly applied is a political term, jihadism on the other hand is very religious and strongly and unjustifiable implicates Islam. I am hoping that, through a more precise use of language, it may be more difficult for politicians with an imperialist or racial agenda to fool their constituencies.
I believe that there is a small (at least I hope it is small) element within our population that drapes itself in patriotism but is fundamentally motivated by racial bigotry. With the great advances made in recent years, overt bigotry is socially unacceptable. Rants against darker skin immigrants from South of the Border, are also not acceptable in most circles. However, even the most violent rhetoric against illegal aliens is. There are good arguments about illegal immigration but I would bet that the people who are most vitriolic and wave the flag most vigorously would also have strong feelings about the use in government of Spanish and anything else to do with immigrants legal or otherwise. In the same way, bigotry against Muslims, many of them darker skinned than Europeans, has become acceptable especially if put in a context of jihadism and the “war on terror”.

Ali,I hope your idea works as far as a more precise use of language goes but I think such subtleties are quite lost on most Americans who are promoting hate without any justifications whatsoever. I live not far from the church that will be burning the Koran on Sept 11. They are radical Christians. I hope you are right that their numbers are small, but from where I sit they are quite strong and loud. No amount of logic gets to them, let alone subtleties. My hopes lie in the laws of this land that do not allow for ANY relion to impose its views on anyone other than their followers. Unfortunately the undermining of our Constitution started under Geo. Bush and his patriot act and the dismantling continues with the religious right and their leaders. First it was just the terrorist who committed the horrible act on 9/11, then it expanded to all Iraqis, then to the Taliban, now we are at war in three countries and looking to add Yemen and Iran. This is insanity in whatever brand of speech you chose to use. I also agree with you about the viciousness of religious wars. I hope words can change our course. You sound like a diplomat, Ali, good luck with that.

Carol, I agree with most everything you say. The burners of the “Book” and screamers will not understand the subtleties. If they are not burning the Quran, they will be burning the Gideon Bible, or the Torah. They will always find something to burn and scream at. I am counting on the illinformed others who are not illogical but manipulated by ill intended politicians, to understand these subtleties. As to the assignment of blame for 9/11 migrating from terrorists to Iraqis, to the Taliban etc., my quest would be to get down to be even more nuance. I think the term terrorist as you use it is too broad. The attacks were perpetrator not the Irish Republican Party (IRA) or the Basque Separatists or the Kurdish Insurgents in Turkey, all designated terrorists within their region, nor Hamas or Hezbollah, designated as terrorist organizations by us, but by Al-Qaida. If we are going to declare war, though my choice would be a police action, (much cheaper in lives and money and more effective in this case) I would like the war to be against a very specific enemy, Al-Qaida. I don’t want me or other Muslims, specially those living in the US, through rhetoric, semantics and misinformation to be identified as the enemy. Betsy in her article essentially tries to do this. I think we are pretty much on the same page but you are more eloquent, poetic and emotional and I more pragmatic.

Carol. I had promised myself I was going to let you have the last word but here I go again. I was just watching John Zirella on CNN reporting on the upcoming book burning in your neighborhood. He emphasized that the action church was to inform us of the Qur-An’s inspiration for the radicals. He reported that during the interviewed the pastor said it is time to stand up to radical Islam. CNN then showed the interview where the pastor clearly said stand up to Islam. No mention of radical. I rewound to be sure but that was precisely what he said. Insertion of just a small word in the right place totally changes the picture. The pastor’s argument is not with an element of Islam as was reported but with Islam. Again I would like to stress the need for precision in our dialogs. There, I got the last word in after all.
By the way, I post to a blog with friends and family as readers but there are a couple of postings you may find interesting; Islam Misunderstood and another on Patriotism. The address is politicalispeaking.blogspot.com. My daughters set it up to keep me from annoying them with my rhetoric.

Hi – I’ve received a lot of mail on this one, and finally I’ve had a few minutes to sit down and answer what are common responses, thanks for being patient:

1 – “people shouldn’t be praised for doing the right thing” (and not wrongly attacking or accusing innocent Muslims.) Well, true. The issue here is that when it comes to such things, the history of the world is as more than one observer has noted, “about man’s brutality to man.” Doing the “right” thing is far less common than doing the wrong thing. In most Second and Third world countries today, and in much of the First world, it would be utterly predictable that innocents would be attacked to avenge the crimes done by others in a shared name.

With a few exceptions that has not happened in the U.S. Rather, we are going to extremes to accommodate Muslims. I.e., not forcing women going through security at airports to remove headscarves or even a hijab. Having high school football teams in Dearborn, who are predominately Muslim, practice in the middle of the night so that they can also honor Ramadan is another example. No such things (toward Christians) are thinkable in Muslim countries of course but that’s not the point. Even here, the thought of accommodating Christians in the same way is not something I have encountered.

The difference in how the Mosque issue vs. the “burning” issue has been handled is extraordinary. The President, indeed the entire world, called on the so-called “minister” to not go forth with the burning of the Koran, and he stood down. Calling on Imam Rauf to not go forward with his plan to build a Mosque and Community center is unthinkable by those same leaders. Why?

2 – Am I suggesting there is really a fundamental difference between how Islam and Christianity treat others outside their religion? Well, on the face of it that is the case. There are no ongoing terrorist attacks in the name of Christians that I am aware of, there are regular attacks committed in the name of Islam. The question is, does this difference arise from the religion itself, or from a perversion of it by radicals in the Muslim world? I don’t know! I would love to have an open debate about it without being called an “Islamophobe” as is the case today. I would like to openly debate things like Sharia law, circumcision of girls, and the treatment of women in the Muslim world, and most importantly whether the tenets of Islam lead to terror or whether certain Muslims have hijacked those teachings. If so, exactly who has hijacked them and why? Where are the Muslim leaders denouncing these people by name, as Christian leaders denounced – vehemently and universally and by name and rightly – the “pastor” getting ready to burn the Koran?

3 – Am I “Islamophobic” to think that a Muslim majority in the U.S., or even something close to it someday, would change the U.S. and the freedom we love? Well, I don’t think so. Today all Muslim countries have some level of repressive regime, and are particularly repressive to women. Is it crazy for me to think then that Islam produces repressive societies? If they do, again, does that come from Islam itself or a perversion of it? Is there truly a vocal, freedom loving (even if it looks different than how I think of freedom), vibrant moderate Islam? There may well be. In fact, I fully believe that most Muslims, certainly here in the U.S., want the terror to stop as much as I do. But if there is a vibrant, moderate Muslim movement I need to hear so much more from its leaders. Is it possible they are there butf rightened by the extremes?

4 – Finally I found it interesting but telling that when it came to the “burning” issue, leaders around the world feared this would set off the Muslim world into anger. But no one has ever suggested that, for instance, a group of Muslims planning to burn Bibles would set off Christians in the least. I don’t know that we would do more than shrug. Even when there have been instances of offense, like defaming a portrait of Christ or whatnot, some Christian leaders get outraged but there is not any fear of any violence. Why is that? And why was the assumption that Muslims, not just radical Muslims, would be outraged and would behave violently go unchallenged by the Left and the media, not just the Right? In other words, they must believe it’s true. Why?

Well, I think that answers the main points from the letters I received. Thanks so much for writing, and for the thoughtful comments. I really do believe the ability to have an open, honest debate about these issues would be one of the best things we could do to diffuse tensions between Christianity and Islam!

Betsy, you point to religious based societies as being intolerant of other religions. We both agree on that anyway. Despite what Glenn Beck and a few radical Christians want, this country is a secular Republic. That is our saving grace. We are a country of laws and not people, especially religious people who would demand adherence to their rules alone. Tolerance in America not something good upstanding Christians have benignly given to other religions. It is a requirement they must follow under the 1st amendment. There are Christians challenging that right now and should the 1st Amendment be tattered and broken by them, we too will be seeing a rise in religious intolerance. Christians world -wide are in fact attempting to free themselves from the constraints of what the secular, civilized world bound them to. Religious hatred by both Christian and Muslim are on the rise. ALL religious-based countries are intolerant and repressive. That is what religion does, it asks adherence to its beliefs only.
Now while you are painting your children the rosey picture of tolerant America (religious or not) be sure not to include the hard facts that would question that reasoning so that they too could walk around la-la land and say such things as “They attack us because they hate our freedoms”. Ignore please all of the following:
The U.S. is the most violent nation on earth. In our history there has only been 31 yrs when we were NOT at war with someone. We have attacked, invaded, policed, overthrown, or occupied 62 nations. 77% of nations have U.S. troops stationed in them. (Swanson “Daybreak)We have been meddling in the affairs of the Muslim world for decades. We have totally destroyed hundreds of thousands of human beings and laid waste to their infrastructure. We have built a monstrous embassy on Iraqi hallowed ground that they may not even enter without the permission of their invaders. I’d be mad too, Betsy, I’d be real mad. When they attempt to answer our aggression we say SEE they are so violent! I for one don’t want to met the America your children will create when they are shielded from the truths of their own behavior.

Thanks for writing Carol. I will only answer a couple of your points. (By the way, would love to hear more about these violent Christians around the world trying to free themselves from a secular world. What??) I agree with you that America was not founded as a theocracy. Christian or otherwise. But, its founding was very much informed by protestant Christan principles, and few historians disagree with that. See Ben’s Hart’s “Faith and Freedom” for much more on this. I.e., the separatists coming over on the Mayflower developed the Mayflower Compact, which in turn provided much of the basis for our own Constitution. One of the things that made those Christians so unique in their outlook on government was that they believed in a God which valued the individual, not just the community/state. This notion was radical, and both predated and later informed the enlightenment.

Anyway, it was the earliest Christians who demanded – again, in a radical way – the separation of church and state. Not because they believed that the church shouldn’t influence the government, but because they believed the government shouldn’t influence the church. It is separatist Christians who developed this utterly radical idea – previously, it was virtually unknown for a government to be separate from a religious identity, whether the pagans in Rome or the Roman Catholics and the Byzantine empire. My point it, it is puritan Christians whom you and I have to thank for the notion of the separation of church and state which is in fact one of the reasons America is so, well, exceptional.

Have we done awful things in this country? You bet. We could go over a list. But many, like slavery, was a wickedness the world was used to. Every nation did it at one time, some still do today. What is extraordinary is that America in particular, moreso even than Britain, not only abolished slavery but worked and works now to overcome its evil legacy of racism.

You point to how we have conducted ourselves in the world. But do you really believe the world would be better off without us? If so, is your German? Or, your Russian? Do you believe that had Stalin gotten the bomb first instead of us you’d be speaking anything but the latter?

Yes, with all our flaws – and there are many – America is exceptional, and exceptionally tolerant. And I stand by the fact that that is the America I want my children to know and cherish. Betsy

I found it slightly humorous that you would be aghast that there might be elements of Christianity that are radical and might want to overthrow the modern, moderate world. I think that is exactly what poor moderate Muslims feel when their entire religion is characterized as radical. Anyhow, open your eyes (cast out your own beam as it were). Research Christian Reconstructionism which seeks to replace democracies around the world with Theocratic Dominionism which would rule with a Christian Elite that would govern using biblical law. Their beliefs include using capital punishment for such things as homosexuality, blasphemy,heresy, adultery or just plain being a non believer. If that isn’t radical and way, way, way beyond the constraints of modern civil law then I don’t know what is. Then of course you have the great idol of Mr. Beck, W. Cleon Skousen whose books are required reading by Mr. Beck as he leads us back to God. This guy and his followers caused immense panic in 1965 telling fellow Mormons that 2000 black Muslims were on their way to burn one of their tabernacles. They called blacks “savages” and civil rights leaders “animals”. So much for race relations! Yes, Betsy, there is a radical element to Christianity. So called Christian European countries have caused alarm in human rights groups for their rising intolerance to Muslims. Some noted abuses included murder and police brutality.
As for our country being founded by devout Christians, that is a subject of some debate. And whether the 1st amendment was written for religious freedom or from religious subjugation, it, in fact, provides both which makes it one of the most important rights we have. Hope your Christian brethren don’t mess that up for us by denying Muslims their 1st amendment rights, because that is exactly what it will do. I am eternally grateful for my right to ignore the laws of Glenn Beck’s God, the Reconstructionist’s God or the Muslim God.
You can also claim until the cows come home that the most violent nation on earth is the best there is. I will claim otherwise until the same cows come home. Some countries that rank above us in the best place to live in this world are Canada, Sweden, Norway and Australia to name a few. Their people are said to be happier and healthier than we are. Now I am sure you will pull out that old right-wing chestnut and tell me to go live in one of them if I don’t like it here. I’m pretty sick of that rant too. I’m an American. I will fight to make my homeland a place where people are as happy and healthy as anywhere else.

Carol, when the Christians you refer to start deliberately targeting non-combatants and blowing up planes, buildings, restaurants etc., then I think you can make the case for moral equivalancy. In the meantime I would like to have a vibrant debate about Islam, its treatment of women, freedom, moderate Islam and what that means – are muslim moderates numerous but fearful, as a muslim friend of mine explained, and if so why? – and so much more. But I think that conversation is unfortunately difficult in our politically correct culture. Thanks for writing – Betsy

So we have to wait for radical Christians to make a move to destroy something or someone before we can point to it as dangerous. I guess the incidents of murder, attempted murder, and police brutality don’t reach your threshold yet. Pity. And when the day comes that they do get bold enough for actions that reach your threshold will we all wonder why we didn’t pay attention earlier?
You just keep talking like Christians have a superior hold on morality, Betsy, while some of them seek to undermine my country and security. You keep the focus on something or someone else if you want. That is a good tactic to use as cover I suppose.
I think it is possible to have a healthy debate about ALL religions and their desire to subjugate those who do not think as they do. You just keep pointing to one only because you are not willing to take the harder look at the nature of organized religion in general. Whatever, Betsy.

Carol; bravo!! You are very eloquent (as are you Betsy) in your response though maybe a bit too angry. As you well know, I feel to speak rationally about something, we need to at least somewhat converge on the meaning of words. I agree with you that religions, especially at the extreme, are trying to take over countries and convert democracies or whatever other form of government to theocracies. This applies to Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus. When someone believes they are the keeper of the absolute truth, be it religious, political or anything else, they are dangerous because in their minds, knowing the infinite, the ends justify the means.
Betsy, you mix up culture, politics and religion making it difficult to be coherent. For example Egypt is a secular country whose population is predominantly Muslim as is Syria. Saudi Arabia and Iran are Muslim Theocracies, one a Sunni the other a Shiite. Turkey is a democracy, Jordan a Monarchy and Libya a Dictatorship. Iraq under Saddam was a secular dictatorship. Al Qaida, being an Islamist fundamentalist group was a great threat to Saddam. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) is a secular organization. I believe about 10% of the Palestinian population is Christian. Yasser Arafat’s wife was Christian. As the Christian Right is trying to take over our country, so are Islamic fundamentalist groups like the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. Egypt, a dictatorship supported by us, has been very oppressive to the Brotherhood even when they attempt to use democratic means to advance their agenda. (Support of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are examples extremists use to demonstrate our oppression of Islam.)
Israel is a bit more difficult to parse since there are two parts to being Jewish. There is the Jewish ethnicity and the religion which people tend to lump together. There are ethnic Jews who are Atheists and a very small number of non-ethnic Jews who have converted to Judaism. Israel is a secular, ethnic Jewish State. The Jewish Fundamentalist Right as fundamentalist rights in all countries including ours, want to convert it to a theocracy. We automatically equate a criticism of the Jewish state with a criticism of the Jewish faith. Despite what the extreme rights say, Palestine, a people most of whom happen to be Muslim, is occupied by a state, Israel, most of whose people happen to be Jewish. (There is more criticize of the occupation in Israel than at home.) It is not a war between Islam and Judaism. This is not a battle of religions but a political struggle. Those who want to foment the “War of Civilizations” for a variety of reasons, want to make everything a religious battle. I have heard interviews of the President of Iran where he was quoted as wanting to kill Jews when in the actual interview he reiterated that he looks for the elimination of what he sees as an oppressive, apartheit regime of Israel and accepts the coexistence with people of the Jewish faith. (There actually is a Jewish member of parliament in Iran.) The issues we and the world has with Iran is not related to religion but is purely political.
The War of Civilizations is grossly overstated. Good politics but very costly in lives and money.

The one observation missing from this debate is why now this anti-Muslim fervor? Building the Islamic Community center 2 blocks away from ground zero was known quite some time ago and even received support from many who now condemn it. The reason we’re seeing this hype is because we have a person of color as president and coming up on mid-term elections. Those on the radical right know how to effectively create wedge issues that can rally the base and fan the flames of hatred and divisiveness among the voters. The far right knows it can depend on its subservient media culture types like Ms. Hart to pick up on these divisive themes and cues and do their duty to spread the fear and superficial analysis around this issue. Ms. Hart and many others in the far right media culture simply oblige. I mean, after the 9/11 attacks, there was little anti-Muslim sentiment or incidents. President Bush, to his credit, preached how Islam is a religion of peace. Most people distinguished radical Islam as practiced by Al Qaeda as being different than how Islam is normally practiced. Who on the right, for example, pointed out that over 25 Muslims died in those towers on 9/11, or that there were Mosques or Muslim prayer rooms in both the Pentagon and inside the World Trade Centers prior to the attacks? It took these political movements with Obama coming into office and Democrats taking power for the far right culture to pull out the fear playbook. Of course, this is not only cynical and insulting to our political discourse, but it’s dangerous as well. And shame on those who don’t scrutinize and challenge these tactics.

Betsy, following is a response to your first response to our comments. A bit late but I hope the “case has not been completely closed. I am assuming the part about people wanting to be “praised for doing the right thing” refers to my response. If so, you missed the point. I think all humans have a need for praise and we should praise everyone as often as we can. I was trying to say that praising someone for not condemning one who is innocent of any wrongdoing is not magnanimous. Suggesting that the act was magnanimous implies guilt where in fact there was none. Continuing with your first point; in my experience (I am almost 70 years old, have spent 7 years as a refugee in Germany toward the end and after the Second world War, experienced a bit of bigotry against new immigrants, referred to as DPs (displaced persons), got a second opportunity to experience war as a soldier in Vietnam, worked in production and spent the last 35 years as a CEO of a manufacturing company) the greatest part of people do the “right” thing, occasionally to the point of nobility. The problem arises when we are misinformed, stirred up and manipulated by politicians and others in positions of power and influence to further their own agendas. Though I have seen carnage, I don’t attribute it to the “human condition”.
I read a book a few years ago, “The Left Hand of God” written by Michael Learner, a Rabbi of a progressive San Francisco Synagogue. His theorizes that there are two diametrically opposed points of view which inform our politics, religion, militarism and general opinion of our fellow man. One view is that the world is a dangerous place where everyone is struggling to gain advantage over everyone else. People who perceive this world tend religiously to be fundamentalists, following the thunderbolt toting god threatening to smite the sinners (Right Hand of God). In the case of Christians and Jews, the Old Testament God. They also tend to be more materialistic, less compassionate, competitive and militaristic. The other view is that the world is a gentle, comforting, a mothering kind of a place. People who see this world tend to lean toward the teachings of the Jesus of the New Testament, the gentle, love thy neighbor, the Sermon on the Mound Jesus. (Michael Lerner did not throw Muslims into the discussion). These people also tend to be politically progressive, less materialistic, lean toward pacifism and welfare for the needy. Based on your comments I expect you see the world as in the first case. There was an article within the last year in the Economist, a conservative British weekly, (Sarah Palin after the Katy interview, when naming publications she reads, included the Economist). It said that there is scientific evidence of a biological reason for the “glass half empty” (Right Hand) vs. the “glass half full” (Left Hand) views. They ended with tongue in cheek saying that the good news is, we now know why someone leans to the right or left. The bad news is that we probably cannot do anything about it.
What about the accommodations for Christians, Sundays off from school not to mention Christmas and Easter? Oh, that’s different because in your eyes we live in a Christian country after all. You and Newt seem to be having difficulty understanding the difference between a country and a religion. Saudi Arabia is a political entity, not Islam, as Italy is a political entity and not Christianity, though many Evangelicals do not recognize Catholicism as Christianity anyway. (I am being dragged into a rat-hole. I am trying to defuse the “war of civilizations” and here I am maybe fanning the flames.) Though Muslim, our kids grew up with Christmas trees in our house and we still exchange Christmas gifts. By the way Jesus (Isa in Arabic), is highly regarded in Islam as one of the Prophets along with Abraham, Moses and others of the Old Testament. Mohamed is claimed to be the last of them. I was watching a part of the Values Convention last week and a speaker, whoes name I don’t recall (very short and very angry) referred to our constitution citing “we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator” he followed up with and they (our founding fathers) didn’t mean Allah as though Allah is some different God. The thing that really bugs me is that people like he and Newt really know better. They know that Allah is an Arabic word for god just like Diu is the French word for God. It is not one God or another. It is God. If you got really picky and asked about the Hindu God or the God of the Aztecs, I would point out that the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all look to the God of Abraham. While on the subject, Islam probably holds the Virgin Mary in higher esteem than any of the very many Protestant denominations. I am getting onto thin ice, not really being anywhere nearly familiar enough to offer explanations of Islam.
I find it interesting how quickly the Right Wing “talking points” are picked up and spread. The comparison of the burning of a holy book, offensive to a billion people in the world to the building of a recreation center including a prayer room, offensive to a segment (not all by any stretch) of the relatives of those lost in the 9/11 bombing, many of whom I suspect hold Islam responsible, has been a slogan pronounced by many including Sarah Palin.
One of the elements people fail to consider in contrasting Islam with Christianity is that of time. Too often we mix customs and politics with religion. These systems evolve over millennia and we compare systems at very different states of evolution as if they were all the same. It is like comparing an infant to a mature adult. The true comparison, when contrasting Islam in third world countries like Afghanistan, is to compare it to Christianity during the dark ages. In that era, Jews were persecuted and killed in much of the Christian world. In fact the Netherlands became a commercial center and the strongest economy in the world in part because Spain expelled Jews who eventually fled to Amsterdam. When the Crusaders (I can’t believe I am bringing up the crusades) re-took Jerusalem, they killed every man woman and child. When Saladin reclaimed Jerusalem, he allowed those who wanted to, including the Crusaders, to leave and those of any other faith, Jews and Christians to stay if they so choose. (Carol, I need your help on this next one, you seem to have access to facts). I think If you compared the number of lives lost in the name of Christianity to those lost in the name of Islam, there would be no comparison, not to mention Christian or atheists burned at the stake during the inquisitions in Spain and the witch hunts in Europe and Massachusetts. So a proper comparison of the stoning of a poor, misguided woman in Afghanistan, is to the burning of heretics at the stake and the drowning of women in Salem.
The position of women in Islam in many cases is less than stellar. Again, one needs to compare countries at comparable levels of development. I believe that predominantly agrarian societies are patriarchal putting women into subservient roles. And many if not all Muslim countries have yet to pass into the industrial stage where the role of the male as leader in the family becomes practically irrelevant. Our women didn’t get the right to vote until about on hundred years ago, well after we became an industrialized nation. We have yet to elect a woman president. On the other hand, there have been women leading countries with predominantly Muslim populations, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia (I know there were three, I could have Indonesia wrong). The Economist reported on a Pew poll conducted to determine if there was any correlation between happiness of a population and the economic condition of a country and they found that indeed there was. A byproduct of the survey and a total surprise, came when they compared the difference between the happiness of women and men within a country. They found the country where women’s happiness was the best compared to men’s was Afghanistan. However unhappy men were, the happiness of women in burkas is closer to the men than in the industrialized west. In fact the top ten countries in the world where there was the smallest difference between women’s and man’s happiness were all Muslim countries. I know! I know! They were afraid to say otherwise. They didn’t know any better. Etc. etc. Maybe.
Our great Nation is great because it has been able to change with time. What is the country the conservatives want to return to. The country of Native American tribes before Europeans came over? The country before the French Canadians from Acadia moved to Louisiana? The country before the Swedes moved into the Mid West? The country before the Irish and Italian Catholics emigrated here? The country before the Jews arrived. If you want to teach your children about our true exceptionalism, tell them about our ultimate strength, our diversity and our ability to integrate peoples from many cultures, ethnicities and religions into our society. (We didn’t do so great integrating our former slaves. I think it is a result of the tremendous propaganda campaign launched by the plantation owners to dehumanize Africans when people of conscience started questioning the justice of such treatment of other human beings. The idea that they were less than human was sold and consciences soothed. Unfortunately that notion still has traction in parts of this country). This diversity is at the heart of our innovation, which in the long run, is expected to allow us to compete against China in the future. Tell them about the brilliance of our founding fathers in setting up a system that does not allow a religion to take over our nation. (By the way, many of the founding fathers were not Christian, they were Deists believing in a God but not one described by any religion. Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible, eliminating any reference to the divinity of Christ. Certainly that would disqualify him as a Christian). Tell them about the character George Washington, the only commander of a revolutionary force, who after the revolution did not become himself a tyrant but retired to his plantation. But don’t tell them about the greatness in treating innocent people as if they were not guilty.
Here I go again, back to fanning the fires, talking about them and us, but I have sold myself on the idea that it is only to better inform. Beside the fact that the people who may burn Bibles are primitive (though I guess the Book burners of Florida may be also), there is a difference in how the Books are perceived by different religions. Muslims believe that the “Book” is the literal word of God as spoken to Mohamed and told by him to scribes (he could not write). Christians believe that the Bible is a compilation of stories remembered by human beings and told and retold over centuries. Because of these views the Word and the Books have different weights.
There is an increasing feeling among informed people (elites in conservative jargon) that the struggle today is not between Islam and the West but between fundamentalist extremists on both side of every religious and political ideology and moderates of all stripes. Al Qaida and the Taliban raise havoc on moderate Muslims. The recent bombing of a Mosque in Pakistan that killed about 50 was a Taliban attack on Sufis. (By the way the Imam of the Mosque controversy is a Sufi) As to the Muslim community not speaking up, recently there was convened at the request of King Abdullah of Jordan, a meeting of about 350 most senior clerics of all Muslim denominations. They pronounced the Al Qaida’s interpretation of Islam heresy. Though it demonstrates a case of “speaking up against terrorism”, to me heresy seems so medieval and its pronouncement an infringement on the freedom of speech.