xiphias | By the way, I DO divide the world into "good guys" and "bad guys".

By the way, I DO divide the world into "good guys" and "bad guys".

Just so you know: if you're against the building of an Islamic community center in Downtown Manhattan, you're one of the bad guys.

If you are saying, "well, sure, they have the LEGAL right to do it, but by putting it there, they're just being provocative," then you may not be particularly evil yourself, but you're intimidated by the evil people into being one of their henchmen. People doing completely normal things like building community centers aren't being provocative. The people who you are afraid they will provoke? Those are the bad guys. And if you are saying that they should modify their behaviors to do what the bad guys want, then you are saying that you support the bad guys.

And that means that you're one of the bad guys.

And THAT means that I find you a danger to me, personally. I'm Jewish. Right now, Jews are mostly considered more or less white. But that could change. And the second it does, people will start saying things like, "Well, sure, they COULD build a synagogue there, but wouldn't that just be asking for trouble?"

Everything that people are saying about the downtown Manhattan community center, I just automatically hear people saying that about something that I might want to do someday. If you're against them, then you're against me, and you're also against justice, freedom, and every ideal that this country stands for.

Just so we're clear on that.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I was thinking about this recently, and I followed some of the same steps you did, but reached a different (though not, I think, contradictory) tentative conclusion.

I absolutely agree that they have the legal right to build an Islamic community center there (assuming things like legally obtaining property rights and zoning and all the stuff you need to have the legal right to build anything in downtown Manhattan, which I've heard nothing about but stipulate to be so).

I also think that doing so is going to be provocative. It's going to lead some people to bad feelings, and some small fraction of those people may act on those feelings with violence. That is unquestionably bad - but it is probably also true. If it were me, that would lead me to decide to build my community center a little further away, because I think I would want to have a safe community center more than I would want to demonstrate my fearlessness or share my culture with others or whatever else they may be trying to do.

But I'm not them, and I don't know what is important to them, so I don't presume to make that decision or even advise them. All I say is, if they build a community center there, it's probably going to provoke some attempted violence, and they ought to be prepared for that. But if they understand this, and choose to accept that risk and go ahead and build there anyway? Sure. The NYPD should protect that center just as they would protect any other institution that might be threatened with violence, and if it happens the perpetrators should be arrested and punished just as any other violent protestors would be. And I would hope that enough good things come from that decision to outweigh any bad things that also happen.

Like I said, that's my tentative conclusion. I could be persuaded in another direction, if you feel I've gotten something wrong.

For a great many people in today's America, ANY Islamic center anywhere on the North American continent is too close to Ground Zero and will lead to bad feelings.

If you follow that sort of logic, you don't end up getting to build your center anywhere.

How far away is far enough? There are actually currently two mosques that are closer to Ground Zero than this one.

As a Jew and the daughter of a Shoah survivor, I am well aware that my mere existence offends certain people. I refuse to hide as a result and I refuse to force anybody else to hide.

I didn't know that, actually -- can you tell us more about those other two mosques

Actually, I was misinterpreting the news story I read, but there are two definitely within the neighborhood:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion/14mosque.html

Both are overflowing and it was clear that there is a need amongst the Islamic communities for a mosque in that neighborhood.

There are also Islamic services every Friday in the Pentagon chapel. And, in fact, the chapel is in the part of the Pentagon that was hit - less than 100 feet away.

I feel some bozo's going to lay violence on it, honestly. There's just too much drama about it all.

And therefore... what? All Muslims should flee the US before the analogue of the Holocaust?

Or maybe, instead... It should have decent security and regular police attention as a possible target.

If I was walking to a picnic table and suddenly, someone jumped onto it before I could, started screaming at me that I was the devil and get away from there before I put some evil eye on them, I would have a choice.

First, scream and yell right back at them. What does this accomplish? A lot of screaming and yelling, possibly physical altercations, and my day's ruined.

Call a cop. This will likely mean more escalation, more screaming, more yelling, possibly physical altercations, and my day's ruined.

Find another table. I find a table, loonie's got a table, we're all happy.

No, I didn't stand up for my rights. Why?

Pick your battles. Pick the battles that mean something. Pick the battles that are not likely to have a body count.

Call me a coward, but in my mind, the lives of the people are worth a lot more than any principal.

Because I've seen decent security and regular police attention. No security is perfect.

In this case, I'd say there's too much freaking drama. Oh hey, there's a good spot over there away from the psychos. This isn't a good battle. It's a stupid one. No one wins. Walk away and avoid the body count.

You don't "lose" because you walked away. You don't lose for turning the other cheek. You just chose your battle.

This notamosque IS a battle that means something, because it's not an isolated picnic table, it's a symbol (and it it wasn't before the controversy it is now) of the right to freedom to assemble and freedom of religious expression, at the very least.

And soon it will also be a symbol that the rule of law, not mob baying, prevails in the USA. That would be nice.

(no subject)

vvalkyri.livejournal.com - 2010-08-20 20:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dichroic.livejournal.com - 2010-08-20 09:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

holzman.livejournal.com - 2010-08-20 10:38 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

xiphias.livejournal.com - 2010-08-20 10:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

403.livejournal.com - 2010-08-20 18:32 (UTC) - Expand

Interesting about the two mosques; I didn't know that. (I have in fact not really followed the news about this at all; my "facts" basically come from LJ. So I might be thinking about a hypothetical that isn't actually what's happening. Since I don't plan to take any action based on it, I'm okay with that.)

"How far away is far enough?" I don't know. How much risk are they willing to tolerate? Where does the risk peter off?

I'm not proposing anyone should force anyone else to hide; indeed, I actively believe we shouldn't. But at the same time, it is foolish to expose oneself to danger while pretending one is perfectly safe. If there is danger - and there is - then one can choose to prepare for it and face it, or one can choose to avoid it. Pretending it doesn't exist because you believe it shouldn't exist is not a rational option.

You choose to face the danger you perceive, and I respect you for that. But I also respect the rights of others to choose not to face dangers.

There are other mosques nearby. This is not a mosque, it is a community center, that contains a mosque. And here's the key, they are not adding a mosque, they are replacing an existing facility. There is already a facility there that functions as a mosque. They are not adding a mosque, they are adding a swimming pool.

Why is there fear and risk? Because certain public figures turned this into an issue. It's a non-issue, but politicaly minded people turned it into one. Go to ground zero, and walk to the location of this project. You will see more halal food carts that you will know what to do with. Islam is strongly represented there, like so many other cultures. It's new york. Will they back down? They are New Yorkers, ok, they are muslim new yorkers but they are new yorkers. Back down because they are afraid of offending someone?

If you move a community center out of the community, can you still call it a community center?

If you put a Later Day Saints Temple into a community center, is it still a community center? ;) (if you're not aware, you must be a baptized LDS member to enter one of the Temples).

Depends on the effect that the LDS temple has on the community center surrounding it. Yes, I am aware of their policies. Their huge temple here in DC was built with the promise that it would be open to the public, and it was. For a day. Then they closed it, and tore out all the carpets. They have a visitor center that unbelievers can go into.

In the case at hand, neither the community center nor the mosque requires that you be a muslim to enter. If they pull a switcheroo and change that policy, I will happily say "you told me so" to the people who object, and agree with them, but until then...

It doesn't matter WHERE they build a Muslim community center. The terrorist thugs who are willing to attack Muslims will attack them no matter what. Build it on the Moon, it will STILL be a target for violence.

It's the same risk. It doesn't matter. Putting it somewhere else won't make it safer. People who equate all Muslims with terrorists aren't going to care WHERE the Muslims are.

If I were the Muslim community, I'd build my community center where there was room, and that was convenient for my community to get to.

Which is what they're doing, as far as I can tell. It's not like there are a whole lot of buildable locations in downtown Manhattan.

Yeah, that's what I don't get. Folks saying, Well, they should built it further away....but when you ask them where they think that is, it's always weirdly untenable distances. My Mormon/right-wing-inclined family has said stuff like, well, not in New York proper, or maybe a few miles away would be better...and I want to head-desk and say, "You're asking people who live in a particular community to build their community center OUTSIDE the community? AWAY from the community?" They don't seem to get that they're making pronouncements about an existing community wanting to erect a space they can easily access.

Well, sure if she wants to go out dressed like that, and have a drink...

EXACTLY! Exactly. I realized this last night. It's a blame-the-victim argument.

And more disturbing, it's a way of thinking that victims of abuse and violence sometimes adopt in an effort to protect themselves: "If I just do X, I'll be safe. I'll do everything right so they don't hurt me. And if they hurt me, I must have done it wrong. I just have to try harder next time."

Which means some of the people who are saying Park 51 is inviting trouble are speaking from their own experience of abuse. Eeep...

This is why I'm so angry over at Elizabeth Moon's journal. I grew up being told to assimilate as hard as I could. *Even while* the counter example of the Japanese internment was available.

Any Arabs or Muslims who are saying that Park 51 is inviting trouble are likely to be speaking from prior experience with anti-Islamic bigotry. When they're upheld as positive examples, I am physically nauseated.

There is no *enough* for a bigot. Just as there is no real *enough* for a rapist, or an abuser. *Enough* is an illusion that blames the victim instead of the perpetrator.

I wasn't thinking exclusively of Muslims who say the location is inviting trouble...

I know. I just wanted to underline that fact.

Very wise. There's so much damage underlying the whole fight. It makes me ache for all of us.

It appears mostly to be provoking the fringe of American xenophobes who would be quite happy if their hatefulness leads to some Fine Upstanding Citizen chucking a bomb into the place. You know, the sort of criminals who nobody will actually call "terrorists" because they're white.

An interesting twist is that the site was chosen because of it being so close to WTC, and having been a building into which the wreckage fell:

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

“We want to push back against the extremists,” added Imam Feisal, 61

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html

I found that quote by accident; the blogger pointing to it was displeased in that the NYTimes article originally included another line, "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic", and now does not.

The problem here is that 1, these bigots are choosing to be "provoked" by the community center, and 2, the bigots are actually just attacking the center as a politically correct proxy for their attacks on the community that is being served by the center itself.

If it wasn't the community center it'd be something else, because the existence of the community, not the center, is what is "provoking them" in the sense of "provoke" that the klan or transphobes or rapists use to justify their criminal acts.

So why not build a center that will fulfill the needs of the community if anything they do will piss off these idiots? Remember that the people complaining about the center believe that calling Obama a muslims is an insult because it portrays him as an evil terrorist who wants to destroy america.

In their minds.

The only way to pander to those being "provoked" is to kick all the muslims out of america.

Which isn't acceptable.

So fuck them.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only