Who Looks Muslim?: a response to Sam Harris’s defense of profiling

Sam Harris posted a blog entry titled In Defense of Profiling, in which he argues in favor of profiling “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim”.[1] Harris previously briefly mentioned his support of profiling in the article Bombing Our Illusions from 2005.[2] I’ve disagreed with Harris in the past, because even though he does a good job of pointing out some of the problems with religion,[3] he focuses on Islam to the point of changing the topic to Islam even when a non-Muslim commits an act of terrorism.[4] This recent article is another example of Harris’s horrible suggestions when it comes to addressing Islamic terrorism.

I disagree with Harris on this for several reasons, the primary one being that we can’t determine a person’s beliefs or plans to commit a crime based upon their appearance or the country they’re from. There are people from all different countries and of all different appearances who commit crimes and a suggestion that we should base our profiling on people’s appearance is unfounded. Skin color and race don’t cause people to commit crimes. There are those who will respond at this point, “Islam is not a race!” True, it’s not a race, but the suggestion that we can determine who is more likely to commit a crime based on appearance (based on how people “look”) immediately calls to mind the fact that there are discriminatory stereotypes about who is likely to commit a crime, sometimes based on skin color or country of origin, and these are discriminatory. If we can’t determine a person’s beliefs and plans to commit a crime based on appearance, then allowing profiling based on appearance allows those in charge of security to make decisions based on factors like race, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Even if Harris says he would base his profiling on religion, instead of race, the idea that we can determine who “looks Muslim” is odd, because there are Muslims from many different places, with very different appearances. Even a person’s name isn’t a reliable indicator, as many Muslim parents (with different ways of following Islam) name their children Mohammad, just as many Christian parents name their children after characters in the Bible (e.g. Matthew, Mark), and this doesn’t indicate a person’s beliefs, let alone whether or not they are an extremist. Additionally, if we believe (as I think Harris does) that it’s possible to convince people to change their religious beliefs, then it’s even more ridiculous to suggest we should profile against people who “look Muslim”. The very fact that there have been so many religions in human history (something which atheists usually use as an argument for why it’s unlikely any of them are true) should suggest we can’t predict what someone’s religious beliefs are based on their appearance, or the country their family is from, or their name.

The premise of profiling based on religion, even if we could find a way to accurately predict what religion a person is a member of, is discriminatory. Religious affiliation isn’t a reliable indicator, even if one believes that the attackers are motivated at least partially by their religious faith, because such a small percentage of the people in the religion are actually carrying out the attacks. So, even though there are some visual clues in some circumstances that indicate a person is probably a Muslim (e.g. they are carrying a copy of the Qur’an with them in their luggage, they are wearing some jewelry with a pendant that reads “Allah” in Arabic) that doesn’t warrant an assumption that the person is a terrorist, or is even likely to be a terrorist.

There are, it must be pointed out, terrorists of different religious beliefs and no religious belief. Many people react differently to terrorism that is committed by members of a minority religious group compared to terrorism that is committed by a member of the majority religious groups. When there are attacks committed by Christian terrorists our politicians and commentators don’t suggest that we should profile in order to prevent future attacks. We don’t suggest that security personnel in hospitals or clinics should profile people who “look Christian” (whatever that means) after there are attacks on abortion providers. When there are attacks by Islamic terrorists, however, then some people are quick to suggest profiling. It seems that people are advocating actions against others that they would consider unjust if done to themselves, members of their own faith or skin color.

One of the questions I always want to ask people who advocate profiling is the following: Would you advocate profiling if it was against a group that you’re a part of? It may seem that Harris has preemptively responded to this question, because he suggests that he would expect to get attention if there was a person who looked like Ben Stiller who was wanted for crimes against humanity. Harris also suggests that he himself should not be outside the group that would be targeted for profiling. I don’t think this is a good argument. First, because in his Ben Stiller scenario, the security officials would be looking for one particular criminal, with some idea of what that person looks like, whereas his suggestion of profiling Muslims treats a whole group of people as suspect, assuming that the person who would commit a particular crime would look like that group of people. Second, because (let’s be honest) the likelihood of this happening to him is remote. It’s easy to suggest profiling when you live in a society where the odds of it happening to you are remote. (I have this same reaction when politicians suggest profiling; they know it would be unlikely to happen to them, as they’re well-known figures.) While Harris may say that he’s part of the group that’s included, he knows that if we profile those who “look Muslim”, most people would not think that he fits the stereotypical description. Harris all but admits this when he writes, “Granted, I haven’t had to endure the experience of being continually profiled. No doubt it would be frustrating.” No doubt, Mr. Harris, no doubt. That he writes this makes me think that he hasn’t properly considered what it would actually feel like to be targeted for profiling. Harris demonstrates his ignorance of what it feels like to be singled out in this way when he suggests (in the 2005 article and this recent one) that Muslims should actually be in favor of profiling against themselves. Oddly, he seems understanding of complaints regarding long lines in the airport, but dismisses the concerns about the discriminatory nature of profiling. Perhaps it is possible to find those who may agree with Harris, who may agree that profiling against themselves is okay, but the fact that a few people would volunteer is not a reason to profile, or proof that such profiling would be effective; people agreeing to be discriminated against isn’t an argument in favor of discrimination.

If someone is behaving suspiciously, then of course, that should raise concerns, but that’s behavior, not appearance or religious affiliation. After all, it is an action that we are trying to prevent and which we are against. People making suggestions for profiling based on appearance claim that it will increase the efficiency and effectiveness in our security, while they are just advocating discrimination. They want security officials to unjustly assume that certain other people are more likely to be criminals. Additionally, there are those who complain about the infringement on our rights from certain aspects of the security checks, so how does it become okay if we “only” did this to people who “look Muslim”? We should not see security as a way to separate our society into those who should be suspected and those who are obviously innocent based on appearance. Our aim should be to protect and also preserve the rights of all, not just those who don’t “look Muslim”.

This is the latest example of Sam Harris’s questionable suggestions about Islam. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt when I read The End of Faith (in which he does make some good arguments on the topic of why religion is incorrect) as some of his suggestions were written in a way that one could say they were a thought experiment, rather than a full endorsement. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt when I read that article from 2005, as the part about profiling was a sentence with no elaboration on it. I can’t give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue anymore. He is, plainly, advocating that discriminatory actions are justified in dealing with the problems in Islam, and that is something I must condemn.

#

Note/Recommended Reading

The above is an edited and expanded version of a comment I wrote in response to Hemant Mehta’s blog entry Sam Harris: We Should Profile Muslims at the Airport, in which Mehta points out some of the problems with Harris’s suggestion.[5]

Professor PZ Myers has a good post about this titled NO RACIAL PROFILING, PLEASE. Here’s quote in which I think he makes an excellent point:

Shall we single out people who look like them [Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph] for special scrutiny? Of course not, that would be so many people, you might say, and most light-skinned European-Americans are not terrorists, so it would be an incredibly inefficient screening protocol. So why should we focus on people with dark complexions and Semitic features? There are many of them, too, and the overwhelming majority are most definitely not terrorists, and it would similarly be terribly inefficient. We would be harrassing mostly innocent people…but of course, these are innocent minorities, so their rights be damned to give the majority a little more privilege.[6]

Greg Laden has written Sam Harris is Right: Profile away!, in which he makes a good point through satire.[7]

#

Update as of 16 May 2012

Bruce Schneier has written The Trouble with Profiling (8 May 2012) in response to Sam Harris’s defense of profiling. This essay has been posted on Sam Harris’s website, and a future post with Harris and Schneier discussing the issue in greater depth is planned. (URL: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-trouble-with-profiling)

---

References

[1] Harris, Sam. In Defense of Profiling. Posted on 28 April 2012 at SamHarris.org. Retrieved on 30 April 2012 from http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling.

[2] Harris, Sam. Bombing Our Illusions. Posted on 10 October 2005 at The Huffington Post. Retrieved on 30 April 2012 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html.

This article can also be found on Sam Harris’s website at http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/bombing-our-illusions-oct-10-2005.

[3] Sharmin, Ani. Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam [Part 2 of 3]. Posted on 9 September 2010 at The Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on 1 May 2012 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/arithmetic-and-criticism-part-2/.

[4] Sharmin, Ani. Assumptions, Ideologies, and Horrible Actions: Some Thoughts on the Reactions to the Attacks in Norway. Posted on 6 August 2011 at The Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on 1 May 2012 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/assumptions-ideologies-and-horrible-actions/.

[5] Mehta, Hemant. Sam Harris: We Should Profile Muslims at the Airport. Posted on 29 April 2012 at Friendly Atheist. Retrieved on 30 April 2012 from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/29/sam-harris-we-should-profile-muslims-at-the-airport/.

[6] Myers, PZ. NO RACIAL PROFILING, PLEASE. Posted on 30 April 2012 at Pharyngula. Retrieved on 30 April 2012 from http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/30/no-racial-profiling-please/.

[7] Laden, Greg. Sam Harris is Right: Profile away! Posted on 1 May 2012 at The X Blog. Retrieved on 1 May 2012 from http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/05/01/sam-harris-is-right-profile-away/.

Dishonor and the Response: a comment

There was an article in The Guardian by Rachel Williams earlier this month about the rising rate of honor crimes against women in the UK.[1]  I read the article after it was posted at RichardDawkins.net.[2]  The following is a comment I posted there, addressing both the topic of honor crimes as discussed in the article and some of the other people posting comments in the thread, who I thought were responding in the wrong way.  (Text quoted from others is in italics.)

Comment #54 (4 December 2011 at 11:08 am)

It’s so sad. There aren’t insults horrible enough to describe the horrible people who commit such attacks. This whole practice of using religion or culture (or some combination of the two) to excuse such violence is unacceptable. This weird idea of preserving one’s “honor” by killing members of the family who refuse to follow some ancient and horrible tradition is, I think, one of the worst ideas human beings have ever thought of. The idea that certain beliefs cannot be challenged due to the fact that they are “traditional” gets used to excuse the bad consequences, because somehow breaking that tradition would be “dishonorable”, while they don’t notice the absolute dishonor of killing someone who didn’t do anything wrong. I really hope that more people who are being hurt are able to escape from the abuse and receive help if this problem is brought to light and more people become aware of it.

Re: The response to problems like this

Am I the only one who’s annoyed by how articles about a problem in Islam (and/or about a problem in Islam that’s also in other religions) are followed by complaints about immigration, with an assumption that the Muslims in the country are somehow a problem from outside, rather than fellow citizens in the country? After all, many of the victims of the attacks are also Muslim — but rather than showing concern for them, any article like this gets used as a reason to post claims of persecution, about how immigrants are ruining the country, or self-congratulatory comments about how immigrants should assimilate into the culture of the country they’ve moved to (as if any country has only one culture).

How about this: Everyone should be treated equally under the law. A Muslim who commits such a crime should get the same punishment as a non-Muslim who committed the same crime. When it comes to beliefs (rather than violence) we should all try to figure out the best beliefs to have, the best actions to take, etc. based upon the real world. This includes everyone. Rather than saying that immigrants should just assimilate, I think it’s better to say that everyone should seek to have correct beliefs, and we should try to convince others to support equal rights, etc. by explaining why these ideas are better, rather than just treating immigrants like robots who should do/believe whatever someone else is doing/believing. People should be in favor of equal rights and against such honor killings because these views are in line with the real world, considering the consequences that result — not because of the beliefs of most of the people in the country they’re living in. (After all, if you’re an atheist in a country with a Christian majority, you wouldn’t just decide to be Christian, since that’s the majority religion, right?)

@Metamag (#8):

Of course such crimes are rising.. When you have multiculturalism instead of assimilation this is what happens. Same thing in Netherlands and every other European country infested with muslims and multiculturalism.

Did it occur to you that many of the victims of the attacks are also Muslim? They’re not an infestation. They are human beings and they’re just as much a part of the countries they live in as anyone else in that country.

@Osiris (#49):

“Moderate Muslims”….I tend to think of them in the same way as the Yeti, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and Leprechauns….people talk about them but they are never seen or heard.

There’s a difference between supernatural characters that don’t exist and people who do but may be hesitant to speak up due to many factors, including fear of retribution or of alienating their families. I tend to agree that there are not enough Muslims speaking up about the problems within Islam, but that does not mean moderate Muslims are comparable to fantasy beings that don’t exist.[3]

---

References

[1] Williams, Rachel.  ‘Honour’ crimes against women in the UK rising rapidly, figures show.  Posted on 2 December 2011 at The Guardian.  Retrieved on 13 December 2011 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/honour-crimes-uk-rising.

[2] To see the post about Williams’ article at RichardDawkins.net and the resultant comment thread, go to http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644091-honour-crimes-against-women-in-uk-rising-rapidly-figures-show.

[3] Sharmin, Ani.  Comment #54.  Posted at 11:08 am on 4 December 2011.  Retrieved 13 December 2011 from http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644091-honour-crimes-against-women-in-uk-rising-rapidly-figures-show/comments?page=2#comment_895577.

Erasing Women: On Haredi Judaism’s Influence in Israel

If a person needed further evidence that religious discrimination is alive and well, even in religions with many secular members, one need only look at the Haredi community in Israel.  Many of us living here in the United States see how Christianity’s influence on our government and society is causing problems, including violations of the separation of church and state and the promotion of discrimination against various groups.  There is a similar problem occurring in Israel, where Haredi Jews influence the government and promote discrimination.  In an article in The Sydney Morning Herald, Ruth Pollard writes, “Israel’s ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, community may be just a large (and growing) minority, but the impact of its deeply conservative values is being felt strongly in the country.”  She describes various ways in which the Haredi community discriminates, such as gender segregation, opposing and defacing advertisements which show women, and even insulting young girls going to school for being “immodestly dressed”.  There are also problems caused by vandalism of buildings, Haredi influence on the government on the issue of settlements, and the fact that Haredi are exempt from general educational requirements.[1]  There are some other bloggers, a couple of whom are mentioned in the acknowledgements, who have written blog entries about the harm done to women by the Haredi community in response to this article, and I thought I should write about it as well, as it is important.

Treating women as the enemy is feature common to many religions, including the Abrahamic faiths.  It serves to virtually erase women and betrays a belief that women are not equally human — a belief that when making decisions, the effects on women should be disregarded.  The holy books of these religions address men and instruct them concerning the rules they should follow and the rules they should impose on others, including women.  Upon reading these texts, it becomes apparent that females are seen as property, as slaves, as subordinate to males rather than equal members of a society.  There are various ways, some of which are discussed in the article, in which these discriminatory beliefs are put into practice.

These religious beliefs encourage people to obsess over the amount of a female’s skin that is uncovered.  The way a woman is dressed receives lot of attention, and telling her what to wear is considered appropriate.  These clothing requirements are based, not on what she wants to wear or on other reasonable considerations (e.g. comfort, safety, appropriateness for certain tasks), but based on the idea that certain types of dress are a sign of virtue.  Women are taught that they should expect (and deserve) insults and attacks if they don’t follow the religion’s dress code.  Despite the claims made about religion being a source of meaning and morality, the outrageous offense that is taken at the sight of uncovered skin indicates a worldview that is shallow beyond measure.  It actually teaches people to judge a woman’s morality based on what she is wearing and to excuses immoral attacks on women on the basis of clothing.

Gender segregation teaches people to feel uncomfortable interacting with those of a different gender and to automatically be suspicious of “immoral” actions if the rules of segregation are broken.  What others in the community think of a relationship is considered more important than the autonomy of the people in the relationship.  Similar to the rules about clothing, this segregation actually teaches immorality in the guise of morality.  Rather than teaching people to treat others with respect, these ideologies teach that a person’s life and the details of their relationships with others should be based on dictates from a few people who have decided that they know the true word of the Almighty.

The exemption from educational requirements serves to exacerbate the problem, with children receiving religious indoctrination in the place of secular education, in order to propagate the religious beliefs down the generations.  Great attempts are made to preserve old ideas and place barricades around people’s minds, to prevent ideas of secularism and equality from entering and gaining favor.   There is suspicion of the secular, an insistence that secular society is a threat to the religion being defended.  This is doubly ironic:  First, because it is due to secularism that members of various religions, including those who are in the minority, are able to practice their religions without being persecuted.  Second, because in the Hebrew Bible God treats everyone, including his Chosen People, horribly.  It is not secularism that is insulting, but rather the immorality that is recommended by God, and which is carried out by the most fundamentalist members of various faiths.

It isn’t surprising to me that the most ultra-Orthodox group within Judaism treats women badly, because it is in fact a tenant of their religion.  It is difficult to ignore the parts of scripture which mandate discriminatory rules, because they are prevalent throughout the Hebrew Bible.  There are many other people in Israel, of course, who do not agree with the Haredi.  There are Jews who are members of different denominations and those who are secular.  The Haredi, however, have scriptural support for their actions.  Therein lies the problem:  Though there are many religious people who favor equality and secularism, it is difficult to find a way to reconcile these good ideas with the bad ideas in religion.  If someone believes that a certain book should be followed unquestioningly, and that book advocates discrimination, then it’s difficult to convince them to stop discriminating without also convincing them that the book is incorrect on at least some matters.

Is there hope in such a situation?

The problem here is the worldview.  Worldviews based on obedience and fear, rather than equality and rights, lead to horrible discriminatory actions like this.  Worldviews which value tradition over thought, sacred texts over reality, and God over humanity lead to abuses like this — and that is why I cannot believe, not even for a second, that equality and respect are compatible with the most orthodox, fundamentalist readings of scripture.

Still, I tend to be hopeful for humanity.  Although I believe that the contents of scripture are discriminatory, I also believe it is possible to promote equal rights successfully.  Any efforts to promote equal rights for women, though, must address the religious contribution to discrimination.  Though it is not the only factor, it is one of them — and it’s one that is defended and protected from criticism even by those who actually don’t practice most of its teachings.  Those teachings need to be brought to light in order for people to contrast them with reality.  Hopefully, more people will realize that women should be treated as fellow human beings, according to the reality in front of their eyes, rather than obeying ideologies which contradict reality.

#

Related Reading and Acknowledgements

I found Pollard’s article via an entry by Ophelia Benson at Butterflies and Wheels.[2]  Much thanks to her for writing about the way women are treated in religion, a topic which she frequently addresses on her blog.

Adam Lee’s Religion Imprisons Women is worth reading as are his previous blog entries on this topic, some of which he links to in this entry.[3]  He’s written often about the treatment of women in religion an also specifically about the Haredim.

---

References

[1] Pollard, Ruth.  When women and girls are the enemy.  Posted on 21 November 2011 at The Sydney Morning Herald.  Retrieved on 9 December 2011 from http://www.smh.com.au/world/when-women-and-girls-are-the-enemy-20111118-1nn4d.html.

[This article was first published in Saturday’s News Review section of The Sydney Morning Herald.]

[2] Benson, Ophelia.  Deface them.  Posted on 19 November 2011 at Butterflies and Wheels.  Retrieved on 28 November 2011 from http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2011/11/deface-them/.

[3] Lee, Adam.  Religion Imprisons Women.  Posted on 28 November 2011 at Daylight Atheism.  Retrieved on 28 November 2011 from http://bigthink.com/ideas/41278.

Muslims are Part of the Community, Too

Crazy Muslims & Mosques Comments By Herman Cain[1] (TheYoungTurks on YouTube)[2]

I’ve written about my disagreements with Islam and my frustrations with fundamentalist Muslims, but I hope I have also expressed that I very much believe that Muslims should have equal rights.  Soon after reading about gender-segregated Islamic prayers in some Canadian public schools,[3] I watched the above Young Turks video.  There is serious problem of discrimination against Muslims, and the comments by Herman Cain are an example of this problem.  (Over at the blog Atheist Revolution, vjack has declared Cain Idiot of the Week.[4]  Vjack linked to an entry at The Religion Virius in which Craig A. James points out that if Cain wants to ban religious institutions based upon the fact that there are some members of a religion who favor theocracy, he would have to allow communities to ban churches as well.[5])

This is not the first time that Cain has advocated discrimination against Muslims.  Here are some Young Turks videos from earlier this year about other comments he has made indicating that he would discriminate against Muslims if elected.

Anti-Muslim GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain[6] (TheYoungTurks on YouTube)

More Anti-Muslim Comments from Cain on Fox News[7] (TheYoungTurks on Youtube)

The irony of Cain’s comments is that he’s a person who says he cares about the United States Constitution, but is conveniently ignoring the First Amendment.  As is my reaction to most politicians, I can’t be certain if he’s doing this to appeal to a certain base, or because he really doesn’t believe in freedom of religion, or both; my guess is that it’s for both reasons.

It is a simple, yet so often-ignored, fact that Muslims are a part of the community, too.  Muslims living in the United States of America are not visiting someone else’s house; this is their home, too, and they can build a mosque if they want to, even if others in the community disagree with it (and, incidentally, even if it is close to the site where other Muslims committed a horrible crime).[8]  They have every right to speak about their faith and even to try to convince others that their beliefs are correct, as does everyone.  A person should not be suspected, by default, of being a horrible person or of favoring discrimination or violence just because others in their religion favor such things.

In short, it’s time for everyone (including the politicians who pretend to represent “The American People”) to realize that this country does not belong solely to conservative Christians; freedom of religion applies to everyone, and no one should be relegated to second-class status.

#

Acknowledgement

Much thanks to The Young Turks.[9]  They are an online news show (the largest in the world).  They broadcast five days a week, Monday through Friday, and put some of their clips up on YouTube.  They also have several other YouTube channels dedicated to various topics.

---

References

[1] The Young Turks.  Crazy Muslims & Mosques Comments by Herman Cain.  Uploaded on 18 July 2011 on YouTube by The Young Turks.  Retrieved on 23 July 2011 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZBpnCd-q4k.

[2] The Young Turks’ YouTube channel can be found at http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks.

[3] Sharmin, Ani.  On Segregated Prayers in Public Schools.  Posted on 24 July 2011 at The Eternal Bookshelf.  Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/on-segregated-prayers-in-public-schools/.

[4] vjack.  Idiot of the Week: Herman Cain.  Posted on 23 July 2011 at Atheist Revolution.  Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/07/idiot-of-week-herman-cain.html.

[5] James, Craig A.  Candidate Cain:  Constitution Allows Anti-Muslim Discrimination!  Posted on 20 July 2011 at The Religion Virus.  Retrieved on 26 July 2011 from http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2011/07/candidate-cain-constitution-allows-anti.html.

[6] The Young Turks.  Anti-Muslim GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain.  Posted on 23 March 2011 on YouTube.  Retrieved on 26 July 2011 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1AfPgNTVT8.

[7] The Young Turks.  More Anti-Muslim Comments from Cain on Fox News.  Posted on 1 April 2011 on YouTube.  Retrieved on 26 July 2011 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxJa1xL235c.

[8] Sharmin, Ani.  Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism:  Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam.  Posted on 9 September 2010 at The Eternal Bookshelf.  Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/arithmetic-and-criticism-part-1/.

[9] The official website of The Young Turks can be found at http://www.theyoungturks.com/.

On Segregated Prayers in Public Schools

Introduction

I recently read some articles and blog entries about gender-segregated Islamic prayers in some Canadian public schools, specifically in Ontario.  In Charter trumps Education Act over prayers, Terry Davidson and the people he quotes mention two issues (secular education and gender equality) which I think are important to discuss here.[1]

Secular Education

An essential characteristic of public schools is that they should be secular, should be schools that neither endorse a particular view on religion nor discriminate against students with a particular view on religion.  These prayers are being described by some as an example of religious freedom (i.e. students being allowed to practice their religious beliefs), but there are some aspects of the situation which make me question this assessment.

If the students were to start a Muslim Club at the school, I think that would definitely be within their rights.  (My former high school had a Christian Club, and I’ve heard that there is now also a Muslim Club.)  If students said that they wanted to pray and wanted to be able to come late to a certain class on Fridays, I think that would be within their rights as well.  If they wanted to go home early on Fridays to go the mosque, that would be within their rights as well.  (I remember that when I was in elementary school some of my fellow students from Catholic families would leave school early on certain days to go to CCD — Confraternity of Christian Doctrine — classes.)  These last two suggestions, of course, would require the students to make up any work they missed.  There are some people suggesting that the prayers in public schools are justified because leaving school early would mean that students would miss class and/or because some students didn’t return to school when they were allowed to leave school for Friday prayers.  The reason I don’t agree with this argument is because students miss class for all kinds of activities, including competitions, events, extra classes, and so on.  If students can miss class for these reasons and still be expected to make up the work, I don’t see why the same cannot be done for a religious activity.  Students not returning to school should be considered irresponsible and should be expected to make up the work; the school should not give up on secularism but expect responsibility and hard work.  Ultimately, it is not the job of the school to help parents preach religion to their children, but to give them an education in secular subjects.

So, if I would support students’ right to have a Muslim Club, or to leave school to pray, or to obtain permission to come late to class in order to pray, why do I object to this on the grounds of secularism?  The presence of an imam is, for me, what makes this situation cross a line.  This is not just an example of students wanting to pray and asking to be excused from class for a little while to do so.  This can be considered, in my view, religious instruction.  This is an example of giving a religious leader a time and place to preach to students in a public school, during the school day.

A point that is often ignored, but is important to note, is that including religion in school is not just a wrong done against members of other faiths, but also a wrong done against members of the same faith, who find that another person’s denomination or interpretation is being favored over their own.  In Davidson’s article (mentioned above) there are quotes from Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

“The TDSB [Toronto District School Board], by allowing the propagation of religion, is going against the education act,” Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said on Friday. “(The act) says no religion can be propagated in the public school system.”

And the separating of boys and girls during the prayer sessions?

The TDSB has taken one of the more radical and patriarchal forms of Islam, run with it, and hasn’t bothered to question it, Fatah said.

“How did the TDSB pick the worst form of gender separation and say this is Islam?” Fatah asked. “The TDSB is guilty of importing a version of Islam that is from…Islamic fascists.”[2]

By allowing these prayers, the school district is favoring one form of Islam.  It is favoring a form of Islam that makes girls sit in the back during prayer.  It’s taking the views of some Muslims and giving a religious leader official time during the school day to teach that version of Islam to the children of Muslim parents.

It is also important, extremely important, to consider the views of the students.  I’m not one to automatically dismiss the views of a person just because that person is under the age of eighteen; I don’t like it when adults assume that children are ignorant.  So, just because these students are under eighteen does not mean that I think they have no views on religion and it certainly does not mean that their views on religion are irrelevant.  At the same time, it is dishonest to pretend that a person who is still a minor under the legal guardianship of others is not going to be influenced, or even forced, by adults to pretend to believe what the minor does not really believe.  So, while I am willing to concede (and readily so) that there are probably students in the school who really do agree with their parents’ religious faith, there are probably also those who disagree, but do not feel that they can give voice to their objections.  These prayer sessions — again, headed by an imam — are a way for parents to use school time to force their kids to follow a certain religion and a way for a religious leader to have the chance to monitor which of the Muslim students come to the prayer and which ones don’t.  When we talk about religious freedom for students, let us remember that this religious freedom extends not just to students who agree with their parents’ religious views but also to students who disagree with them.

Aside:  It’s Possible for Two People Who Disagree to Both Be Wrong

As a brief preemptive response to likely criticism, I want to add here that I know there are those who suspect ulterior motives on the part of those who oppose the prayers, and there are those who do try to mask their discriminatory views with fake concern for equality.  There is an accusation by Ellie Kirzner against the groups Canadian Hindu Advocacy and Jewish Defense League.  She writes that their opposition to these prayers is motivated by discriminatory views against Muslims.[3]  Based on the quotes in the article, I’m inclined to agree that Ron Banerjee, the person quoted, is advocating bigotry.  However, that does not mean that the prayers are right.  Both the people who want discriminate against Muslims and the particular Muslims who want to discriminate are wrong.

Gender Equality

Gender segregation is a toxic concept that contaminates the ideas of freedom and equality that are essential to building a better world.  The aspect of these prayers that has rightfully gained a lot of attention is the fact that girls have to pray in the back and girls who are menstruating sit separately, not praying.  This is bigotry, and it should not be allowed in public schools.  It is infuriating that religion is considered an acceptable reason to disregard equality; certain religious people have actually convinced others that letting their religion discriminate in a public school is somehow an example of equality.

Heather Mallick wrote an article about how embarrassing it must be for the girls to be singled out when they are menstruating and comments that gender equality would require letting girls pray alongside the boys, not behind them.[4]  She makes a good point, and it bothers me that people who advocate taking the views and feelings of a religious group into consideration don’t stop to consider the views and feelings of girls who are being told that they are second-class, and who feel pressured to follow discriminatory rules that they do not believe in.

One argument that seems to come up whenever there is an issue about unequal treatment of women is the argument that it’s alright for women to be treated unequally, because that unequal treatment protects them.  One insulting argument of this type was made by Steve Smith (in the comments section one of Professor Coyne’s blog posts at Why Evolution is True).  He writes that he retracted his criticism on the gender segregation in Islamic prayer because a Muslim woman told him that a practical reason for women praying behind men is that, otherwise, men would be distracted by the view of women from behind.[5]  This kind of attitude is one that places the responsibilities for men’s actions on women; it suggests that women self-segregating is a way to protect themselves from mistreatment from men, instead of demanding that men should be considered responsible for their own actions and that women shouldn’t be mistreated.  I’ve heard women make this argument about other gender equality issues, and while I understand the desire to take a practical protective step within a discriminatory system, ultimately it is the system itself that is wrong.

Michael Ruse, who is often criticized by fellow atheists for arguing for the compatibility of science and religion, nonetheless does realize that “there is such a dark side to religion”.  He writes, “Let me spell it out.  Girls with their periods are not sinful.  They are not sick.  They are not weak.  That anyone would think otherwise in this day and age boggles the mind.  It boggles the mind even more that respectable members of the Toronto District School Board should think this treatment of females is something that should be tolerated on school grounds, at any time.”  He adds, for good measure, that “decent people, responsible for the welfare of children, don’t allow prejudice against girls with their periods.  They don’t, they really don’t”.[6]  I agree.  They don’t, they really don’t.  Anyone who believes that excluding girls who are menstruating (or segregating girls in general) is a good practice has lost all sense of decency, if they had it in the first place.

Eric MacDonald has written an adamant rant, insisting (in short) that enough is enough already.  In response to Tarek Fatah’s comments (quoted above) he writes, “And this is simply why religion does not belong in public space, because there is no way of establishing what is and what is not an aspect or teaching or practice of any particular religion”.  About gender segregation and discrimination, he writes, “The time is coming when we are going to have to take the bull by the horns and tell religions that they simply must live up to the understanding of equality that is written into the laws of the land”.[7]  His frustration is understandable, given the frequency with which religious freedom is cited to promote bigotry.  Equality matters and gender equality should not be ignored or violated in the name of religion, especially not in public schools.

Fatima Cader writes that the Friday prayers made her a Muslim feminist and were actually a step in the right direction.  Because congregational prayers on Fridays are considered mandatory for boys and optional for girls, the boys would get permission to leave school to go to the prayers, but the girls would not.  Both parents and teachers were not interested in letting girls go to the prayers, but there were girls who wanted to pray and would have to do so secretly in the school.  Then, the school decided to allow students to pray on site during Ramadan, which meant that both boys and girls could participate.

To me, it seems that the school was wrong in the first place by not allowing girls to go to the Friday prayers, and the religion is wrong for having different rules for prayer for boys and girls.  If the religion is wrong for having different rules for boys and girls, the remedy is not to bring the religion and its segregation into the school, but to challenge and change the rules of the religion.  Discriminatory rules in Islam should not cause the school to discriminate accordingly; the school should have made it its policy to allow girls who asked to attend Friday prayers as well.

While the prayers may be considered a step forward in Islam by some, others could point out that it is still far from equal — and compared to the fact that girls are allowed (I presume) to sit in the front row during classes, it’s a step backward for the school.  At the end of her article, Cader makes my point for me.  She writes, “I wonder now how I and the school might have grown had we all along had the chance to share openly in a process, without fear or paranoia, whereby students could decide for themselves how their prayers should be arranged. God knows, teenagers hate being told what to do. Trust that Muslim women hate it no less.”[8]  I’d ask her to consider that while she might think these prayers an improvement, and may want to change the system from within, another female Muslim student might prefer to have permission from the school to pray by herself or with other friends who do not support segregation, so that she doesn’t have to sit in the back.  Having these prayers available as the Islamic prayer option for students, instead of a policy where students can “decide for themselves how their prayers should be arranged” is the problem, and it’s why these prayers are not an example of equality for Muslims or for women.

#

Acknowledgement

I first read about this article in an entry at Ophelia Benson’s Notes and Comments Blog at Butterflies and Wheels.[9]

#

Edits

1. One fantastic article that I inadvertently did not include in the original entry is Robyn Urback’s Girls should not be segregated on public school property.  (URL:  http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/07/11/girls-should-not-be-segregated-on-public-school-property/)

2. There is now a petition asking for the prayers to be desegregated.  (URL:  http://www.change.org/petitions/dont-segregate-menstruating-girls-in-public-schools)  To give credit, I found the petition via Pharyngula.  (URL:  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/we_need_a_petition_to_urge_a_s.php)

3. I originally forgot to include a link to the article mentioned in the short aside.  It has now been added.

---

References

[1] Davidson, Terry.  Charter trumps Education Act over prayers.  Posted on 8 July 2011 in Toronto Sun.  Retrieved on 23 July 2011 from http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/08/charter-trumps-education-act-over-prayers.

[2] Same as #1

[3] Kirzner, Ellie.  Ellie Kirzner on Muslim school prayer.  Posted in the week of 14-21 July 2011 in Vol 30 No 26 of Now Toronto.  Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=181795.

[4] Mallick, Heather.  Time for someone to speak up for shy young girls.  Posted on 10 July 2011 at The Toronto Star.  Retrieved 23 July 2011 from http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1022295–mallick-time-for-someone-to-speak-up-for-shy-young-girls.

[5] Smith, Steve.  Comment #10.  Posted on 16 July 2011 at 7:33 am in the comment section of Jerry Coyne’s Muslim prayer, misogyny, and Ruse’s ambitendencies.  Retrieved on 23 July 2011 from http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/muslim-prayer-and-ruses-ambitendencies/#comment-119485.

[6] Ruse, Michael.  Prayer, Menstruation, and the Toronto District School Board.  Posted on 15 July 2011 at The Brainstorm Blog of The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/menstruating-girls-and-the-toronto-district-school-board/37370.

[7] MacDonald, Eric.  On the Side of the Angels.  Posted on 16 July 2011 at Choice in Dying.  Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://choiceindying.com/2011/07/16/on-the-side-of-the-angels/.

[8] Cader, Fathima.  My school prayer:  How my Friday ritual made me a Muslim feminist.  Posted in the week of 14-21 July 2011 in Vol 30 No 26 of Now Toronto.  Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=181789.

[9] Benson, Ophelia.  Filthy Girls.  Posted on 14 July 2011 at The Notes and Comments Blog at Butterflies and Wheels.  Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/filthy-girls/.

Via Pharyngula “While we’re talking about advocating equality…”

Professor PZ Myers recently wrote a post titled While we’re talking about advocating equality…,[1] in which he links to a blog entry titled White people believe they face the worst racism by Juliet Osborne at Exploreable.  She wrote about a study which found that there are white people who believe that anti-white bias is a bigger problem in society than anti-black bias.[2]  (I don’t have access to the text of the study itself.)

The discussion at Pharyngula was about atheism and race, with Professor Myers pointing out that the secular movement should be on the side of equality.  Here are the comments that I wrote in the comments section of the entry.  (Words quoted from other people’s comments are in italics.)  This is a topic that I want to think and write about at length.

Comment #58 (May 25, 2011 11:38 am)[3]

@Kim.E:

Because non-whites could not possibly judge an event on its content and merits, they cannot possibly see past the color of the people on the podium. They will come if they see people of their own “color” on the promo material. PZ, do you go to events only when you see enough white people? You are assuming that non-whites are racists… and THAT is also racism

As an American atheist whose parents are from India, I want to respond to this. I think you’ve misunderstood the point. It’s not that I’ll only listen to someone is of same skin color as me. In fact, quite the opposite. It’s that I have absolutely no problem listening to someone with a different skin color than mine, so if people of my own skin color or background are excluded, I wonder why and if maybe someone would also not welcome my contribution. If I see some events and all of the speakers were white males, that’s not really a big deal; I’m not bothered at all, as it’s the content that really matters, rather than skin color. However, if I see that this keeps happening, again and again, at many events, I wonder why, and if there is a reason for it.

I’ll use an analogy with another topic I like to talk about: books. Sometimes, people talk about how there aren’t a lot of fantasy/sf books with characters of different skin color or genders. This doesn’t mean I’m going to read a book and decide I hate it just because most of the characters are all male. That would be absurd. It’s that when it happens again and again that there are books with not many non-white characters or not many female main characters, it makes a person wonder if there is a reason for this: if maybe the publishers have gotten the wrong idea that books with minority characters won’t sell or if they think that white readers won’t want to read a book with a non-white character, to which I would respond that if I can read book with white characters and enjoy it, I see no reason why a white person can’t read a book with non-white characters and enjoy it.

Comment #91 (May 25, 2011 2:22 pm)[4]

@Aetre (comment #63): I agree with your comment about asking people of all groups as main speakers. I do think that the panels about issues like race and gender are important, but if that’s the only thing that we’re ever seen talking about, people get the wrong impression that that’s all we know/care about.

On the topic of how the diversity of speakers and diversity of the audience might or might not be related (as Kim.E commented at #71), I’m honestly not sure. I consider myself as being part of the online “audience” even though I’ve never been to an atheist event (since I’m a student who often can’t afford it and because my parents do not know I’m an atheist, so it would be difficult to explain). I often watch the videos of speeches at some events if they’re placed online, and I sometimes wonder if there are many others like myself who are watching as well, who are also female or part of a racial minority.

I don’t think a person who’s a racial or gender minority is going to intentionally not be an atheist if they see people of a different group talking about atheism, as you don’t have to be a particular skin color or gender to realize that the supernatural stuff in religion sounds a bit ridiculous. I do wonder, though, how a person might perceive a particular organization compared to another, depending on the diversity of speakers they invite or of their membership.

In other words, I wonder this: To what extent is it that people feel uncomfortable identifying with a group because they are not represented, and to what extent are people saying “We are part of the group” (in this case the nonreligious group) and would like to be included and welcomed to contribute.

(To continue my analogy, there are fans of sf/fantasy of all genders and races, and they/we are not saying that we’ll stop being fans unless more diversity is included; it’s that we’re saying we are fans and would like to be included.)

Comment #115 (May 25, 2011 3:54 pm)[5]

@Carlie (#96):

I think you misunderstood my comment, or perhaps I was unclear. I was agreeing with the statement that people of different groups should speak on a variety of topics, but disagreeing with the idea that we should not discuss race and gender. I think one of the misconceptions that people have about minorities is that we’re always talking about being in a minority group and nothing else. I think that misconception is unfair, and maybe seeing a diverse group of people talking about many topics will help correct that misconception—in addition to, of course, the important goal of getting people to realize that people of all groups have something valuable to contribute.

Also, I definitely think that someone’s background is not irrelevant, but in fact very relevant. My family’s Muslim, so my experience is going to be different from the experience of someone who, say, is a former Christian whose family has lived in the US for many generations. Even on a topic that might not seem like it is related to race or gender, there may be some historic or cultural reason why that topic is seen differently, depending on a person’s experience in a certain group.

#

Edit/Update

Professor Myers has posted two more entries that are relevant to this topic.

1.  In Another cause, Professor Myers posts an email he received from a self-described “progressive woman skeptic” who expressed that she is very happy (as am I) that Professor Myers has shown support for equal rights.  She suggests that another cause to take up is the one for Disability Rights, which I think is an excellent idea.

(URL:  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/another_cause.php)

2.  In I get email, Professor Myers posts an email he received from an atheist who has conservative views and who writes, “I feel like I agree with Conservative Christians on most political and social issues”.  I think Professor Myers is correct in pointing out that, while one can be an atheist and a conservative, “one cannot be a rational, intelligent human being and contributing member of society and hold the conservative views you do. When you say you favor increasing individual freedom, you actually mean increasing the individual freedom of healthy white male heterosexuals who have skills that corporate interests find profitable, which, I’m sorry to say, is an extremely narrow slice of our culture, and not necessarily the best element of our society”.

(URL:  http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/i_get_email_83.php)

---

References

[1] Myers, PZ Myers.  While we’re talking about advocating equality….  Posted on May 25, 2011 at Pharyngula.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/while_were_talking_about_advoc.php.

[2] Osborne, Juliet.  White people believe that they face the worst racism.  Posted on May 25, 2011 at Exploreable.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://exploreable.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/white-people-face-the-worst-racism/.

[3] Sharmin, Ani.  Comment #58, posted on May 25, 2011 at 11:38 am.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/while_were_talking_about_advoc.php#comment-3969132.

[4] Sharmin, Ani.  Comment #91, posted on May 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/while_were_talking_about_advoc.php#comment-3970195.

[5] Sharmin, Ani.  Comment #115, posted on May 25, 2011 at 3:54 pm.  Retrieved on May 26, 2011 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/while_were_talking_about_advoc.php#comment-3970719.

Don’t Give Up, Don’t Give In

The United States House of Representatives and Senate have voted in favor of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.[1] It is expected that President Obama will sign the bill, since he has expressed his support for the appeal.  Words cannot express how happy I am right now.  This is an historic moment.  Homosexual and bisexual soldiers will be able to serve our country without fearing that they will be discharged due to their sexual orientation.  Our soldiers protect us, and it is only right that they should be treated fairly.

There are, of course, those who see progress in equal rights as dangerous and favor discrimination; they should be considered immoral human beings by all those who favor equal rights for all.  Those who support discrimination against soldiers don’t “support our troops”; they exclusively support only some soldiers and not others.  One of the most common arguments used in favor of discrimination is that it would hurt “unit cohesion”.  Whenever I hear this claim, I think to myself that the person who is citing “unit cohesion” is implying one of two things:  either (a) that non-heterosexual people are not capable of being good soldiers or (b) that soldiers are bigots who would not be willing to serve alongside a person with a different sexual orientation than theirs.  Either way, it’s an insult to the people in our armed forces.  This isn’t about disagreeing with politicians about specific foreign policy decisions; a person who believes that being sexually attracted to people of the same gender should disqualify a person for military service is insulting the actual soldiers themselves.

Imagine — if you will — the soldiers who are currently serving our country.  Imagine how they must feel being away from their families for such a long time.  Now imagine how concerned their loved ones are for them, how relived their loved ones are to see them again, how devastated the loved ones of dead soldiers are to attend a funeral, how dedicated the loved ones of injured soldiers are to helping them recover.  Do you really feel less sympathy if the soldier was homosexual or bisexual?  Does the gender of the person who greets them when they come home or the person who cries over their grave really matter?

Moving forward, there are still many more battles to win.  There is still much hatred against LGBTQI people in the United States and around the world.  Parents erroneously claim that equal rights will harm their children, religious leaders (seeming delusional) claim that homosexual sex causes the Almighty to punish entire nations, and politicians can actual gain support by promising to pass discriminatory laws against LGBTQI people.  Marriage equality, ending employment discrimination, and preventing bullying are just some of the goals we have yet to accomplish.

Yet, despite all this, I am happy today.  The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a small step, but it’s a step in the right direction.  As a supporter of equal rights for LGBTQI people, I have grown accustomed to the slow pace of progress and the many setbacks, but today is a good day.  Remember to keep up hope, and remember justice will win out in the end.

---

References

[1] Hulse, Carl.  Senate Repeals Ban Against Openly Gay Military Personnel.  Posted on December 18, 2010 in The New York Times.  Retrieved on December 19, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19cong.html.

Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam [Part 3 of 3]

[To read Part 2, click here.]

The Importance of Reasonable Criticism

As an apostate from Islam, I know that there is much in Islam which deserves criticism.  I have no reason to believe that I will agree with the beliefs being taught at Park51; given my disagreement with Islam, I think it is very likely that I will disagree with the religious beliefs of the Muslims who pray there, even if they are not extremists.  Whether my disagreement is merely one concerning the existence of God (a disagreement which I can have with a person while still maintaining great respect for that person) or an actual condemnation of a hateful and discriminatory ideology will be based primarily on what kind of Islam is believed in and promoted by the people at Park51.

It is a source of annoyance and worry to me that the criticism of Islam, which I consider so important, comes too often not from those who value freedom but from those with a desire to discriminate.  It is important to remember that there is a crucial difference between criticism and discrimination; to speak out against the horrible practices that are all too common within Islam is valid criticism while stopping a group of Muslims from practicing their faith (in ways that are not infringing on the rights or safety of others) is discrimination.  The same is true for any other faith.

Given the danger being caused by the Islamic faith all around the world, I think criticism of it is vitally needed.  The important qualifiers are that the criticism must be reasonable and based on evidence.  Alternative ideas must actually be better and not just more nonsense.  Criticizing a bad idea with another bad idea doesn’t move humanity in a good direction, but keeps us forever repeating our mistakes.  The reason I supported Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, for instance, is because the protest was based upon the evidence of people being unjustly threatening for drawing Mohammad and because I thought it was a good way to make the point that people should be able to exercise their freedom of speech, even if it offends another person’s beliefs.[1]

Many of the reasons being given for not building this Islamic center do not contain any reason why this particular institution or the people within it will be a threat requiring legal action.  There have been arguments over the imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, due to comments he’s made in the past.  If there was evidence of funding from a terrorist organization or a reason to think that the people would be involved in illegal activities, then that would be cause for concern and further investigation.  If there is no illegal activity going on, then criticism, but not legal action, is warranted.

There is the issue of expressing disagreement with a person or group while still respecting their rights.  I think Christopher Hitchens (eloquent as always) makes good points in two articles.  In Mau-Mauing the Mosque:  The dispute over the “Ground Zero Mosque” is an object lesson in how not to resist intolerance, he expresses concern about the views of the imam and the mosque (in addition to his obvious disagreements with Islam, expressed elsewhere at length) and then goes on to criticize the unreasonable arguments being used by those opposed to the mosque, writing “Where to start with this part-pathetic and part-sinister appeal to demagogy?  To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is ‘offensive,’ and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument.”  When the actions of those criticizing Islam begins to resemble the actions of those seeking to make excuses for the harm it causes, one finds oneself listening to an endless string of baseless arguments.  Hitchens ends the article with, “We need not automatically assume the good faith of those who have borrowed this noble name [Cordoba] for a project in lower Manhattan.  One would want assurances, also, about the transparency of its funding and the content of its educational programs. But the way to respond to such overtures is by critical scrutiny and engagement, not cheap appeals to parochialism, victimology, and unreason.”[2] He wrote another article A Test of Tolerance:  The “Ground Zero mosque” debate is about tolerance — and a whole lot more, in which he expands upon his concerns about the views of Imam Rauf and points out that Muslims in some Western European countries have taken advantage of the idea of equal rights and tolerance of religion to demand discrimination based on their religious beliefs and censorship of ideas which they find offensive.  Hitchens ends the article with, “Let us by all means make the ‘Ground Zero’ debate a test of tolerance. But this will be a one-way street unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well.”[3] I think that Hitchens is correct on this issue and expresses it wonderfully well.  Religious people need to realize that tolerance means not just tolerating religion, but also expecting religious people to tolerate those who disagree with them; it means standing up for equal rights and not giving special privileges to religion.  I am glad that Hitchens can simultaneously take apart the ridiculous nature of some of the arguments against Park 51 while offering his own criticisms of Islam.  In a similar vein, in his second blog entry on Park51, Professor PZ Myers correctly points out that if expressing support for theocracy was made illegal, it  would affect a great many religious leaders, including many Christians, and that this would be unfair, violating their rights.  What is necessary, he adds, is that “we stand back and make it an open example of the principle of liberty that they can build anything they want (within zoning laws), whether it is a mosque, a synagogue, a cathedral, a community center, or a retirement home for mentally ill clowns, but that that freedom does have reasonable community constraints that they are voluntarily accepting, and there’s no going back and saying after the fact that the ideology of their building occupants allows them to violate local laws.”[4] Respecting the First Amendment rights of a religious group does not mean that we should blindly trust them; simultaneously, criticism of a religion should not turn into discrimination or an acceptance of any argument made against them no matter how unreasonable and ridiculous that argument is.

We need more people who are willing to criticize anyone who acts unreasonably, even if it means disagreeing with both sides and stating one’s own dissenting opinion.  One person who attempts to do this is Irshad Manji, who is a Muslim speaking out for reform in Islam.  In A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque:  The warriors for tolerance and the antimosque crusaders are both wrong, she calls out Imam Rauf, who criticized the Danish cartoons of Mohammad based upon the feelings of Muslims who were offended but now does not accept the feelings of Americans opposed to the location of Park51 as a valid argument.  Manji says that she is offended by the location, but that it does present an opportunity.  She writes the following:

But for all the restless offense I feel, I step back and force myself to think. As I wrestle with the issues, I realize that an opportunity exists for something more constructive than anger.

Namely, accountability. If Park51 gets built, thanks to its provocative location the nation will scrutinize what takes place inside. Americans have the opportunity right now to be clear about the civic values expected from any Islam practiced at the site.

That means setting aside bombast and asking the imam questions born of the highest American ideals: individual dignity and pluralism of ideas.

Among the topics that Manji suggests we should ask questions about are whether the swimming pool will be segregated, whether women will be able to lead prayers, whether non-Muslims will be welcome to pray in the prayer area, what will be taught about homosexuals and apostates, and where one will be able to get tickets to a lecture given by Mr. Salman Rushdie at Park51.[5] All of these are exactly the right questions to ask, and we should not shy away from asking them just as we would of any other organization or religion.  As Ophelia Benson points out, “Of course, people who make a fetish of ‘tolerance’ without really thinking about what it should mean tend to think questions of that kind are none of their business. That’s why they need, as Manji points out, to think about all this, not just emote about it.”[6] Too often, people misinterpret the First Amendment to mean that religion should be above criticism and that religious groups should be able to get away with all sorts of ridiculous actions without facing criticism, due to the fact that believers justify their actions using quotes from holy texts.  This is an unreasonable interpretation.  To demand that religious freedom includes censorship of religious criticism is, in effect, to argue that religious freedom only applies to some people while others must remain silent.  This is absolutely contradictory to the idea that freedoms apply to everyone.

Criticism must be based on evidence and be reasonable, offering valid arguments.  We should keep in mind that rights and freedoms, not fear and hatred, should be the goal of this criticism.

Conclusion

One of many great characteristics of this country, one of the many things which do indeed make our society better than the beliefs of those who attacked us, is that we believe in equal rights and freedom.  These freedoms must be extended to each person — not only to people who are members of the majority religion.  We must understand that freedom means that everyone, including those whose views we may disagree with, should have equal rights.  Let us act in such a way that no person has just cause to claim they were wronged or had their rights taken away.

There are times when freedom is violated, when people use the practice of their beliefs as an excuse for taking away the rights of other individuals, and in these instances when it is essential to speak up.  We must do so with the goal of securing freedoms and rights.

I find it frustrating that so many people will speak at length about the distance between a mosque and Ground Zero and be willing to spend time protesting it, but then will be conspicuously silent when there are real human rights abuses occurring in Islam on a regular basis (or, alternatively, will only bring up such human rights abuses when it suits their political goals and soon forget about them once election season is over).  We have for ourselves a situation in which the reasonable criticism of Islam gets drowned out by the unreasonable, bigoted, and incoherent arguments made by those whose main motivation for opposing Islam is the desire to win an election or to create a government based upon their own religion.  This will not get us anywhere.

What is needed is a willingness to address the real issues within Islam.  We should criticize Islam with reasonable arguments and not just baseless nonsense.  Let us ask the important questions about the problems within Islam and not be so focused on doing some weird arithmetic to figure out how far Park51 should be from Ground Zero, and let us do this with an actual concern for the human rights of both non-Muslims and Muslims who are currently being harmed.

Secular criticism of Islam is needed, with the goal freedom and human rights for all.  My concern is that a continuation of a fight between Islam and unreasonable critics of Islam will result in less freedom and the continuation of human rights violations.  The way to actually improve the situation is for critics of Islam to support freedom and show concern for those who are being hurt by Islam.  We should remember always that freedom and rights are for each individual, and that it is wrong for leaders of religious groups to cite freedom in an attempt to actually take away freedom, whether from members of other religions or from members of their own religion.  People who have been hesitant to speak out due to the sometimes ridiculous and discriminatory nature of some criticisms of Islam should feel motivated to counter the ridiculous critics by offering real criticism of Islam, so that there is progress in human rights, as opposed to just pointless and ineffective yelling.

Truth, freedom, and equal rights should be considered most important.  We may not always agree with one another; however, people who disagree on the details but believe first and foremost in freedom can work together, discuss ideas, and learn from one another.

It is in hope that I write this, and perhaps my hope for a better world will be realized.  I do think there is something within us as humans, which gives us the potential to imagine a better future and the determination to build it.

#

Acknowledgments

I have quoted extensively from some of the many articles and blog posts that I’ve come across recently, and given credit to the authors when appropriate.  I offer many thanks to all of the people who wrote these pieces and inspired me.  I’ve done my best to accurately represent their words and to honestly express my agreement and disagreement.  I very much recommend reading all of the linked articles and blog entries; their authors have some very thought-provoking ideas.

---

References

[1] Sharmin, Ani.  On Everybody Draw Mohammad Day.  Posted on May 20, 2010 at Eternal Bookshelf.  Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/on-everybody-draw-mohammad-day/.

[2] Hitchens, Christopher.  Mau-Mauing the Mosque:  The dispute over the “Ground Zero Mosque” is an object lesson in how not to resist intolerance.  Posted on August 9, 2010 in Slate Magazine.  Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from http://www.slate.com/id/2263334.

[3] Hitchens, Christopher.  A Test of Tolerance:  The “Ground Zero mosque” debate is about tolerance — and a whole lot more.  Posted on August 23, 2010 in Slate Magazine.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/.

[4] Myers, PZ.  I don’t like the Manhattan mosque, but they’ve got the right — as long as I’ve got the right to point and laugh.  Posted on September 1, 2010 at Pharyngula.  Retrieved on September 9, 2010 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/i_dont_like_the_manhattan_mosq.php.

[5] Manji, Irshad.  A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque:  The warriors for tolerance and the antimosque crusaders are both wrong.  Posted on August 26, 2010 at The Wall Street Journal.  Retrieved on August 27, 2010 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451433090488678.html.

[6] Benson, Ophelia.  Hitchens and Manji.  Posted on August 27, 2010 at Butterflies and Wheels.  Retrieved on August 27, 2010 from http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/hitchens-and-manji/.

Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam [Part 2 of 3]

[To read Part 1, click here.]

Synagogues in Saudi Arabia

There is the important issue of the persecution and discrimination faced by non-Muslims in various theocratic Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia.  I for one will be overjoyed when Jewish people can build synagogues in Saudi Arabia and when people of all various faiths can build their houses of worship in countries where they now cannot.  The question then arises of how we can bring this about.

Since it is certain governments and other violent groups which are persecuting people of different faiths and no religious faith, I think that any ultimatums we place should be against these groups particularly, instead of against all members of the faith.  It is reasonable to demand that the Saudi Arabian government cannot finance any mosques on American soil as long as it does not give equal rights to all people.  It is unreasonable to demand that, due to the actions of the Saudi Arabian government, no Muslims can build mosques in America.  (The idea that all Muslims would be in support of the governments which persecute non-Muslims is ridiculous in and of itself, since these same governments often also make the lives of the Muslims within their countries a living hell.)

I love the United States and the freedoms we have here; I think the goal should be to create a world in which more people have these freedoms.[1] The suggestion we should model our behavior on the atrocious actions of the despicable House of Saud would, if acted upon, ruin all that our ancestors worked for.  Instead of moving in the right direction to gain equality for more people, we would be taking away freedom from the few people on the planet who do have it.

Peter Beinart makes this point in America Has Disgraced Itself at The Daily Beast.  (I take exception to the title but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, since editors often choose or change the title of the article.)  Although I don’t share his newfound pining for President George W. Bush, I think his general point is valid.  He writes, “Now, Newt Gingrich says we shouldn’t build a mosque in Lower Manhattan until the Saudis build churches and synagogues in Mecca — which is to say, we’re bringing Saudi values to the United States.”  Beinart seems to understand a crucial idea which many others seem oblivious to, which is that we cannot defeat religious intolerance and bigotry by modeling our own actions on the actions of government officials of a country whose people are regularly oppressed by religious tyranny.

Beinart also makes a another good point near the end of the article, writing,

And oh yes, my fellow Jews, who are so thrilled to be locked arm in arm with the heirs of Pat Robertson and Father Coughlin against the Islamic threat.  Evidently, it’s never crossed your mind that the religious hatred you have helped unleash could turn once again against us.  Of course not, we’re insiders in this society now:  Our synagogues grace the toniest of suburbs; our rabbis speak flawless English; we Jews are now effortlessly white.  Barely anyone remembers that folks in lower Manhattan once considered us alien and dangerous, too.[2]

There have been Jewish people on both sides of this issue; I am grateful for the secular reforms within Judaism and for many Jewish people’s willingness to speak up against wrongdoing, even when some members of their own religion are participating.  Beinart’s main point is valid, in that it is highly suspect and ridiculous when people who are themselves often targets of discrimination line up to discriminate against others.  I am grateful that there are many people who do realize that discrimination is wrong even if they themselves are not the targets.

Ultimately, the correct response to religious discrimination is not more discrimination.  One would think that people should have realized this just by looking around themselves and thinking, but sadly it needs to be pointed out.

The “True Islam” and Terror

One of the ongoing disagreements about Islam for about nine years now has been the question of whether Islam played a role in the attacks of September 11, 2001.  When discussing this Islamic Center, the argument is sometimes framed in the wrong way, with some suggesting that Muslims should not be able to build Park51 because Islam played a role in the attacks and others suggesting that Muslims should be able to build Park51 because “true Islam” did not play a role in the attacks.  I personally choose a third option:  Islam (or a certain version of it) was involved in the attacks, but Muslims who did not participate in those attacks and are not involved with any similar terrorist organizations should be able to build an Islamic center if they want to.  In other words, the claim being made about Islam not having anything to do with the attacks and others like them in many places around the world is an exercise in denial, but it is not a valid reason for stopping people who were not responsible for those attacks from building a religious community center.

The idea of building Park51 to show that Islam is peaceful and that the beliefs of the September 11^th terrorists were not a part of “true Islam” seems dubious to me.  Peaceful Muslims will rightly point out that Islam cannot be judged based upon the actions of just the extremists and called a religion of violence; however, it is also true that Islam cannot be judged based solely upon the actions of peaceful Muslims and thereby called a religion of peace.  Just as peaceful, freedom-loving Muslims would not consider the terrorists “real Muslims”, the terrorists would likewise not consider peaceful, freedom-loving Muslims “real Muslims”.  I do hope, of course, that the Muslims who will go to Park51 will play a role in improving Islam to move it away from the extremism, but even if they did, they still would not really have a claim to “true Islam” — though maybe they’d have a claim to a more peaceful Islam, which is something to hope for, in my desire for a better and safer future with more freedom, even if I think their God is just as fictional as the horrible one believed in by other Muslims.

As it is, I have grown accustomed (as I’m sure have many others) to various ideological groups mutually excommunicating those they disagree with and claiming that their own version is the “true” version of whatever ideology they espouse.  (As Julie Clawson points out, it is also highly ridiculous for members of one faith — in this case, Christianity — who regularly use the “true faith” excuse for extreme members of their own faith to then generalize about all of the members of another faith — in this case, Islam.[3])  The debate about “true Islam” (as that of “true Christianity”[4]) is one for another day and another entry.  As it pertains to the issue at hand, whether or not the Islam of those who will attend Park51 is “true Islam” is unclear.  If the people at Park 51 are involved in illegal activities, that calls for government involvement; if they are not doing anything illegal but are doing something we disagree with, then it is appropriate to speak out and protest.

Addressing the problems within Islam is a bigger issue than Park51, and moving Park51 is not going to solve them.  We need rather to actually discuss and confront the real problems within Islam in a reasonable way.  Sam Harris has written two articles about this issue, making it clear that he believes that the people building Park51 have the Constitutional right to do so, and then going on to express his concerns about the religion of Islam and the denial that many moderate Muslims are in over the problems within the faith.  Although I disagree with some suggestions he has made in the past, he does offer very clear explanations of the problems with religion.  In What Obama Got Wrong About the Mosque (which was actually written, according to Harris, before President Obama made a statement and then given this title later by an editor), Harris writes, “My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali is said to be suffering from it [Islamophobia]. Though she was circumcised as a girl by religious barbarians (as 98 percent of Somali girls still are) has been in constant flight from theocrats ever since, and must retain a bodyguard everywhere she goes, even her criticism of Islam is viewed as a form of ‘bigotry’ and ‘racism’ by many ‘moderate’ Muslims. And yet, moderate Muslims should be the first to observe how obscene Muslim bullying is—and they should be the first to defend the right of public intellectuals, cartoonists, and novelists to criticize the faith.”  A part of the problem is that moderate Muslims take great offense at any criticism of their faith while ignoring the far worse offenses committed by their fellow Muslims, against both non-Muslims and Muslims.  Even when they are presented with arguments from people who themselves grew up in an Islamic home and were treated badly due to the religious teachings, many Muslims remain in denial (and others who are aware of the problems may be afraid to speak out).

We come again to the issue of true Islam and response to terrorism of Muslims around the world.  Harris continues, “The claim that the events of September 11, 2001, had ‘nothing to do with Islam’ is an abject and destabilizing lie. This murder of 3,000 innocents was viewed as a victory for the One True Faith by millions of Muslims throughout the world (even, idiotically, by those who think it was perpetrated by the Mossad).”  Related to the refusal to criticize faith is the denial that anything horrible done was influenced or inspired by faith.  There is also the fact that a horrible event may be celebrated by some members of a faith and mourned by others.  How does one address believers who say that they were horrified at a terrible crime when others of the same faith celebrated it?  How does one address the issue of religion’s culpability when there are so many disparate forms of the religion being practiced?  How can one convince followers who are not contributing to the violence that the book to which they subscribe contains passages which (although ignored by some believers) are nonetheless horrible and provide inspiration to extremists?  Is there a possibility that some Muslims will make an effort to differentiate between the actual discrimination that they face and the legitimate criticism of their faith that they should pay more attention to?

Harris concludes, “Perhaps there is some form of Islam that could issue from this site that would be better, all things considered, than simply not building another mosque in the first place. But this leads me to a somewhat paradoxical conclusion: American Muslims should be absolutely free to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero; but the ones who should do it probably wouldn’t want to.”[5] Harris seems to be saying that moderate Muslims, who could potentially take steps forward to reform Islam, would probably not build a mosque near Ground Zero out of respect for the site; specifically that which would make them a positive presence also motivates them to take into consideration how others would feel about their actions.

In another article, Harris writes that too many Muslims are remaining silent about the extremism in Islam and gives an example of what he would expect Imam Rauf to say if the imam wants to be considered an actual moderate and allay people’s fears.  He ends with, “Find an imam who will speak this way, and gather followers who think this way, and I’ll volunteer to cut the ribbon on his mosque in lower Manhattan.”[6] So, we are back to the idea of so-called moderates being silent and unwilling to properly address the problems within their faith.  It seems that it is often the case that the more extreme members of the faith are more organized and vocal; while we as a society should want more participation and cooperation from the moderates of a faith, it is the extremists who make themselves heard more easily and demand attention.  Many times, it seems that a person may or may not be a moderate; there are religious leaders who, perhaps wanting to cooperate somewhat with secular society but not wanting to upset the more conservative members of their own religion, make vague statements about the problems within their own religion, being careful not to lay the blame on religion itself (or certain parts of it).

Fortunately, despite the silence, there are some Muslims who are indeed willing to speak out about the problems within their own faith.  Asra Q. Nomani writes in A Muslim Questions the Mosque about the problems within Islam.  “We’re not being honest in our Muslim community about the violent ideology inside of our Muslim world that needs to be defeated, and so the war has spread beyond our community to include the Tea Party activists. In the name of political correctness, too many inside our Muslim community have been apologists for Islam, feeling defensive, but not being as brutally honest as the world needs us to be about this problem.”  Although I cringe at her kind words towards the sometimes ridiculous and sometimes discriminatory Tea Party supporters, I think she makes a valid point about the extremism and, I am glad she points out that many liberal and progressive Americans have not offered “a nuanced, intelligent critique of extremist Islamic ideology, currying pluralism points instead in the name of interfaith relations”.  This, I think, is what has resulted in a situation in which many of the people who could offer secular and intelligent criticism of the extremism in Islam are not willing to.  There are some who do, but their voices get drowned out by those who really are hateful and who want to discriminate against Muslims.  This should convince more people who believe in equal rights to criticize Islam from a secular point of view, with the goal of human rights, so that the only people criticizing Islam are not those who are hateful.  Nomani points out what is needed in Islam and illustrates one of the problems in Islam when she writes, “We need an expression of institutional Islam that is moderate, progressive and liberal. We don’t have it yet. There is only one mosque in America where women can pray in the front row. It’s in Toledo, Ohio.”[7] This should make any Muslim question the idea that the discriminatory ideologies within Islam are just a small fringe.  Although the worst of the terrorist attacks may be committed by a small fringe, other actions of discrimination and hate are supported by many more.  Ignoring these violations of rights is not right, and it is frustrating that many Muslims (using the excuse “We’re not terrorists”) try to hide the other, more ubiquitous, problems within Islam.

There is perhaps some potential for a more secular form of Islam to challenge the extremism that is so much of a problem in the world today.  I have mentioned previously that I am of two minds on this, hoping for a reformed secular form of Islam (so that there is less violence and so that more people within the religion itself can gain equal rights) while disbelieving in a nice version of God just as much as I disbelieve in a horrible version of God.[8] Currently, though, there is no question that there are big problems within Islam.

The question then arises:  How should we address them properly?

[To read Part 3, click here.]

---

References

[1] Sharmin, Ani.  The Fourth of July in Four Parts.  Posted on July 4, 2010 at Eternal Bookshelf.  Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/the-fourth-of-july-in-four-parts/.

[2] Beinart, Peter.  America Has Disgraced Itself.  Posted on August 17, 2010 at The Daily Beast.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-17/ground-zero-mosque-controversy-america-has-disgraced-itself/.

[3] Clawson, Julie.  A Christian response to the Islamic community center near Ground Zero.  Posted on August 10, 2010 at Common Ground News Service.  Retrieved on August 29, 2010 from http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=28282&lan=en&sid=1&sp=0&isNew=1.

[4] Eberhard, JT.  An Old Letter about true ™ Christianity.  Posted on April 14, 2009 on Zerowing21’s Xanga.  Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from http://zerowing21.xanga.com/698959756/an-old-letter-about-true-tm-christianity/.

[5] Harris, Sam.  What Obama Got Wrong About the Mosque.  Posted on August 13, 2010 at The Daily Beast.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/.

[6] Harris, Sam.  Silence is not moderation.  Posted on August 24, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2010/08/silence_is_not_moderation.html.

[7] Nomani, Asra Q.  A Muslim Questions the Mosque.  Posted on August 10, 2010 at The Daily Beast.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-10/why-muslims-like-me-agree-with-the-tea-party-activists/.

[8] Sharmin, Ani.  Foundations of Dissonance? Posted on July 22, 2010 at Eternal Bookshelf.  Retrieved on September 9, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/foundations-of-dissonance/.

Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam [Part 1 of 3]

Introduction

Given the recent controversy over the building of Park51 (a.k.a. Cordoba House), an Islamic community center and mosque, in New York City near Ground Zero, the site of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I’ve decided to write an entry containing some of my thoughts about the topic.  Professor PZ Myers has stated that he does not care about a mosque/community center in New York,[1] and I might not have either if it wasn’t the topic of so many television segments, news articles, and blog posts (some of which have been incessantly pouring into my feed reader).

It was, however, a good opportunity for me to do some thinking about the various issues that are being brought up, colliding with one another, and being mixed together (sometimes appropriately and sometimes not) in the discussion and argument over this project.  This entry is my attempt to gather my thoughts and write them in a somewhat coherent fashion.

First Amendment

Whatever houses of worship may be built in this great land, their continued existence and the freedom of those within them depends on how diligently we build and maintain the wall between church and state (or, in this case, I suppose mosque and state).  A legal argument against Park51 can be made if it is found that it is involved in illegal activities or is receiving funding from a criminal organization.  The legal attempt to shut down the project cannot be based upon its proximity to Ground Zero.  An attempt by the government to choose one religion over another, to stop one religion from building a house of worship in a place where another religion would be permitted to do so (all else being equal) on their own property, would be a violation of the First Amendment.  We will all have certain times when we have to say that we absolutely disagree with what someone does while supporting their right to do it, but it is not right to take legal action against a group for doing something that we disagree with.

Tied up in all of this is the noticeable self-contradiction of those who regularly speak up in favor of freedom of religion for their own group, but who deny that same freedom to others.  I think part of the justified reflexive defense of the community center is due to the fact that some of the people speaking out against it (especially some of the politicians and news anchors) have in the past shown that they favor one religion — particularly Christianity — over all others, so there is the question whether their criticism is coming from a genuine concern or from their own bias.  Combined with similar protests against and vandalism of mosques in other places around the country and the horrifying violence against Muslims, this raises the suspicion that the protests are due to the fact that the people are Muslim and not based on any reasonable argument.  There is a concern that at least some of the people speaking against the community center really do not favor separation of church and state and may be in favor of taking away the rights of non-Christians.  (This is, of course, not true for everyone.  When Susan Jacoby writes that she supports the First Amendment right of those building Park 51, but questions whether it should be built so close to Ground Zero,[2] I believe that she actual does support the First Amendment and equal rights for people of different religions, since she has shown this in her previous writings.  She has even written a book called Freethinkers:  A History of American Secularism about the important role that secular people and ideas played in American history, including contributions made by both religious and non-religious supporters of secularism.)  When others, such as Sarah Palin, claim that they support the rights of those building Park51, but question the wisdom of it, I am suspicious of their motivations, given their support for a nation based upon their own religious beliefs.  Since not all the critics of Park51 are supporters of separation of church and state (based on their past statements), there is a need to reaffirm secularism, which is always a good goal.  We should remember that secularism is one of the ideas which make this country great, and there are several people who have expressed this sentiment during this whole debate and drama.

Hemant Mehta, in What freedoms will we lose next? (his first article for The Washington Post’s On Faith section) makes a good point about not blaming all Muslims for the 9/11 attacks (just as we should not blame all Christians for something horrible done by some Christians) and writes, “Why do I support the building of the mosque?  Because we live in a country that supports freedom of religion, even when we disagree with others’ beliefs.  I support it because they’re paying for the space and they have every right to build there.”[3] We cannot start deciding that the First Amendment only applies to certain groups and not to others.  Those who routinely say that the Christians who take horrible actions are not “real Christians” should ask themselves what they would think of their freedom being limited based on what other Christians have done.

Herb Silverman, in Mosque is insensitive; so are pandering politicians, criticizes the politicians whose clichéd arguments have gained them undue publicity and then goes on to write that he agrees that the mosque is insensitive.  Ultimately, he states quite plainly, “It is my right to be bothered by this, it’s the right of others to be bothered by the potential mosque at Ground Zero, and it’s absolutely the right of American Muslims to build it.  Observing Constitutional principles may be bothersome, but that’s a small price to pay for the liberties our Constitution guarantees.”[4] Following the Constitution and agreeing that others have rights, even if we disagree with them, may not always be easy, but it is necessary if we want to preserve our freedoms and rights.  The hope that humans will be able to grant others the liberties they themselves so cherish is the basis of my hope that a secular society can work and thrive.

Arthur Waskow tells a touching story about his grandmother in Mosques in America:  Rabbi Hillel, George Washington, & my grandma, reminding readers of the promise of freedom that American stands for.  Just as his grandmother remembered the horrible way Jewish people were treated in Europe and knew that it was wrong to treat Black people that way (even when other Jewish women were talking about them with contempt), Waskow remembers his grandmother and reminds us that we must not treat Muslims that way.  He thinks it is right to build Park51, which will be “[a] beacon of the Islam that celebrates the God Who is Compassion. A beacon of truth, of hope, of peace to vanquish the hatred and despair and violence that murdered 3,000 people of many different nations and many different faiths in the World Trade Center.”[5] I am glad he has hope for the emergence of a better Islam that will not be as fraught with problems as the religion is right now.  Perhaps if more Muslims were willing to speak up against the extremism in their own faith and create a new Islam that would be more secular and supportive of equal rights, we would have a better world.

What makes the situation even more absurd is that one suggestion that’s been made concerning the moving of the mosque actually would violate the First Amendment.  Over at The Wall of Separation (the blog of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) Sandhya Bathija has written a blog entry titled Land Plan Panned:  N.Y. Governor’s Islamic Center ‘Compromise’ Draws Fire, in which she comments on a statement by Governor David Paterson.  According to Glenn Blain at The New York Daily News, Governor Paterson supports the Park51 Islamic Center and has said, “Frankly, if the sponsors were looking for property anywhere at a distance that would be such that it would accommodate a better feeling among the people who are frustrated, I would look into trying to provide them with the state property they would need.”[6] Bathija writes at The Wall that this idea will fortunately probably not be put into action due to the fact that it’s obviously unconstitutional.  (She links to an article[7] by Justin Elliot at Salon, in which Barry Lynn, Americans United’s executive director, and Professor Jay Wexler express concerns about such an idea.)  She points out in her blog entry that a suggestion like Patterson’s (providing state property to a religious group for a religious place of worship) “should outrage Americans, yet it’s hardly caused a stir. At the same time, when a private group wants to build a religion-based community center on private land, some find cause for a public uproar.  All this goes to show that many Americans could benefit from another glance at the Constitution, and that includes Paterson.”[8] It does often amaze me that more people are not more concerned about separation of church and state, but as can been seen above, there are many who do.  This gives me hope.

It is absolutely essential to remind both ourselves and our fellow humans deserve to have equal rights.  Demanding that they should voluntarily give up their equal rights (especially when such criticism is coming from those who have shown their own support for discrimination in the past) is unreasonable and wrong.  (It is for this reason that I also support the rights of peaceful protesters who are against Park 51 to express their views, just as I support the right of the people who are building it.)  I am glad that there are many people who realize the importance of secularism and of the First Amendment, even for those whose religious beliefs they do not agree with.

Rebuilding Ground Zero

Any hallowed nature associated with Ground Zero is not a characteristic force emanating from the spot itself but rather the hurt that is felt in the hearts of human beings when we look upon a site and remember the horrid events of the past.  When Sarah Palin claims that the planned mosque “stabs hearts”, it is as an American that I reply that the real stab to my heart was the actual attack.  What further stabs my heart is the attempt by various groups (including, to various extents, the groups both in favor of and against Park51) to use what was a tragedy for our country to forward their own agendas, which contain little or nothing in the way of either dealing with the extremism within Islam or protecting our freedoms, including those outlined in the First Amendment.  It is important that we remember what is really important and do not focus on inanimate objects.  As Susan Jacoby writes in What makes ground so “sacred” that it provides soil for profane behavior?, “Truth and knowledge, not ground or steps, are sacred.”[9]

The rebuilding of Ground Zero, including a memorial to those who died, has not moved forward by much, and this is a cause of sadness for many Americans, including myself.  We are still living with the memory of these attacks, and that memory will never go away.  We desire to do something to honor those who died, and lack of such a memorial makes us feel that we are not properly remembering them, that we have been lax in taking the correct action.

There is also the issue of other religious buildings.  In the arguments against Park51, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is sometimes mentioned.  The anger over the fact that the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church has not yet been rebuilt is understandable, but I don’t understand how that is related to the building of Park51.  The Islamic center is not being built to replace St. Nicholas.  The fact that the rebuilding of Ground Zero and St. Nicholas has been slow is not, to my knowledge, caused by some kind of covert plan by the people planning to build Park51.  The various building projects going on in our country are not in competition with one another.  The fact that Park51 has been approved while plans for Ground Zero and the St. Nicholas Church have not yet moved forward does not mean the government is endorsing Islam or insulting either Christians or Americans in general.  One difference between St. Nicholas and Park51 is that St. Nicholas was actually destroyed in the attacks and is in the area that has sadly not yet been rebuilt, whereas Park51 is two blocks away.  If all the circumstances surrounding the rebuilding of the church were the same as those involved in building Park 51, then I would expect it to be given the same approval as Park51.  There seem to be various issues affecting the rebuilding of St. Nicholas.  As Nicole Neroulias writes in an entry at the Beliefnet Blog, “St. Nicholas, a Greek Orthodox church with only a few dozen regular worshipers before 9/11, has been mired in Ground Zero-specific bureaucracy for years, trying to hammer out a deal with the Port Authority to swap its tiny piece of land for a bigger plot and receive millions of dollars in public funds for the construction and security requirements.”[10] She writes in an article at Religion News Service that the plans for Park51 have motivated people to ask about why more progress has not been made on the church, and goes on the explain the various circumstances and events which lead to the delays.  “The entire Ground Zero rebuilding process has taken years longer than expected, due to the arduous rescue, recovery and rubble-removal efforts, followed by the bureaucratic process of establishing property ownership and designing the memorial and buildings.”[11] It is clear that, despite the understandable upset of the Greek Orthodox community in New York City, blaming the people building Park51 for the delay in rebuilding St. Nicholas is the incorrect response.  Although I disagree with both Islam and Christianity, I support the right of members of both of these religions to build their places of worship.  It seems that in addition to being important to the Greek Orthodox community in New York, St. Nicholas also has a long history behind it.  I look forward to Ground Zero, including St. Nicholas, being rebuilt.

The relevant parts of this situation, to me, are protecting freedom and equality, building of a memorial to those who died, and dealing with Islamic extremism that played a role in the attacks in the first place.  Moving the mosque will not accomplish any of this.  The distance between Ground Zero and Park51, to me, is not completely irrelevant, but one of the least relevant points of the whole situation.  (This is mostly because the center is not actually on Ground Zero; if it was, then I would be opposed to the location, because I think there should be a memorial there.)  As Jeffrey Rowland illustrates in this cartoon, the whole argument is ridiculous and YHWH has not shown a preference in the matter (which is as I expected, given the deity’s propensity for revealing contradictory messages to different members of humanity).  Rowland writes beneath the cartoon, “Exactly what is a ‘safe distance’ to put your Muslim Community Center away from a place so that it doesn’t have some imaginary effect on it? I’d prefer a ban on ALL religious buildings being built within 1,000 miles of a place where ANY MEMBER of ANY SPECIFIC religious organization did some harm unto society.”[12] Well, that would considerably decrease the number of houses of worship, but it would of course, not be in line with the freedom of religion on which we place great value.  The cartoon and its caption illustrate perfectly the problem we face when trying to determine exactly how far away this Islamic center can be from Ground Zero.

What type of weird arithmetic can we come up with to determine exactly how far away a religious place of worship has to be from the site of a disaster?  Does this vary depending on how many people were killed?  Does the rule apply to all religions or only to one?  Does it apply to all the people who follow the same religion as the perpetrators of the attack or to those of the same denomination?

All of this is not only confusing but misses the point entirely.  The building is not the cause of the problems within Islam, but the bad ideas and actions of certain people and groups within Islam.  It is important to identify and criticize these ideas and people while realizing that many Muslims themselves also realize the problem and are being hurt by members of their own faith.

[To read Part 2, click here.]

---

References

[1] Myers, PZ.  I don’t care about a mosque/community center in New York.  Posted on August 16, 2010 at Pharyngula.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/i_dont_care_about_a_mosquecomm.php.

[2] Jacoby, Susan.  Ground Zero mosque protected by First Amendment—but it’s still salt in a wound.  Posted on August 4, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section.  Retrieved on August 25, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/08/ground_zero_mosque_protected_by_first_amendment–but_its_still_salt_in_a_wound.html.

[3] Mehta, Hemant.  What freedoms will we lose next? Posted on August 16, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Hemant_Mehta/2010/08/what_freedoms_will_we_lose_next.html.

[4] Silverman, Herb.  Mosque is insensitive; so are pandering politicians.  Posted on July 19, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/herb_silverman/2010/07/sarah_palin_and_alvin_greene.html.

[5] Waskow, Arthur.  Mosques in America:  Rabbi Hillel, George Washington, & my grandma.  Posted on August 16, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/arthur_waskow/2010/08/mosques_in_america_rabbi_hillel_g_washington_my_grandma.html.

[6] Quote of Paterson, David (Governor of NY).  Blain, Glenn.  Gov. Paterson:  No objection to Ground Zero mosque, but floats state land for less controversial site.  Posted on August 10, 2010 at The New York Daily News.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/10/2010-08-10_gov_paterson_no_objection_to_ground_zero_mosque_but_floats_state_land_for_less_c.html.

[7] Elliott, Justin.  Law prof:  Paterson mosque plan may be unconstitutional.  Posted on August 10, 2010 at Salon.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/10/paterson_mosque_plan_constitution.

[8] Bathija, Sandhya.  Land Plan Panned:  N.Y. Governor’s Islamic Center ‘Compromise’ Draws Fire.  Posted on August 11, 2010 at The Wall of Separation, blog of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from https://blog.au.org/2010/08/11/land-plan-panned-n-y-governor’s-islamic-center-‘compromise’-draws-fire/.

[9] Jacoby, Susan.  What makes ground so “sacred” that it provides soil for profane behavior? Posted on September 1, 2010 at Washington Post’s On Faith section.  Retrieved on September 8, 2010 from http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/09/what_makes_ground_so_sacred_that_people_spill_more_blood_over_it.html.

[10] Neroulias, Nicole.  The Real Story Behind the ‘Ground Zero Church’ Rebuilding Delay.  Posted on August 24, 2010 at the Beliefnet blog.  Retrieved on September 8, 2010 from http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat/2010/08/the-story-behind-the-ground-zero-church-rebuilding-stalemate.html.

[11] Neroulias, Nicole.  Future of destroyed Ground Zero Orthodox church in doubt.  Posted on August 23, 2010 at Religion News Service.  Retrieved on September 8, 2010 from http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/rnstext/future_of_destroyed_ground_zero_orthodox_church_in_doubt/.

[12] Rowland, Jeffrey.  Proximity.  Posted on August 16, 2010 at Overcompensating.  Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.overcompensating.com/posts/20100816.html.