The Two Sides of Sensitivity, Essay Example

The Two Sides of Sensitivity and the Construction of the “Ground Zero mosque”

In response to the possibility of the construction of a mosque two blocks from the memorial to the September eleventh terrorist attack, there has been a very passionate debate with supporters from a variety of generational, racial, political, and other backgrounds. This brings a variety of perspectives into a collision course which is an optimal testing ground for the theories of Appiah. The discussion is for the benefit of the people- to understand each other, engage in a conversation across cultural lines, and accept what they will not change (Appiah 18-22). Thus far, media involvement has only obstructed the flow of conversation and hindered the process of healing.

American conflicts often involve the cultural interchange of ideas about freedoms, rights, and privileges. This is, once again, the case with the proposed mosque construction two city blocks away from the World Trade Center memorial. On one side, supporters have argued that it is in bad taste at the very least (and a terrorist threat) at the very worst; on the other side, supporters have spoken of the peaceful and community-centered efforts of the mosque and have cited their protection from governmental interference. Both groups have their radical and conservative supporters of many varieties. Below are two political cartoons (Figures 1 and 2) which are representative of both sides of the debate (Cagle). America was founded upon the principle that every person is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The current debate about the “Ground Zero” Mosque (hereafter GZM) centers around the prioritization and balance of these inalienable rights. Both sides cite justifiable causes for their position, and the national pursuit of happiness is caught in between the two. As we will demonstrate, the initial post supported the “right to life” perspective which depicts the actions of the religious extremists as a representative sample. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 1: Right to Liberty

In the initial post posing the topic of the GZM, Spooks (2010) asserts that the name of the proposed “Cordoba House” is rooted in ideals of Muslim supremacy over Christianity and other conquered groups. He proposes that if the Muslim proponents of the project really care about religious tolerance, then they should allow Jewish and Christian citizens in the Muslim holy city, Mecca. Unintentionally, Spooks links New York City with the various religious cities of pilgrimage, but no discussion is engaged along this line. Within this framework, he states his firm belief that the proposal is a clear test of American leniency and “weaknesses and submission”.

This opinion is strongly worded and passionate. According to Kwame Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism, Spooks does not have to subscribe to mainstream opinion to be a civilized contributor to society. On the contrary, in a world of strangers, the ethical pathways are even more difficult to navigate- thus phasing out the idea of a cultural norm. An individual opinion, such as that of Spooks, might even be celebrated as an expression of a new, individualistic morality which tolerates a wide range of opinion. Even so, a skeptic’s fundamental beliefs are not likely to be changed. The discussion is for the benefit of the people- to understand each other, engage in a conversation across cultural lines, and accept what they will not change (Appiah 18-22).

While the first few respondents timidly approach the subject of the truth and the media depictions of the truth, very early on there is a subtle agreement that- if the construction is to go forward- the funding for the public project should be transparent and subject to governmental examination. In light of the continued uncertainty about the future of the World Trade Center site, the discussion turned to the related concepts of oil, money, and politics as part of the wider debate.

Another point of agreement centers on media perception and sensationalization and its role in the debate of the GZM. Although they reach many points of contention during the course of this discussion, CROCODILE and Sarem Chunk agree on one thing: “the NEWS today doesn’t tell [the] public the truth anymore”. Sarem Chunk even accuses the radio, television, and web of being right-wing. Expressing hesitance, the members reluctantly come to an agreement that part of the debate is about media depictions of religious issues and about religious tolerance and the limits to tolerance. While Spooks (2010) simply stated, “No mosque. No self deception. No surrender”, other respondents criticized any policy distinctions according to religious beliefs. When Sarem asks to discuss the similarities of Yahweh, God, and Allah, her question is met with sarcasm, avoidance, and diversionary tactics. Islamike responds with the question “They all start with capital letters?” Her argument’s opponent, CROCODILE, finally writes that they are all one god. Specifically, Sarem reiterates that the “one god” principle of these “Big Three” religions can be traced back to their mutual acceptance of this divinity as the ruler of Abraham, who is featured in all three religious texts.

The final word (thus far) is had by a newcomer to the discussion, who sums up a specialized center of attention for the American hatred. He writes that the Taliban was to blame. He takes a broad view of the events of September eleventh as a realist’s probability. To get power, Bin Laden claimed to be fighting for God and convinced recruits to join him and make a difference. Then he proceeds to keep all of this power for himself by electing not to sacrifice himself as his young recruits had. Now America is seizing back power. As evidence of this theory, the respondent states that a violent action truly committed as part of some holy vision would naturally target sites of the opposing religions and not have destroyed one governmental building and two sites for trade, which were also known to have child care, banking, and other domestic centers of everyday American life. That is the world according to the last respondent, and it is a very intriguing summation of the current international and global state of politics.

As headlines forced the proposed construction of the GZM into the forefront, it became a social topic for the conversational water cooler. Even for those who would later support its construction on the grounds that American government has no right to interfere, i.e. there should be a “separation between church and state” and a “right to liberty” (as seen in Figure 1), the news of the proposed construction was met with a wide disbelief. A scar was still healing, and most of the citizenry expected the heated debate. Of course, for many Americans and the loved ones of those victims of September eleventh, anger was the next manifestation of grief. This is where we encounter the forum’s initial post: in a state of outrage over the tragedy and what he perceives as re-opening old wounds. In the discussion of media involvement, there is a clear nostalgic undertone to the discussion which provides a rallying point for the respondents of different viewpoints. The continuing loss of life in Afghanistan and Iraq has only served to perpetuate both the myths and harsher facts regarding Muslims and Middle Eastern peoples in general. Sociologically, the issue is not the true center of the debate; the timing and interaction- or as Appiah phrased it, the ‘conversation’- are. Cosmopolitanism records the case of the only Jewish prime minister and compares it to the literary classic Daniel Deronda to convey the point that both nature and nurture strongly affect personal perception (Appiah 15-16). The participants in the GZM discussion express an ownership of identity which often makes them unwilling representatives of their culture. As such, a high level of skepticism may be directed to a Muslim man or woman as to the GZM itself.

When deaths are caused by violent events, the idealization of what was lost further complicates a world view. From a post about the suspicions representative of many Americans’ attitudes and beliefs about the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque, many related concepts were explored, concepts that brought an understanding of the many factors that Americans blame for the terrorist attacks. During the discussion, it was clear that an old wound had been opened up, and in the course of this paper we also briefly analyzed the discussion as an expression of the stages of grief. In such a context, tensions run high on both sides of the debate.  Still, bereavement is a process which demands time and reflection, and not enough time has passed. The media perceptions and biographies are still rose-colored; American anthems continue to sing about war and honor. These views may or may not be justified, but, regarding the proposed construction of the Cordoba House in New York City, both sides are having a one-way conversation. Only the everyday people, such as those in the forum or at their cubicles, are really talking about it.

References

Appiah, K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Print.

Cagle, D. (n.d.) Daryl Cagle’s Political Cartoonists Index. Retrieved 22 Aug 2010 from <http://www.cagle.com/news/GroundZeroMosque/main.asp>

“Spooks”. (2010, July 21.) Message posted to MicSem Discussion Forum: http://www.micsem.org/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=7679