So, this Ground Zero mosque debate...
After all of the facebook statuses I have seen about it, I decided to post the following:
With all due respect, those of you who think building on ground zero has anything to do with our constitution, you are wrong. That being said, I am going to go finish up my giant gun installation to put onto the Columbine campus.
Although it was a general comment, and really meant to be a joke at the end, it has sparked a very heart-felt and emotional conversation on my facebook wall. It was half-heartedly directed at the following comment made by an improv peer (who I respect very much):
You know what I don't want near Ground Zero? Bigots. Please stay a good ten blocks away. This leaves room for the Constitution, which did not change on Sept. 11.
First, I am in no way a bigot. I am Jewish and that alone lends itself to much hatred and discrimination (I saw a client today with a swastika tattoo as well as a picture of three burning klansmen with the National Socialist Party flag tattooed on his forearm- nice guy though...). My moms parents were holocaust survivors and what they went through was unspeakable. Many clients (mostly Hispanic, some African American, some white, some Middle Eastern-yes, including Muslims!) come through our office and they get utmost respect, attention, and dedication in any case they have. I have had several fights with family members and friends due to my progressive attitudes (yet I don't consider myself a liberal- I voted for McCain at the American Embassy in Israel), and while racist joke or comment might come out of my mouth once in a while on stage or among those who share my sense of humor, I am in no way a bigot, racist, nor do I practice any other form of non-acceptance.
Second, as of right now, building a mosque on Ground Zero is not a legal issue but a moral one. Freedom of speech, religion, bla bla bla, it is much more complicated than that and if you would like for me to give you a run down of constitutional law, I would be happy to do so.
If this mosque were going up in South Africa, maybe there would be some constitutional net to catch this argument. Their constitution is amazing and raises the bar for all future constitutions and amendment. For example, respect and dignity is literally superior to freedom of speech and expression, and discrimination based on sexual orientation is expressly forbidden (although as far as I can remember they are still only allowed to have civil unions and not marry...). I am a big fan of the South African constitution (I was there in March for a constitutional rights seminar through a law school class), and you should check it out here: http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/index.htm.
So far, within two hours of posting my comment, I have received two "likes," two positive feedback comments, one positive "fb chat" conversation, one "I'm not sure how I feel" "fb chat" conversation, and one negative comment made by the esteemed improvist who wrote the comment that sparked the debate in the first place. That's five positives, one negative, and one neutral. I should mention that my funny-neutral-stand up comic-friend, not from Switzerland but from West Virginia, cleverly likened building the mosque on Ground Zero to "Charlton Heston to holding an NRA convention at Columbine (which he did)," or to "building a water park near Katrina."
Wait! One of my "like"-ers just wittingly added, "It's a matter of taste, I'm off to build my Nazi tribute statute at Auchwitz. What? I have the right, don't I?" Well said, my friend.
My sentiments exactly. This is a matter of taste and morals, or if you will, respect and honor for those who died during the September 11 attacks. I refuse to get a tattoo because I envision the Nazi's carving numbers into my grandmother's forearm. That doesn't mean I can't do it, it means I don't want to out of respect.
My supportive fb-chatter told me that she read that there is a 70%/30% divide between mosque-building non-supporters versus supporters, which is quite large and decisive for Americans. I don't know this source of information though, so don't quote me on it.
Wait! New update: another fellow improviser added another negative comment. The score is presently
Sally: 5 Mosque:2
He wrote:
Let me try something here - "Guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people." "Planes don't kill people; people with planes kill people." So the WTC analogue to a gun installation at Columbine would be an aviation museum, and the Columbine analogue to a Mosque at ground zero would be...well, the killers were kids, so I guess a school? Hold on...
Thus concludes your daily dose of J.R. Brand irreverence.
No wait, I've got a better one - people oppose a Mosque because reactionary twits blame Islam for the 9/11 attacks. Reactionary twits also blame video games for the Columbine massacre, so I guess what would REALLY be offensive is opening up a video arcade at Columbine...
Ok, I'm not gonna lie: I don't really understand where he is going and what he is saying with this, but I think it's a negative so I counted it as such. And who is he calling a reactionary twit? If Bush had gotten up from his child-sized mini chair in the middle of story time in some classroom and declared war, he would deserve to be called a reactionary twit. But he did the opposite, and is still called a reactionary twit. Everyone is eventually a reactionary twit, so I have no idea what to do with that statement. What I do know is that while I certainly don't blame 9/11 on Islam in general, I blame 9/11 on radical Islam. In fact, the people who are responsible for 9/11 [read: Bin Laden] expressly cite Islam and Allah as the reasons behind the attacks. I find value in the Islamic religion and some great lessons can be learned from it. In fact, they are my brothers and sisters. But radical anything is wrong, just as the radical Israeli who assassinated Izchak Rabin (the infamous Israeli prime minister) was wrong to murder him.
Wait! Another update! Ok guys, this is great. The numbers are climbing (in my favor), and I anticipate many interesting comments within the next day or so, but I'm not going to post all of them, because they are all so great.
On the other hand, the original commenter for whom my response was intended is clearly in the lead, with 12 "likes" and four positive comments, and I don't know how many "fb chats" or other forms of feedback. She also has one hour on me.
I find this to be a really fascinating dialogue. First, I love intelligent people who can back up a conversation with something substantial. I can't stand talking to you if you have no reason other than being a 'bama supporter to support the building of the Mosque. I also don't like when people use more voluminous words just to try to sound smarter. It clouds your argument and makes you look like an extremist nerd.
The most interesting thing to me is the dichotomy between those who find "political correctness" to be the superior argument (those more along my lines), and those who find "liberal progressiveness" to be the superior argument (those against me). Both of these are extremely American sentiments. In Europe and Israel no one gives a shit about being politically correct. Everyone can do or say what they want without worrying about being scrutinized by pop-culture blogs and "Entertainment Tonight," in exchange for fifteen minutes of hellish fame, or worrying about being fired for saying something that can be misconstrued as a racist comment.
For example, Shirley Sherrod, the black United States Department of Agriculture employee was fired over false allegations of racism. The whole picture was missing. I think that is what is currently going on in this mosque debate. Did I mention Mrs. Sherrod was fired by the Obama administration? Although Obama himself never made the call, I think this would be a good example of "reactionary twits."
There is also a gap between my personal beliefs and what I think is really going on here. My personal belief is that a mosque should not go up directly in front of where 3000 people died on 9/11. I think that idea is disgusting and offensive, not only as a Jew and Israeli but as an American. I think that it is a spit in the face and a stab in the back to everyone involved, including all innocent Muslims, who probably are ashamed of what the radical muslims have done in the name of the religion they share. In addition, here is my personal guarantee that there is no way this mosque will ever be built, and that while the debate is interesting, it is all together pointless. The moment they break ground and begin construction, you can bet that I will be the first person in line to see the mosque, and respect its (hopefully honorable) intentions.
What I think is really going on, as one of my facebook commenters stated, is that Obama is trying to bridge a gap between Muslims and Americans. However, I personally feel as though this is more a job for an ambassador, and not the president and leader of our country. I feel as though there are many gaps to be bridged that have not gotten as much national attention and outcry such as setting up a stronger national dialogue with illegal immigrants and impovershed Americans (aside from healthcare, which I don't think was the perfect solution).
In fact, as far as I know Bush had a very good relationship with many Muslim leaders. I remember several images of Bush golfing with Muslims and sharing coffee talking about oil and other deals. Those that burned the bridge between Americans and Muslims were, unfortunately for the rest of Islam, radical Islamic terrorists. Obama was smart to have stayed quiet about it for so long and should have stayed that way, keeping his personal beliefs to himself.
I have to strongly disagree with my friend's comment about building a mosque near Ground Zero is just like building a mosque near a woman's center or a synagogue. Ground Zero is a melting pot of ashes of all different kinds of people, including innocent Muslims. It is not targeting one group, such as women, or Jews, or blacks, but Americans as a whole who died in the name of something they did not believe in and maybe never even heard of.
I find it hard to believe that the intentions of building a Mosque at this specific location is completely random, neutral, or filled with the best of intentions. It does not make sense to say that the original people who wanted to build this Mosque thought to do so for personal reasons that had nothing to do with 9/11. Why there? Why where so many people died, and where so many feel so strongly about it? Is it possible that it was a completely random occurrence? I highly doubt that. They knew there would be issues and dialogue. Building a mosque is not controversial. Building it on Ground Zero is. If that's not provocation, I don't know what is.
