Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said:
At its essence, our position is about sensitivity. Everyone -- victims,opponents and proponents alike -- must pay attention to the sensitivities involved without giving in to appeals to, or accusations of, bigotry. Ultimately, this was not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center would un-necessarily cause some victims more pain. And that wasn't right.
When you frame the debate in terms of sensitivity, it all seems so reasonable, but is it? Sensitivity is such a subjective standard that it can used to disguise almost any motivation, whether noble or crass.
A few examples.
In the 1950s, the University of Texas fought a rear guard action to limit entry of African Americans into the school. One of the ways they did this was to only allow black students into classes which were predominately male, such as engineering. That way, white girls would be spared the insensitivity of having to attend classes with the "coloreds." What passed for sensitivity in the 1950s appears as plain old bigotry today.
Much of the international community (by which I mean Europe) considers Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to be insensitive. Should Israel forsake its security because some Belgians have had their sensitivities offended?
I have a real problem with someone saying yes you have the legal right to do something, but we think you shouldn't because it is insensitive. In this case, the proposed Islamic center is intended to replace a Manhattan mosque which has outgrown its space. The existing mosque has been there for 30 years and is twelve blocks from Ground Zero. There is no indication that the existing mosque has any ties to radicals.
If it is insensitive to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, would it have been insensitive to build one on the existing site, which is twelve blocks away? If it would be insensitive to allow a new mosque to be built within twelve blocks of Ground Zero, would it be insensitive to allow an existing one to remain in place? If the families of the victims of 9/11 said that it would be insensitive to allow mosques in the home towns of any of the victims, would we be required to honor their wishes? Where does it end?
Fareed Zakharia has an excellent piece in Newsweek. He points out that after 9/11, it became the policy of the United States government to provide support to the non-radical elements of the Muslim community. He points out that if this mosque were in a foreign country, the U.S. would probably be paying for it. This brings up two points. First, isn't it insensitive to tell Muslims who have had a mosque in Manhattan for 30 years that they are not welcome in their own country? Second, if we drive out the non-radical elements of the Muslim community, who will be left? Would our insensitivity give rise to the very thing we fear?
To me, it comes down to rights, not sensitivities. This is about freedom of religion and freedom of private property. Denying those fundamental American rights would be insensitive.
Post-script: When I went off to college, I noticed that there were some people who were always getting upset and demanding apologies. In time, I came to believe that some people just enjoy being upset. There wasn't much of a point in placating them, because they would find something else to be offended by. I think there is a parallel here. If you cave in to the most easily offended, you will be doing a lot of caving in.
No comments:
Post a Comment