Islam in America: Government Class Edition.

Intro and Background:

The national dialogue over the proposed Islamic Community Center: Park 51 struck something of a raw nerve with me. Much like when you bang your elbow or knee on the corner of furniture and then hop around the room screaming expletives, my anger had a similar reactionary bent to it. Over time I was able to synthesize a number of arguments into this essay here.

This essay is less essay and more of a fancy Facebook post. (For example: I have a tendency to use capitalization liberally and in such a way that makes me feel good.) It started when a friend posted a news story about how Ron Paul had supported the “Ground Zero Mosque” and my friend admitted he might have changed his mind. It was somewhat unclear as to what he met, but almost as soon as I agreed with Ron Paul, a number of individuals responded against me, including my friend’s father. The ensuing debate went on for several weeks encompassing disagreements over the nature of Islam, oppression in Islamic countries, and whether all Muslims were complicit in the attack of 9/11. Implicit in the debate seemed to be the superiority of Christianity and that as long as the Government didn’t get involved; stopping the “Mosque” would not be a violation of the 1^st Amendment. (Which, I guess, is technically true.)

The context of this is an angry, frustrated summer of Mosque protests and Koran burnings. I’m sure I missed a number of important points, but then this is written in the context of a debate of specifics with an attempt to have universal readership. I hope it is successful.

Response to Kirt Poovey:

Unless we find a way to take this conversation in a productive direction this will be my final response. I see no point in continuing a conversation where the gap between the narratives we believe are so incredibly wide as to be almost insurmountable. In an attempt redirect this into positive territory I will point out where I agree with you while looking at Muslim oppression, jihad, when we should interfere with religion, and the consequences of doing too much.

Part 1: Violence and Oppression

First and foremost I agree that Radical Islam is a threat to world stability and safety. It is important that we do everything in our power to stop its spread across the world and its tendency to poison debates (like this one) about Islam. Also, while I disagree with you most of the specific details… the “facts”… you are correct that (at least as far as I can tell from tenuous internet browsing) Muslim countries have tendency to be intolerant of other religions within their borders. Without doing a thorough cultural examination I am willing to admit I might have been too hasty in defending them. Clearly, the countries that choose to be this way are reprehensible and unjust, but let us not emulate them.

To that end of not emulating Muslim countries’ persecution of non-Muslims, I would like to prevent their persecution in the United States (that and it’s constitutional). According to Human Right’s First.org: “In the United States, in 2006, the FBI reported 156 incidents and 191 offenses of anti-Islamic nature, involving 208 victims. The offenses included 24 aggravated assaults, 30 simple assaults, 79 cases of intimidation, 1 robbery, 5 burglaries, 51 cases involving destruction or damage to property, and 1 ‘other’ offense.” You speak of looking at how Islam has been a problem in Europe? Well I’m sure it doesn’t help that violence like this is propagated against Muslims across Europe. This suggests to me that, much like in Northern Ireland, the conflict is more racial, cultural, and socio-economic than religious. Certainly people identify with the religion, but that doesn’t make it the true instigator.

Indeed, where we refuse to acknowledge that Muslims are also being persecuted we make it impossible to choose the best policies for this problem. We fail to see the bigger picture. That is, that while our western governments may not have policies in place to directly oppress Muslims (except for say, France) the oppression nevertheless occurs. Islamic governments and Sharia Law might sometimes be oppressive, limiting, and violent. Too bad they are not alone in having these lovely traits. In the West it’s pretty clear. Our governments don’t oppress (arguably). We do.

Your Iraq example is a pretty good case of how the majority chooses to oppress the minority outside of government control. What if the Christians were much more powerful than the Shia? Would they be able to perpetrate the violence against the Sunni and Shia and American Soldiers? Lest you think this is a ridiculous idea look to Northern Ireland or the Lebanese Civil War.

So it can be universally agreed that radical Islam is dangerous and— considerably less universal— that Muslim countries have a propensity for religious oppression. However, it must be remembered that they do not have a monopoly on oppression in this modern era. It can probably agreed that radical Anything is dangerous.

Part 2: On Jihad as a Hobby

I also agree with you that we should be willing to discuss, as part of the national dialogue, whether or not Islam as a whole is dangerous to our way of life. In fact, we might should extend this to all ideologies and all religions. Perhaps socialism isn’t all bad. Maybe too many Christians are running this country with the hope of an Apocalypse. Should black people be allowed to serve in the highest office? Does too much coffee lead to more wars?

All these are acceptable discussions to have within the context of freedom of speech, however a few of these can only be asked by people that still retain a certain level of ignorance with regard to the subject matter. I think the question of Islam is one of these. The fact that this has become such an important question means that I have to address it whether or not I think it is a legitimate question.

Islam does in many contexts seek to “take over the world.” It is not alone in this attempt. It could be argued that the whole point of the Bible is the subjugation of the world. (If you want me to do it, I will. It will be great fun and I will take great pleasure in it.) However most Christians would argue that the Bible actually seeks to free people from their sin and make the world a better place through Peace and Love and other Hippy Values.

Islam is much the same. Most discussions of Jihad I have seen teach it as an internal struggle against sin. The very fact that most Muslims live peaceably in their community suggests that they are probably not all here to kill us. There does seem to be an underlying assumption in reaction against Islam that these Muslims are sleeper cells waiting to take us over and impose Sharia Law. This is absurd because it would require a level of organization that large diverse groups of people just don’t have.

It might be argued that they don’t need to be organized because this is what their religion teaches. Again, much like Christianity, they have many different sects and conflicts within their own religion, so without an actual internal understanding of Islam it’s dangerous to make statements about the universality of Muslim Jihad.

This is why, like any other religion in the United States, they have a right to practice their religion. They, like any religion in the United Sates, do not have a right to murder, rape, polygamy, child marriage or any other number of destructive and illegal activities. To oppose Islam as a whole is to make sweeping generalizations. These generalizations could soon be aimed at Mormons, Christians, Atheists and whoever else the masses and state decide they don’t like.

Part 3: When to Interfere with Religions

Any ideology or religion has its share of good and bad, nuts and geniuses. These, at least hypothetically, can be plotted along a statistical bell curve. The extremes are on either side, but the vast majority are in the middle. Most people just want to live out their lives and be happy no matter their belief system.

Islam is no different. Certainly in modern times Islam has evolved some particularly anti-social tendencies. Islam also has problems with how it treats women. There are cases of honor killings famously reported within the United States. Clearly we have our own domestic Islamic Terrorists—as well as Right Wing, Eco, and other kinds of domestic terrorists. Where any group of people within the United States commits crimes we will prosecute those crimes. This issue contrasts with the issue of religion. We, as Americans, do not outlaw religions. We do not interfere with the free exercise of religions based on our 1st Amendment. This is not even something that has a caveat. An atrocity committed because of a religion is not religious behavior. It is an atrocity. A crime.

We stop the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when they marry off underage girls. We arrest Evangelical Christians when they shoot abortion doctors. Would it be better to stop these things before they happen? Of course. Is the answer then to try to limit Mormonism or Christianity? Of course not.

We do not allow the statistical outliers of these groups of people to usurp our view of the groups themselves. We persecute the outliers, not the whole bell curve.

Part 4: The Consequences of Interference

“With that, do we really want the federal government determining limits on religion because once it can define, then it can go crazy (as it has done in the past on other issues?” You ask.

As I have recently discovered, we may not have to ask the federal government to do it, it looks like the masses might make the decision for us. Clearly we both agree on the potential consequences of the government interfering with religion. There’s another dimension to this problem besides the domestic one: the problem it creates for us abroad.

We do not want our enemies to be able to point to us as hypocrites. As General Patraeus has pointed out, some of this mass hysteria behavior does have real world foreign policy consequences. In Iraq and Afghanistan COIN (Counter Insurgency) strategy relies on the ability of American soldiers to earn support from the local Muslim populous. To the extent that Americans back home are seen as Anti-Muslim makes a hard situation impossible. This movement to demonize Islam could actually guarantee a loss in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The insurgency in both countries already works to demonstrate US Soldiers oppress them as an occupational force of Christian Crusaders. The events of the past month have handed them their own rhetoric on a silver platter.

Further, if we choose to make even moderate (or real) Muslims our potential enemy we bolster radical Islam’s power. If we do not allow them to work with us, many of them will turn against us. This is how sectarianism works. It should be easy to be a moderate Muslim in the United States. That way, they have no reason to seek shelter with evil people who would love to use them against us. However, if Christians flock to leaders who make them fear Muslims, Muslims will flock to leaders who make them fear Christians and this problem will get much worse.

The consequences of interference are dire. At home and abroad.

Part 5: Conclusions

“My most important point is this – it is time for we the people of the United States to begin a discussion (as difficult as it may be) as to how far we allow our ‘freedom of religion’ to go.” You say. I feel that I have answered this above. We allow freedom of religion to go all the way. We prosecute crimes. It’s not cut and dry, but it makes the important distinction that needs to remain clear.

My most important point is this—this issue is based on a misunderstanding of Islam and the seductiveness of fear, and not only is it against our values, it could ultimately lead to our destruction.

As a (former) soldier I swore to defend the Constitution and follow the orders of the President and officers above me. I did not swear to defend the people of the United States. Why? My assumption is this: because someday The People, riled up by fear and sectarianism, may seek to destroy freedoms. We are the United States in our freedoms. Not in our fears.