Monday, August 16, 2010

Obama, Islam and The Daily Mail

Oooh, it has been a while since I last tore apart a Daily Mail article. Then I saw this one, that combines largely incoherent rage against two of their favourite targets (Islam and Obama) and... and how could I resist?

The headline is:
'Provocative, insensitive and uncaring': Fury after Obama backs mosque near site of September 11 disaster
Two points - first of all, being "provocative, insensitive and uncaring" is something that The Daily Mail should know all about - it is what they do all day, every day. In fact, it should probably the tagline for their hate-rag.

Secondly, I thought that September 11th was a terrorist attack - the use of the word "disaster" seems curiously restrained for the Mail. They missed a chance to be hyperbolic there.

On with the article:
Barack Obama has been hit by a furious backlash from victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks after he backed plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
As we shall come to see, the sentence above should read that Obama "...has been hit by a furious backlash from some victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and some Republicans..." An important qualification that the Mail didn't see fit to mention. Then again, imprecise terms help to create the hysteria, don't they? As this next section shows.
The proposed site for the 13-storey building is close to where almost 3,000 people died nine years ago after Muslim hijackers flew two jet airliners into the World Trade Center.
Oooo, and there is is - the motherload. Note the phrase "... Muslim hijackers". Can we dispute that? Technically not - the hijackers were Muslim. Yet they were also male - so why not write "male hijackers"? They were also human - so why not write "human hijackers"? Why not list their individual ethnicities? The problem with the use of the term "Muslim" - what makes it misleading at the very least - is the broad nature of the phrase. Islam is a religion followed by millions across the world and has different factions that believe in different things. The 9/11 hijackers were a particular kind of Muslim - they were Islamic fundamentalist militants. And as such, they were divorced from the vast majority of Muslims across the world. The use of the word "Muslim" in this context is misleading as it does not take into account the breadth of beliefs and different levels of fundamentalism inherent within that religion.

BTW, fact fans, the new mosque is two blocks away from the site of Ground Zero. Just in case you are wondering.
Mr Obama expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks, at a White House meal celebrating Ramadan.

He said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’
Let's have a round of applause for Obama - a man who thus far in his presidency has been more than a little underwhelming has said something that is simultaneously courageous and absolutely right. America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion - and this freedom has to be protected, particularly if the religious building is being built on private land in accordance with the law.
His speech on Friday was heavily criticised by a group representing the families of victims of the terrorist attack, who called the plan a ‘deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah’.
Bullshit. It will have quite the opposite effect - by not discriminating against Islam based on the fanaticism of a tiny minority of Muslims, his speech will reduce and slow the rate of radicalisation. To do the opposite - to ban this mosque on the basis of an ignorant tainting of all Muslims as fundamentalist will increase alienation and in doing so increase the chance of more bloodshed in the name of Allah.
Debra Burlingame, a sister of a pilot killed when his plane was flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon and a spokesperson for victims’ families, said: ‘Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.’
Barack Obama was actually talking about a site two blocks away from "the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago". Furthermore, religious tolerance is part of America's values - and what Obama said is completely in line with those values.

BTW the Pentagon, where this lady's brother died, is in Washington, not New York. Wonder whether she objected to the rebuilding of the Pentagon? Probably not, because that wasn't about the "Muslims", just the US war machine that has, through years of attacks and aggression, helped to provoke the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists.
Peter King, a Republican congressman in New York, said the President had been wrong to back the plan, adding: ‘It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero.’
Ooo, looky, a Republican congressman in an election year who doesn't agree with the sitting US Democrat president. Who'd have thunk it, eh?
Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, condemed the President for a 'gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.'
Well, Regenhard is entitled to her opinions. Just as Muslims are if they want to express their religious beliefs in a mosque a few streets away from Ground Zero. In this case, on private property. The fact that Regenhard has lost someone does not make her opinion more valid that the opinions of others - tragedy is not a trump card in public political debate.
Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.

'The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding,' he said.
So, the House Minority Leader is opposing the sitting President in an election year - again, nothing startling here. It would actually be more startling - and, indeed, interesting - if said representative agreed with Obama. As it stands, the correct response is "of course he'd say that - it's his job."
New York Republican Congressman Peter King added: 'President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero.'
Hmmm, hasn't this already been said?
Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida said: 'President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

'Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else.'
This is more interesting if only because the person speaking is a Democrat. However, for all the world, he sounds a lot like a candidate in an election year trying to jump onto a populist bandwagon. And he's also wrong - he's conflating "Islamic terrorists" with "Islam".
However, Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill in the 9/11 attacks, disagreed and claimed a mosque would be 'a fitting tribute'.

'This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience. This is what moderate Islam is all about,' she said.
A-ha! Someone who gets it! Magic. And the fact that she tragically lost her brother shows that the families of the bereaved are not the homogenous entity they are sometimes made out to be for the sake of political expediency.
Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida yesterday, the President said: 'I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.'
Obama said that 'my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.'
Uh-huh. Obama also gets the point about religious freedom in the US - a principle on which that country was founded that appears to be on the cusp of being forgotten.
The White House insisted Mr Obama was not backing away from his initial comments.

Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'
Good - Obama shouldn't back away from his comments. And I'd have more sympathy with the anti-mosque brigade if they were looking to ban all religious sites of worship within a two block radius of Ground Zero. But they're not; and even if they were, I'd only have more sympathy with them - not believe that they are correct.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist said: 'I think he's right - I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others.

'I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't.'
Excellent! A Republican who gets it as well! No wonder he's having to run for the Senate as an Independent rather than Republican, though.
There had been mounting pressure for Obama to speak out on the issue after his political enemies, including former candidate for the vice presidency Sarah Palin, criticised the plan.
How predictable - Sarah Palin adopts the ignorant, populist stance on a issue. How deeply tedious that woman is.
The site was bought by the not-for-profit group the Cordoba Initiative for £3 million.

It plans to spend £75 million on a complex including a prayer room, mosque and ‘September 11 memorial and contemplation space’.

Developer Sharif el-Gamal said: ‘We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our President’s words.’
In a sense el-Gamal shouldn't be grateful to Obama - he should be grateful to the fact that America was based, in part, on the concept of religious freedom.

Which is the point here. Muslims have a right to worship just as much as any other religious believer. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that Islam is a load of toss just like every other religion. But if you are going to have a free society, then you have to allow people to be free to believe in nonsensical toss. Otherwise, you are discriminating; you become illiberal. You become an enemy of freedom.

And if you want to understand just how crass the whole idea of not having a mosque near the site of Ground Zero, then just imagine the outcry if Northern Ireland banned Catholic Churches because the IRA once carried out terrorist atrocities in that country. Same principle here; just a different religion...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

4 Comments:

At 5:23 pm , Anonymous DomF said...

A different but not insane-Mail point of view:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/full/

 
At 7:58 pm , Blogger TonyF said...

Much as I despise all religions equally, Mr Obama is doing the right thing. Also, the murderers in the aircraft did not care how many muslims they killed. I do not know how many actually were killed, and I have never heard a figure mentioned.

 
At 8:14 pm , Blogger asquith said...

I don't think there "SHOULD" be a mosque there or anywhere else, because I think religion is shite. But the point is that I see no realistic way in which it can, or should, be stopped by the law.

I also have no idea what a denunciation by Obama would have achieved, in my view Republicans are just taking anything they can possibly use as an excuse for slagging Obama off. Some of it is just incredible.

Gingrich at least is clever enough to know this, he just doesn't care. Like Philip Hollobone he is trying to manufacture outrage & proclaim something he knows won't actually be done in order to make cunts think he takes a hard line.

Christopher Hitchens:
http://www.slate.com/id/2263334

I also liked what Alex Massie had to say.

 
At 9:37 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Asquith,

Agreed; religion is shite, but since people believe in it, the law should respect their right to think shite, regardless of what brand of shite they choose.

And you're right re. Gingrich, Hollobone and their ilk: they are playing at populism because it is politically expedient to do so. Of course, it is also repugnant to do so, but that's never bothered people like that.

TNL

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home