- Image via Wikipedia
9/11 marks the anniversary of the most destructive terrorist attack on America. While this date is often marked with solemn events in memory of the dead, a pastor in my adopted state of Florida (I’m from Maine) had planned to hold a Quaran burning on this day. Oddly enough, he has also claimed that only the radicals would be against burning the Quran.
Government and military officials in the United States had tried to encourage the pastor to cancel his event. The main reasons were that this action will harm America’s relationship with Muslims and that it will put American forces in danger. Of course, the officials do agree that the pastor had the right to take this action on the basis of the right to free expression.
Not surprisingly, the people who are opposed to the mosque that is supposed to be constructed near ground zero were quick to argue that the two situations are analogous. The gist of the analogy is that while people have a right to build a mosque near ground zero (just as they have a right to burn the Quran), they should not do so (just as people should not burn the Quran). This does have a certain appeal. After all, if the fact that burning the Quran will antagonize Muslims means that it should not be burned, then it would seem to also be the case that the mosque should not be built because it will antagonize people. Some might even go so far as to say that the mosque should not be built so as to avoid violence against Muslims (just as the Quran should not be burned to avoid an increase in violence against American soldiers).
Perhaps the two situations are analogous and both fall under a single principle: actions should not be taken that will damage relations and lead to increased violence. In the case of burning the Quran, this would certainly seem to damage relations with Muslims and also incite some Muslims to seek vengeance by attacking people (most likely those who have no significant connection to those burning the books). In the case of the mosque, its construction will damage relations between some Americans and Muslims and might well lead to violence against Muslims. As such, if the Quran should not be burned, then the mosque should not be built near ground zero (and vice versa).
Of course, accepting a principle that we should be, in effect, hostage to those who are willing to engage in violence in response to what they do not like does not seem very appealing (whether the violence is in response to a book burning or a mosque building).
However, perhaps the two situations are different in a key way that breaks the analogy. In both cases, people are (or will be) very angry. In both cases, people wish to act on the basis of established freedoms (religion in one case, expression in the other). However, there seems to be an important distinction between building a mosque and burning the Quran. To be specific, building the mosque does not seem to be intended as an insult against the victims of 9/11 (some of whom were Muslim). After all, the Pentagon has a non-denominational chapel (dedicated to those killed at the Pentagon and on the plane that hit it) where Muslims hold prayer services and this was never taken as an insult. As such, it seems odd to take the mosque as an intentional insult against those who feel insulted. In contrast, burning the Quran as part of a 9/11 event can really only be taken as an insult and an attack on the faith. It would also be especially insulting to the Muslims who were murdered in the attack.
It might be replied that the builders of the mosque secretly intend to insult those who are insulted by its construction. However, this claim would seem to be based on equally secret evidence. Obviously enough, the fact that some people feel insulted by it hardly counts as evidence for such an intention on the part of those who plan to build the mosque. Until evidence of such intent is forthcoming, it seems reasonable to accept that the builders did not intend to insult anyone.
There is also the question of who the mosque is supposed to be insulting. After all, it cannot be an insult against the Muslims who were murdered by their fellow Muslims. It also cannot be an insult against the victims who believed in freedom of religion. Overall, it seems mainly to be an insult against those who see themselves as insulted by it. However, they seem to have little right to be insulted by this mosque.
Thus, there seems to be a possible relevant difference between the two situations. In the case of the mosque, those behind the project seem to have no intent to insult anyone and these seems to be no clearly defined victim of the alleged insult, other than those who see themselves as insulted. In the case of the book burning, that seems to involve a clear intent to attack the faith and it seems reasonable for people to consider such an action as an insult and an attack. This does not, however, mean that they would be justified in responding with violence.
To use another analogy, the mosque situation seems to be like a case in which someone is rationally talking about a subject that some might take issue with (such as arguing for or against same sex marriage) and the Quran burning situation seems to be like a white person repeatedly saying the N-word to African Americans. While both are covered by the freedom expression, it is unreasonable to take offense with the first situation but quite reasonable to take offense in the second. It also seems reasonable to think that people should not say racist things, even though they have the right to do so.
If this line of reasoning is plausible, then the mosque should be allowed while the Pastor should not engage in his book burning (despite having the right to do so). As such, it is good that he decided to cancel the event.
“Perhaps the two situations are analogous and both fall under a single principle: actions should not be taken that will damage relations and lead to increased violence.” -Has anyone said that building the mosque would lead to more violence? As far as burning the Quaran the left seems to put for the premise that burning the books is unacceptable yet legal where the violence to soldiers is acceptable yet illegal. I have yet to hear a Liberal say, the eventual outcome of burning the Quaran might be violence against the tropps but is very unacceptable if it does. I only hear Liberals say how unacceptable the Quaran burning would be. I think violence over the mosque at Ground Zero would be just as unacceptable but I didn’t even think the idea was out there.
Actually, the sponsors of the GZM have said that violence is likely if the mosques isn’t built.
Asked if it’s really a good idea to go ahead with his plans to build a mosque and Islamic center at an address so close to Ground Zero that it has become a flash point, Rauf gave a reply that boils down to a threat. Rauf said that if his Cordoba House does not get built on his chosen site near Ground Zero, “The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.”
http://blogs.forbes.com/claudiarosett/2010/09/10/if-we-dont-build-it-they-will-kill-you/?boxes=opinionschannellatest
“To use another analogy, the mosque situation seems to be like a case in which someone is rationally talking about a subject that some might take issue with (such as arguing for or against same sex marriage)….” More like someone talking rationally to a priest(that is against same sex marriage) and then telling him there will be a same sex marriage in his church whether he likes it or not. Seriously Mike you have an odd way of looking at things. I’m seeing all that Liberals have to offer in an argument against something. Look through all of the posts. The trend is if one dissagrees with a Liberal idea then they are a hater, biggot or a racist. That seems to be all if degrades to. Your example shows as much. The Liberal side is rational talking about a Mosque while the Quran burners are like whites saying the N-word. You picture paints my hypothesis perfectly.
I think you are surrounded by the intelligencia so much and for so long that you have a hard time seeing anything as well thought out and rational when it comes to opposing the Liberal viewpoint. For instance, with the Mosque at Ground Zero the left thinks that any opposition to it is anti Islamic hate. While I am opposed I am as a rational man trying to think what is in the best interest for the Imam. It is totally up to them to build the Mosque there or not. I realize this. The purpose of this Mosque as said in so many words on seperate occasions is to build a bridge to help and heal relations between the Muslim and Western world. To me, if I were the Imam I would think building the Mosque where there is major opposition to doing so and ignoring all of the opposition would be counter productive to the symbol of the Mosque. He is acting like he can force this good will between two worlds when it is a give and take. In the end it will be give from the opposition side and take from the side trying to extend good will. I just don’t get it. It is only logical.
When extending an olive branch it should not be forced on another even if they don’t want it or it quickly becomes covered with thorns.
The fact of the matter is that the builders of the GZM worship the same god as the terrorists of 9/11, and that is why people are offended.
It is true that moderates don’t support the violent tactics of the extremists, but that is because they believe these tactics are not effective, not because they desire a different outcome.
And that outcome is not a mosaic of different faiths living in peace and harmony.
But, the terrorists of 9/11 worship the same god as the Christians and the Jews. While I am not a master of theology, the monotheistic faiths all seem to agree that there is but one God and all seem to generally accept they have the same deity. Of course, the Jews and Muslims do not accept the Trinity, but that rather makes for a pantheon of gods rather than monotheism (unless one saves the day with some clever metaphysics)..
It would seem that the fact that Islam does not recognize the divinity of Christ seems rather significant when discussing whether Islam and Christianity really worship the same god.
Only if you think Christ is God. The medieval philosophers had a heck of a time grinding metaphysics to make God 3 and 1 at the same time. But, that really helped develop the notion of multiple location, universals, and essence. This helped fuel philosophical debate to this day. Of course, when we philosophers make stuff up, people are a bit less likely to kill each other over the various positions on the imaginary entities.
One aspect of this issue that no one mentions is that many religions fairly casually say that various people deserve eternal torment.
If Islam (or Christianity for that matter) says that I deserve to roast in Hell for eternity, isn’t that a far greater insult than burning their holy book?
Yes.
Of course, there is much to be said for taking the moral high ground.
An important distinction between the factions involved in this series of events has been overlooked by the esteemed blogger.
The result of Koran burning and the potential result of relocating or not building the GZM are the same: Violence by offended Muslims in the Middle East. I sincerely doubt 9/11 families or anyone outside the Middle East will do anything disruptive. Essentially the threat (or potential threat) is from one side. Is unflinching tolerance a valid response to boundless intolerance?
While there is no direct evidence the GZM was built to offend, one can not doubt that Imam Rauf is intelligent enough to know exactly what the consequences would be. There are plenty of mosques in NYC, and any one of them would welcome 100 million dollars to expand their facilities. Why did Imam Rauf fail to explore that option first?
Perhaps a Christian and Jewish center in Riyadh that explained these religions to our Muslim friends would help to build bridges between us?
Mike,
Sorry for posting this openly but your email address on TPM is not displaying properly…
Another commenter and I left a couple of posts in regard to this article when you posted it on TPM. The comments seem to have upset Jeremy Stangroom who deleted them. I believe he deleted them because the comments made him look bad. Seeing as it was your post, I would like to know if you are aware of this, if you are aware of the comments/context, and as a philosopher, if you approve of such actions?
Jeremy did email me about deleting the posts. I’m writing a post about deleting posts today. 🙂
Mike,
Will you be posting that on this website? It appears Jeremy has blocked me from even seeing TPM. I got several “403 Forbidden” messages when accessing TPM last night and according to a friend, it wasn’t down. Also, I’d like the opportunity to comment, provided that is acceptable to you.
Both this site and the TPM blog.
Richard Mobby said he likes dick
Uh huh.