On reading the moniker, "Ground Zero Mosque," I ask two questions immediately: first, is the building in question at Ground Zero and, second, is it a mosque? To address the first question, I did a bit of reading online about the proposed building's location. Turns out it's about two city blocks (by most estimates) away from the sprawling space that is known as "Ground Zero," itself about two blocks square. So how does this proposed building (currently an empty building that formerly housed some type of clothing concern) that is two blocks away become characterized as being at Ground Zero? I guess some people have drawn a circle around the former World Trade Center complex (a complex of six buildings) that is greater than two city blocks in radius, so that every building within that two city block (about a third of a mile, or 1760 feet, or about the length of six football fields for those of us in Alabama) is considered part of Ground Zero. Now, I saw a blog in which the blogger had taken pictures of the other buildings within that radius, which included a McDonalds, Burger King, a men's club, etc. Yet that blogger was being argumentative, something I wish to avoid.
The point seems to be that the proposed building is too close to Ground Zero for decency's sake (a question I will not address since it's already late and I need to sleep). So I have to ask, "What distance would be decent?" And I think this is the heart of the matter. I think some people, as I have seen in comments sections, would say our national boundary is a decent distance, i.e., that ANY mosque is this country is too close to Ground Zero, whether it be in Key West, or Anchorage, or San Diego. Perhaps this sentiment is prevalent as the subtext for much of the discussion of this proposed building: Muslims Go Home! Please know that I consider this sentiment to be unacceptable, to use a light term, since we've had Muslim Americans for over two hundred years now. And perhaps I'm being argumentative here as well: I think if I were to ask someone opposed to the building whether they thought the Muslims should go home (i.e., leave our country), that they would probably say that American citizens who happen to be Muslims are, in fact, American citizens and have as much right to be here as you or I.
Still, how close is too close? Would the proposed building be acceptable if it were, say, a mile away? Or would that, too, be considered part of Ground Zero? How about out of Manhattan? If one argued that the proposed building should be built outside of Manhattan, what about the mosques that currently exist in Manhattan? Should they move? For instance, the Assata Islamic Center (about which I know nothing) is roughly two miles away from Ground Zero? Is that too close? You see, somehow we've drawn an arbitrary line around Ground Zero, called it "hallowed ground" (which it may indeed be) and said the proposed building is inside that line and, thus, offensive. But where is the decent line? And who gets to draw it? Instead of asking these types of questions, our media (bless the "fourth branch of government"!) present the proposed building as a dividing line not between decent distance and indecent distance, but between you and me: are you on my side or not? Whose side are you on? So the real line is one that divides us, the citizenry, over an issue that is perhaps best left to the New Yorkers. After all, if what were talking about is drawing a line of decent respect around Ground Zero, who better than local New Yorkers to draw that line? They live there, they walk the streets, they know what is decent and respectful distance.
As to the second question, is it a mosque? Now, I've seen Mosques aplenty in Jerusalem. Here's a picture of one mosque's minaret looming over one traditional site of the garden tomb.
In the old city of Jerusalem you see this sort of thing all the time. Looming next to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is a Mosque whose minaret lights up in green neon at night. Mosques are like churches: there's a place for worship, a place for study, a place for music, perhaps a place for Friday afternoon pot lucks. But what does a building require to be a mosque? I don't know the answer to this.The proposed Islamic building sounds more to me like a mega church site. According to what I've been able to deduce from the "news," the proposed building is more like a community center with a prayer space tacked onto it, kind of like a mega church that has a gymnasium, a school, a pool, a weight room, a shopping center, a park and playground, and, oh yes, a worship space. Unlike a mega church, which usually comes with an impressive steeple, I have not read of plans for a minaret on the proposed building. So is it a mosque? To be useful to faithful Muslims, it must accommodate prayer five times a day (just like the Pentagon, to be argumentative, which has prayer space for the faithful Muslims serving there), so the plans include a prayer space. But is it a mosque? And how does one distinguish a community center from a mosque? Again, I'm ignorant about the details, but do you see my point?
The very phrase, "Ground Zero Mosque," engages ethoi and, inevitably, engages personas. As some civic body in New York City went quietly about its business of approving the petition of some Islamic body to build a community center two blocks north of the World Trade Center complex, some folks representing one ethos began complaining about it, saying it was disrespectful to those killed on 9/11/2001. That ethos, built of millions of personas in this country, expressed itself so clearly that its opposing ethos, build of millions of other personas in this country, pushed back, saying that its approval and potential construction was respectful to the founding principles of our country. The media, quick to make a buck, heightened these conflicting ethoi, thereby engaging the millions of personas who see themselves as having a stake in these ethoi, thereby advertising their sponsors' products all that more effectively. Whose side are you on? Whose side are YOU on?
Here's my proposal: let's all read original texts, not news (though the type of reading I'm advocating helps get to the ethoi underlying our media). At this time we all have so much access to original documents, such as press releases, building applications, meeting minutes, etc., that we don't have to rely on the media to report it to us. For instance, our media, both "sides," reported on President Obama's speech at the end of Ramadan party he hosted at the White House. You can easily find the full text of his speech online. You can read it for yourself. You can disengage from the media ethoi that wants to sell you product. If we find an issue that engages our personas through explicit or implicit ethoi (liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Christian or Muslim, etc.), let's all do some online research and jump over the media, find the original texts in all their complexity and nuance, read them, and then think about what we've read. I think that's a good start.
Real Soon Now I'm going to get that trialectic done and posted. I appreciate your patience. Please, read original texts. Thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment