[lit-ideas] Re: Ground Zero Mosque's Saudi Patron
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:02:00 +0700
Lawrence made some comments that had nothing to do with the specific
criticisms I offered of the article to which he linked. Instead,
Lawrence lazily adopts the sloppy partisan rhetoric of 'left/right'
which dominates so much of American politics.
To offer evidence why the current unpleasantness requires a different
way of thinking, I will again point out that one of the patrons of the
center in dispute is a significant shareholder in News Corp. This
means that the Saudi who has provided funding for the center is also
heavily invested in the ongoing profitability of papers like the Wall
Street Journal and the New York Post, as well as Fox News.
The article Lawrence linked to is not 'right-wing' but rather a thinly
veiled attack on Islam. The references to the hijab and sharia imply
that the danger does not lie in a few individuals who take up the
banner of the Muslim Brotherhood, but rather, we must be suspicious of
any Muslim. This is a fundamentally anti-conservative attitude. Any
serious conservative should recognize that many Muslims share similar
basic commitments. The vast majority of Muslims are pro-business,
strong supporters of traditional institutions like marriage, as well
as law and order.
Groups like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are dangerous, and
people who support these groups must be challenged. However, these
groups are not existential threats to countries like the U.S. or even
Israel. Yet, so much of the rhetoric found in the opposition to the
center in New York City suggests such a threat. The perceived threat
lies not in groups like the Muslim Brotherhood but rather in the
growing number of Muslims in the U.S. It is this conflation of
dangerous groups like the Muslim Brotherhood with Muslims as a whole
that fans the current flames. Lawrence's article links the Muslim
Brotherhood with women who wear the hijab and men who value sharia,
and in doing so, implies that virtually all Muslims are deserving of
the suspicion that belongs to those connected to the Muslim
Brotherhood. Many of those protesting the center in New York City
emphasize the connection the 9/11 terrorists have to those behind the
center - all of them are Muslim - and in doing so, imply that all
Muslims are similar threats.
Any serious conservative will have nothing to do with this identity
politics. For the true conservative, it is irrelevant what religious
beliefs an individual holds, since conservative principles do not
belong to any particular religion or group of people. Conservative
principles are, rather, fundamental elements of any enduring society.
The true conservative does not judge people based on the ideas they
hold, but rather on how they act. For this reason, the true
conservative rejects any attempt to evaluate individuals according to
labels.
I don't know exactly what Lawrence means by 'right-wing', but the
article Lawrence linked to does not reflect conservative principles.
The author judges people according to their religious beliefs rather
than any facts or the truth. Perhaps right-wing types don't care
about these things, but as a conservative, I do. The article is
terrible. It doesn't show any concern for facts or evidence to
support its claims. It aims to promote suspicion of a group of people
on the basis of their religious beliefs, rather than on the basis of
evidence of specific threats. No conservative should encourage this.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
