By Candice Holdsworth
A female protestor wishes to make it perfectly clear: “This isn’t a political issue it’s a sensitivity issue.” A sentiment shared with the multitudes marching alongside her on the streets of New York, united in their vehement opposition to the building of a mosque in lower Manhattan, two blocks from Ground Zero. The argument put forward by their president, Barack Obama, is that the right to build the Cordoba Mosque is one enshrined in the American Constitution. In a piece titled “Our clueless professor trips over a New York mosque”, Pat Buchanan responded that it is not about whether they “can they build a mosque near ground zero?” it is a question of “should they build a mosque in the shadow of the twin towers, where 3 000 Americans were suffocated, crushed or burned to death by Islamic fanatics whose Muslim faith was integral to their mission of mass murder and to their identity?”
These two opposing perspectives, are pretty much representative of the debates I’ve had with family and friends on the issue. Most that oppose the building of the mosque become stymied when justifying their reasons for doing so. It seems to be based more upon on an almost intuitive feeling of discomfort or unease. The language that people use tends more towards the emotional, using words such as “offensive” or “inappropriate”. I must admit that, initially, upon first hearing about the Park 51 project I was instantly taken aback and entirely unsupportive of it. The location just seemed unduly provocative, and bound to cause unnecessary division. Obviously I am aware that, logically speaking, the wider Islamic community cannot be blamed for the 9/11 attacks, which were carried out by individuals. Any attempts to apportion collective guilt or blame would be, ultimately, misplaced. I would even go one step further and say that there are no rational arguments against the building of the mosque. At least how you would understand rational in the traditional sense, meaning an argument based on more than an inarticulate reluctance, or quite simply, what some may call an unexamined prejudice. It is also not an argument that translates coherently into public policy, or one that is able to present a legitimate philosophical challenge to constitutional wisdom.
However, I still feel somewhat conflicted and not totally resolved on the issue. On the one hand I can fully grasp, and even endorse, the religious argument. Indeed all should possess the right to freely practise a religion of their choosing, and not be discriminated against on that basis. Although it seems a tired argument, one cannot conflate terrorist extremists with ordinary Muslims. A generalisation of this kind makes very little sense. However, on the other hand the erection of such a building is unlikely to be met with such sentiment. The issue is too personal and inextricably wound up with feelings of anger and resentment. There is a fundamental disconnect between what ought to be the case, and how one actually feels. The controversy surrounding the Cordoba Mosque is but one example of this cognitive dissonance. Have you ever encountered that couple, the one that have an “open relationship”. Despite the systematic, and deeply philosophical reasons they give for choosing to pursue such a lifestyle, invariably, feelings of jealousy and insecurity arise and more often than not the arrangement is short-lived. Confession booths certainly aren’t filled with unrepentant, guilt-free non-sinners, spotlessly adhering to God’s holy law.
The ancient’s factored this emotion into their political philosophising, Aristotle’s Golden Mean functioned heterogeneously, acknowledging that sometimes an angry reaction is appropriate, in stark contrast to the cool rigidity of modern constitutional law. In this sense, the correct emotional response is rational. Perhaps we are too quick to dismiss an emotional reaction as needlessly irrational?
I can’t come to a definitive conclusion. I can keep reminding myself of all the logically sound reasons there are for not opposing the Cordoba Mosque, but …
Candice Holdsworth is a freelance writer who recently completed an MSc in political theory at the London School of Economics.
Author
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
