There are two Americas, he says:
. . . an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English . . . . It looks back to a particular religious heritage . . . . It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.
These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.
The first America is the one of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." It is the America that President Obama and NY Mayor Blumberg described in their support of the right of Muslims to build the Mosque.
The second America sees the Mosque as an affront to the sensibilities of our pain from the 9/11 attacks, and it also harbors those who can't quite separate Islam from al Qaeda and those who mistrust foreigners anyway. In this case it includes both liberal New Yorkers and Tea Party ranters.
Obama came back with a sensible clarification of his position: Muslims have the right to build there, and it expresses our highest ideals to give them that right; but he's not saying that it is wise or sensitive on their part to build in that particular location.
The cause wasn't helped when a leader of Hamas declared that the Mosque must be built in that particular location. That will only fuel the fire of those who suspect ulterior motives, rather than the religious and educational function that is planned.
Douthat's point is similar to one I find increasingly cogent: so many of our major controversies could be distilled down to a clash of two values, and often both are valid. The solution -- often in the shape of a Supreme Court decision -- is in finding the balance between the two values.
Douthat continues:
The first America is correct to insist on Muslims’ absolute right to build and worship where they wish. But the second America is right to press for something more from Muslim Americans . . . than simple protestations of good faith. . . .
For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders . . . .whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.
They’ll need leaders, in other words, who understand that while the ideals of the first America protect the e pluribus, it’s the demands the second America makes of new arrivals that help create the unum.
I think the ideal solution would be for those building the mosque and community center to voluntarily -- and with a show of genuine understanding -- find another location. It could even still be in lower Manhattan; just not two blocks from ground zero. And then for our political and religious leaders to join them in promoting the mosque and its future functioning by showing the American people the positive side of Islam. The combination of those two positions would be the basis for cooperation and mutual respect and understanding.
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Harry Reid, in a close political battle with a leading right-wingnut, has just issued a statement that the mosque should be built somewhere else. I'm afraid it's going to just escalate as the political season demands ever more issues to exploit, to stir up people's fear and hatred in the hope of getting a few more votes. Even in this climate, however, if I were responsible for making the decision, I would pick the value of the right to religious freedom as paramount. The world needs to see that our religious freedom and tolerance is real.
Ralph
Lest I seem to be giving my vote of confidence to a conservtive columnist, I want to add two things:
ReplyDelete1. Douthat gives away his true feelings about the mosque in saying that the dialogue is" ill-served by THROWING UP a high-profile mosque. . . "
This is to be an elaborate, expensive house of worship and a grand center for education and community service. Douthat trivializes it and shows his disdain by saying "throwing up."
2. In his prior column he again addressed a similar theme of two Americas, one upholding tradition and the other seeking inclusion. Only that time it was the gay-marriage debate, and he didn't frame it that way. Nevertheless, in raises a similar clash of two values in principle -- although in that one I come to a different conclusion than he does. Here the issue is simply one of where to put a mosque, not whether it can be build.
On the gay marriage issue, he appeals to tradition -- which he has refined into calling it an ideal -- as his rationale for denying equal rights to a group of people.
That I cannot agree with.