Why is burning the Koran any more offensive than building a mosque near Ground Zero?
I do not mean this question as mere provocation or as posturing. Advocates of building the mosque near Ground Zero believe that it will encourage interfaith harmony, illustrate to the world American tolerance, and be an instance of respecting private individuals’ rights to (a) free speech and (b) private property. They accuse opponents of racism and bigotry, and believe that sensitivity to the feelings or emotions of relatives, friends, and neighbors of those who were killed in the 9/11 tragedy do not outweigh the benefits. Indeed, the fact that the mere proposal of the mosque has led to such hostile reaction from a strong majority of all Americans indicates all the more that the mosque is needed.
For their part, the opponents of the mosque acknowledge and affirm their belief in religious tolerance and in the right to free speech. They claim, however, that building a mosque so close to Ground Zero would seem to them the equivalent of an Islamic Arc de Triomphe, outrageously insensitive to the still-deep wounds people feel from having had thousands of innocent people murdered in the name of that very religion. Just put it somewhere else, they say. (James Taranto of the WSJ says at least 1.3 miles away.)
Now comes the pastor of a small church in Florida who wants to burn the Koran. The reaction nationwide, and indeed in many places around the world, has been swift and nearly unanimous: This is an outrageous act of insensitivity. The President of Pakistan said that “anyone who even thought of such a despicable act must be suffering from a diseased mind and a sickly soul.”
There is an eerie reversed similarity here. Many of the same people who have condemned the opponents of the proposed mosque as mere racist bigots whose sensitivies thus deserve no respect are now claiming that the opponents of the proposed Koran-burning have sensitivies that must be respected.
But why is the one proposed act defensible and the other not? The proponents in both cases claim that they make important, even necessary, statements, that a tolerant American should allow them, and that opponents are suffering from an emotional malady or an incomplete understanding of what their reasons are for what they propose.
And in both cases opponents claim that the proposals are outrageously insensitive to people’s justified beliefs.
My own view, for what it’s worth, is that both are indeed outrageously insensitive, and people of good faith should oppose them both. But is there a consistent principle among those who oppose the one but not the other? Or is it that some people’s sensibilities are more important than those of others? Or perhaps it is that, as General Petraeus suggested, Muslim outrage at burning Korans can lead to violent bloodshed, whereas New Yorkers’ outrage at a Ground Zero mosque will lead to little more than internalized hurt feelings.
If that last possibility is at work, consider what an incentive structure that establishes. It sounds a lot like “might makes right”: If you want people to start respecting your views, don’t try arguing or protesting; try threatening them with violence. Is that really a principle we want to let guide us?
PILEUS 
The juxtaposition is kind of interesting. And, of course, the outrage is just going to continue to ramp up over the next couple of days. However, I do think there are some obvious differences – even if they don’t warrant different responses ultimately.
My two cents:
I think there are essentially two distinguishable facets to the sensibility issue; intention and perception. So I tend to compare and contrast the two items from that perspective.
Intention:
On the one hand, you have an Imam with a (largely) unquestionable track record in his moderate and reconciliatory views on Islam and Western culture. His intention, if we are to take him at his word (past and present) is to build a bridge between these communities…to tear down the walls.
On the other hand, you have a pastor who’s intentions seem largely hateful and inflammatory. I don’t think anyone is under the delusion that he is trying to build bridges or promote peace between the two groups.
Perception:
Regarding the “mosque”, a large portion of the American people are obviously offended by an Islamic community center being built in the somewhat near vicinity of ground-zero. What I find interesting about this reaction is that it largely seems to be the result of a somewhat tautological progression in reasoning. The first part is the somewhat obvious realization that not all Muslims were responsible for 9-11, and as Roderick Long has lamented, “banning an Islamic cultural center because the 9/11 highjackers were Muslim would be no more salient than banning a YMCA because the highjackers were male.” So justification for a profound amount of sensitivity regarding an innocent Muslim building a place of worship on private property is ultimately the vilification of Muslims in entirety – which had been going on long before this provocation. The truth, I think, is that intention does play a large role here (particularly when it comes to the actions of a person who hasn’t even committed a crime). So opponents have had to continually question the motivations not just this particular Imam, but the whole religion itself. And we’ve certainly seen this argument in spades in the last couple of weeks.
Regarding the burning of the Qu’ran, there are obviously a large amount of people in the Muslim world who are very offended by this action. So how is the perception of those people any different than those of the “sensitive” Americans? Well, since no crime has actually been committed here, I would say the largest difference would be intent. Muslims don’t have to make up a long and drawn-out conspiracy theory to convince us of the uniform hatred all Christians or Americans harbor for Muslims to pin this man as having hateful intentions – he’s being perfectly blunt regarding his actions. If, say, the Imam greatly sympathized with the 9-11 attackers and wanted to build the center as a shrine to the hijackers, I would say THEN Americans would have every right to be just as offended as Muslims around the world now seem to be.
With that being said, I have no sympathy for those that wish to coerce innocent people on the simple grounds of having their feelings hurt – this goes for disgruntled Americans who may wish to start revoking property titles or angry Muslims who are threatening violence over burnt books. So while it may seem like some people like me are being hypocritical, note that I’m certainly not excusing any Muslims who do or wish to do harm upon other people over this. It should be criticized just as swiftly and heavily as the people who are pushing to have government force used to stop the “mosque” from being built in New York. But my larger point, to reiterate, is that when it comes the sensitivity I believe a large part of that kind of response really does require untoward intentions of the “offending” party – which is precisely why, in the “mosque” conversation, opponents have quickly and forcefully woven incredibly generalized statements regarding the intentions of all Muslims into their denunciation of Feisal Abdul Rauf and his project.
I think cross makes some good points here. For my part, I don’t think the idiots in Florida shouldn’t burn the Koran because of hurt feelings, but because it is moronic and (as cross says) simply hostile and hateful. It accomplishes exactly nothing either ideologically, socially, or politically. Its intent is to antagonize, and it is at least arguable that that is not the intent with the Islamic center. That said, I am glad to live in a country in which it is possible to act moronically and spitefully. I only regret that they get the attention they do when doing so.
I agree, Mark & cross. I would draw a distinction between the Koran-burning and “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” for instance. The latter was intended not to denigrate Islam but to stand up to those extremists who threaten their religion’s critics with death. Given book-burning’s origins in Western history and tradition, it carries an implicit message with which I could never agree.
I see the point about intentions, and I concede that it’s difficult to find anything good in what the Florida pastor is planning to do.
On the other hand, asking about intentions can lead us into a sticky wicket. It’s not so clear what Rauf’s intentions are, but let’s assume they’re benign. Many Muslims in the rest of the world, however, view putting a mosque near Ground Zero not benignly but rather triumphantly; moreover, many of them, including many Muslim leaders around the world, are quite open about their rather malevolent intentions towards Christians, Jews, and Americans (among others); and the violence perpetrated by self-identified Muslims against non-Muslims continues today in many places around the world. I think that complicates the question of intentions.
To say that “banning an Islamic cultural center because the 9/11 highjackers were Muslim would be no more salient than banning a YMCA because the highjackers were male,” as Crossofcrimson reports Roderick Long as having said, is completely missing point. Did the highjackers commit their act in the name of being male? No: They are members of an organization many members of which are committed to the enslavement or destruction of all non-members in its name. They are members of an organization many members of which, even leaders of which, actively organize bombings, beheadings, burnings, and rapes of innocent non-members in the name of the organization. The organization in question is not ‘being male.’
Of course it is true that not all Muslims engage in such activities, and not all Muslims condone them. Many don’t do either. But we cannot pretend that there are not many—millions?—who do condone them worldwide.
Book-burning is an absurd and obnoxious activity; we are all agreed on that. My argument is only with those who think that worry about militant Islamism, and the symbolism and meaning of having a large Muslim center so close to the site of the largest attack to date of militant Islamist terrorism on American soil, can only be bigoted or benighted fools.
Interesting retort. And, of course, I think it’s important to make clear that something as subjective as someone’s sensitivities is going to be difficult to navigate in casual conversation. I may believe that one group’s sensitivity regarding something is more misguided than another, but I certainly don’t want to just disregard it either.
But I would like to make a couple of observations regarding your response…
I find it somewhat of a tenuous proposition to jump from talking about an individual’s intention regarding his own actions and the intentions of a group of different people regarding that person’s actions. I’m not the brightest bulb in the room here – but how exactly does one express any kind of intention through someone _else’s_ actions?
It’s true that many Muslims around the world are violent and hateful. I wouldn’t be so silly as to argue with that. I could conceive that they wish to _perceive_ the building of the center as a hateful act because of that hatred. But I still don’t think this amounts to intent behind the actual action. For instance, suppose that I were to put a very large cross in my front yard to celebrate my religious conviction. Let’s also suppose that I live next to an Atheist (who I may or may not be friendly with). Now, I’d imagine it’s not unimaginable to have a group of radical and devout Christians hear about this and wish to parade the fact publically as an act of solidarity against non-believers. Does the perception of a third party (or parties) then alter my initial intentions? Does their perception make my act more or less inflammatory? This isn’t a rhetorical question – but I’m more inclined to believe it changes nothing, other than maybe further mis-perceptions fostered by those third parties.
As for my second point, regarding Roderick Long’s comments, I think you might be dismissing it too quickly. Did the hijackers commit their crimes in the name of being male? No, certainly not. But here’s the more pertinent question; If they had, would that _THEN_ justify stopping a YMCA from being built? The point was never about what a criminal is doing something in the name of – it was about catching innocent people who share any given trait (race, creed, gender, etc.) with those criminals in the crossfire, regardless of what their real or perceived justifications for committing those acts were.
I would imagine that if a libertarian group (notice the small “l”) wanted to build a community center two blocks away from the site of the Oklahoma City bombing, most of us wouldn’t have any real objection to it. Timothy McVeigh certainly had many political convictions shared by a certain number of libertarians…even some who have attempted to or are willing to attempt to commit similar atrocities. But we generally understand that although he felt a strong anti-government sentiment (one that might have been his sole justification for such an act), we recognize that simply having such beliefs is not the determining factor for being a terrorist.
The tens of thousands of peaceful libertarians across this country stand as a testament to that – in how we conduct our daily lives, in spite of someone like Timothy McVeigh; just as the masses of Christians do in spite of Michael Griffin; just as the masses of Muslims do in spite of Mohamed Atta. To conflate the guilt or even the intentions of a criminal with someone who shares a trait with them (simply because they used that trait as a justification) should be something we try to divorce ourselves from, even if the weight of our emotions tear us in another direction.
So there are certainly some points that we might disagree on (and I can certainly attest to my own stubbornness). But I really did enjoy the post (including the response), and I think that it’s great that we can have a conversation here that is much more open and rational than the discussions you’ll find elsewhere.
Side Note: My original quote from Long came from this post on his blog (http://aaeblog.com/2010/08/19/why-opponents-of-the-non-ground-zero-non-mosque-are-tools-for-al-qaeda/)