"Enraged," says Ali Hili when asked to describe his feelings in one word. "How can they do this to us? How much more dignity can they strip away from us?"
Hili is referring to the Southern Baptist Convention's plan to build a mega-church complex near the remains of a two-mile stretch of Iraqi land that once contained Iraqi-owned businesses, restaurants, and a day school. In the summer of 2005 when the war in Iraq was raging, this cosmopolitan, mostly secular area--which Iraqis had once proudly touted as the beginning of “a new Middle East”--was completely destroyed by a vigilante group of right-wing Christian U.S. soldiers who claimed to be “reclaiming the Middle East for God.”
These five men—in direct violation of their orders—took matters into their own hands and slaughtered non-combat civilians, including women and children. They entered restaurants and businesses and shot diners and workers in the face. They opened fire on civilians in the streets. Tragically, a bomber pilot calling himself “the 13th disciple” bombed most of the buildings before flying the plane into the Badr Day School, killing himself and hundreds of children and adults.
This savage act of vigilantism was condemned by the United Nations and several human rights groups, and was harshly criticized by President Bush, who said, “While I understand the anger these men felt, I do not endorse what they did. They are distorting the Christian message, which is a message of peace. Christianity is a religion of peace, in fact.”
“It was a massacre,” Hili says. “The streets filled with blood. Parents were searching through the rubble for their sons and daughters for days after [the violence.] That is why [the SBC’s plan for the mega-church] is so surreal.”
The SBC ignited a media firestorm last week when the conservative Christian organization made public its long-gestating plans for a sprawling, ten-million dollar complex near the grounds where the massacre took place—an area many Iraqis now see as a place of sacred sadness. The complex will include what will be the largest church ever built in Iraq, a Christian bookstore, and a McDonald’s, as well as a swimming pool, a gym, and a spa for church-goers to enjoy after sermons and all week long.
Many Iraqis consider the SBC’s plans to be overwhelmingly insulting and inflammatory since it was militant Christians who slaughtered their loved ones.
“It’s outrageous,” says Sadi Hussain. “They are taking sacred ground where thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered by Christian fanatics, and they are building themselves a worship and relaxation center for other Christians! How is this ethical? How is this Christian?”
But Richard Land of the SBC sees it differently. “It’s a way to promote understanding,” Land said in an interview with the New York Times. “Understanding and tolerance. Because, you know. . . we are building the church complex, a lot of Iraqis are upset about it, and they should, you know. . . just tolerate it. That’s what tolerance is all about. Seeing something you think is awful and just looking the other way.”
Land also says there is something more sinister afoot than a mere disagreement. He says critics of the church complex are actually bigots. “It’s pure, unadulterated Christianophobia,” Land told the Wall Street Journal. “The Iraqis who are saying ‘oh please don’t build a church where Christians murdered my sister’ are raving bigots who are driven by the same hatred that fueled Hitler. They are foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics, and I mean, they might as well turn their burquas into Klan hoods. There has been a dramatic increase in Christianophobia over the last few years, with South Park making fun of Jesus and churches being picketed after Proposition 8 passed."
When asked in a phone interview if the complex will only cater to Christians, Land assures us that is not the case. “This will be a place for all Iraqis. Christianity is a universal faith. It is not simply for one ethnicity; we welcome Arabs, Jews, everyone. The message that the Son of God died for our sins is for every ear to hear, and that includes ethnic people who were raised in the wrong faith. Anyone who wants to attend our church, work out with us, swim with us, eat non-hallal and non-kosher McDonald’s food with us is certainly welcome.”
“It’s obscene,” says Haider Faiek of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “My grandson was living in Iraq at the time; he was killed by one of the vigilantes when he was taking an algebra test at school. He just happened to be there when that maniac crashed his plane into [the building.]” Faiek tries to fight back tears, but soon they are streaming down his face. “I miss him so much,” he says, “ and I cannot believe these savages are putting a victory flag over his grave.”
When showed a video of an Iraqi woman begging the SBC to not build the church complex over the place where her twin daughters were murdered, Sarah Taylor of Christianity Today says, “I see her lips moving, but all I hear is ‘I am Hitler and I hate everyone who is not exactly like me.’”
Is Taylor not the least bit touched by the Iraqi woman’s plea? “Not one bit,” Taylor says. “She’s obviously a bigot. I’m not sure she can even be helped at this point. Everyone wants to beat up Mel Gibson for his comments, but they should look at this lady. It’s like she’s reciting Mein Kampf and crying about how beautiful it is.”
Not everyone is upset about the complex. Summer Peterson is a 17-year old girl from San Diego, California, whose family is planning to vacation at the complex next spring. “I can’t wait,” she says, smiling. She shrugs off the controversy. “Anyone who criticizes Christians is a racist. Saying we shouldn’t build this church here is exactly like saying black people should be slaves or Jews should be put in ovens again. The vigilantes are extremists; they were distorting true Christianity. I understand where they’re maybe coming from, but I don’t think it’s right to kill people. But also, what do Iraqis expect to happen when they have governments we don’t like and hold a position on Israel we don’t agree with? That just makes Christian terrorists angry and then they get worked up into too much religious, like, I don’t know. . . fervor?”
Is Peterson worried about the dangers of vacationing in Iraq? “Not at all,” she says quickly. “Think about it. The complex is the safest place there. It’s the one place in Iraq that Christian terrorists and Americans would never bomb.”
Copyright 2010, Eli Jeremiah
19 comments:
2
This is the very same xenophobia and anti-Englitenment, anti-democratic and anti-pluralistic view that has manifested itself in, for instance, the banning of building minarets in Switzerland, which is parallel to preventing the building of crosses on top of church towers. There’s no real good argument for these moves, it’s simple and transparent xenophobia.
United States history contains a tendency in relation to immigrants and all therein related so constant, it reappears so often, that historians have coined the term “nativism” to describe it. Nativism is basically a very ethnocentric version of nationalism. Kropotkin, who famously wrote about evolutionary mutual aid observed that these characteristics “rarely extended beyond the group and that hostility and aggression was the norm towards outsiders.(Graham Purchase)” The United States is an unusually strong case in point. Every new wave of immigrants was treated like animals and many continue to be treated so. The selected target of contemporary nativism happens to be Muslims but is actually for the most part simply Arabs and Middle Easterners, for these groups are often conflated and the African-American Muslim community has existed for decades and is not targeted in a similar fashion as the Middle Eastern Muslims are.
Getting back to those responsible for the hysteria: the American Center for Law and Justice is the organization challenging the Landmarks Commission vote (which was unanimous because they recognize the ridiculous nature of turning a vacant warehouse that used to be a Burlington Coat Factory into an historical landmark simply in order to prevent the moving in of an Islamic Center) is the legal front founded by Pat Robertson. It was also this situation which placed Palin once again in the news for her laughably inarticulate comment: “Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslisms, pls refudiate(sic).” The comment made the news cycle and was roundly ridiculed and laughed at. The comment also, incidentally, would have made for a perfect preface to your post. There was also so much Fox news coverage that it would be a waste of time and space citing it.
While the WSWS criticized liberals and Democrats for not coming to the defense they all for the most part made statements such as that they didn’t oppose the center, or that they didn’t want to challenge the democratic decisions of the NY community boards and so on and so forth. The only real, serious, sustained sociopolitical challenge has come from the right.
I found it distressing that you should take such a line and keep such company; doing yourself what you have criticized the likes of Bernard Goldberg for: cozying up to the sociopolitical right for what seem like opportunistic and essentially shallow reasons.
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/mosq-a09.shtml
http://socialistworker.org/2010/08/11/making-hate-respectable
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/stewart-takes-on-ground-z_n_678224.html
Hey!! Long time no see.
Hmmm I have to say I completely disagree. I support the Islamic center and the mosque being built there. I understand a lot of people are really hurt, but I don't think the founders are trying to cause anyone pain. I used to be against it because at first everyone was saying it was going to be on ground zero. But when I found out it wasn't I was fine with it.
I think after they open it, if they're not doing a good job of making it how they said it's going to be for all people, then I do will protest it. But I think we should give them the benefit of a doubt because I hate it when ignorant people act like Judaism is the old testament when it really has nothing in common with it. So that same way, I don't think these Muslims are like the terrorists. I hope that makes sense.
Israel was amazing!! Look up my facebook pics of Tel Viv, there were so many yummy guys.
JDHURF,
There should be nothing religious at all anywhere near Ground Zero, but especially not a religious center representing the faith of the murderers. It would be fine if all the victims were Muslim, but in reality countless victims of religious fanatisicm, people who were simply living their lives, people who are HATED by radical Muslims--gay people, secular people, not-very-religious people, Christians, Jews from frum to secular--were massacred. What an insult. I certainly am not saying the government should step in and stop the Cordoba Center; I just think it would be great if the founders showed good taste.
Quote: "This is the very same xenophobia and anti-Englitenment, anti-democratic and anti-pluralistic view that has manifested itself in, for instance, the banning of building minarets in Switzerland,"
Really? Becuase I support minarets in Switzerland and any country. I support Muslims and Orthodox Jewish girls wearing headscarves when it's not in relation to hiding their hair from any man she's not married to (and even then I support their legal if not moral right to do so.) I even support full-body burquas, although I loathe them.
Palin, Pat Robertson, American Center for Law and Justice: "The only real, serious, sustained sociopolitical challenge has come from the right."
Yes, Jeremy, and Mel Gibson went on an anti-Semitic rant because, as he told Diane Sawyer, "Jews are not blameless in the Middle East conflict," a statement that could summarize much of your writing. Guilt-by-association is a two-way street. While it should always hurt any decent person to be called a bigot, I think maybe I should take a page from the Israeli-bashers and say that word is being thrown around so much it has lost its meaning.
I found it distressing that you should take such a line and keep such company; doing yourself what you have criticized the likes of Bernard Goldberg for: cozying up to the sociopolitical right for what seem like opportunistic and essentially shallow reasons.
I object to Goldberg because of his cynical pandering and what I believe to be a dishonest representation of some of his views. Cynical pandering on my part would be me talking up this issue with right-wing, anti-Semitic, anti-gay Christians who would oppose all mosques and any Islamic center anywhere. It would be pandering to form an alliance with those who hate jews and gays simply because they also hate Muslims and therefore oppose the Cordoba Center by default. By contrast, I'm only talking about this subject with people who do not hate Muslims.
I accuse Goldberg of being dishonest about some of his views. For instance, I think he is pretending to be anti-gay, pretending to be offended by Friends, and pretending to be offended by Rahm Emmanuel's Jesus jokes, all in the interest of forming an alliance with really primitive Christians who support Israel. I simply oppose the Cordoba Center being built near the grounds where Islamic maniacs murdered New Yorkers. I am not pretending to believe anything I do not really believe. I still openly support universal health care, straight-gay equality, relaxed immigration laws, gun control, internet neutrality, anti-censorship laws, funding for the arts, stem cell research, abortion rights, a two-state solutution, the closing of Guantanamo Bay, an end to torture, an end to rendition, an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and an end to law enforcement harrassment of American Hispanics and Arabs.
If any of Bernie's new right-wing Christian friends don't want to talk with me because of those beliefs, I don't care. I'd rather disagree on a few (big) issues with you than pretend to agree with bigots who also hate me.
Rachel,
Hey thanks for reading. Yeah I can't wait to go again but I have to save ALL my extra money for a car, unfortunately. I was going to in August to Tel Aviv but it would be irresponsible.
Clearly only the second portion of my comments was allowed, in which case I cannot accept having a discussion, which is why it begins with "2". I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume something went wrong when I posted my comments and that you didn't block my first portion, but seeing as we are already having this discussion elsewhere and are well past what is posted here I don't see the need to repost them after the fact here.
JDHURF,
I think you accidentally posted your Part 2 twice and that's all I had to work with.
I only refuse to publish comments that are racist or anti-gay, or that proselytize for a non-Jewish religion.
Samesies. My little Jew Crew group on Facebook attracts so many racists.
Hey I forget, are you Reform or Conservative? What does your rabbi say about the Cordoba Center? Mine is supportive, I think most Jews are. I even saw on the daily show that bloomberg supports it.
I guess I just don't understand the fuss!!
I'm Conservative. What about you?
My rabbi told the Tulsa World, "it
would be abhorrent to confound any religious community's right to assemble for study and prayer. We are at our best as Americans when we are fair, generous, open, tolerant and mutual."
I believe that you owe it to yourself, your post and everyone who has read it to assume proper intellectual responsibility and address all of the relevant facts and arguments. You should either support your position with good reason or accept that either your argument is fallacious and or that you do not have the capacity to provide sufficiently reasoned support.
The first and one of the more important points you should address is that your position is predicated upon a false and quite vulgar caricature of the whole of Islam through a smearing of the world’s some two billion Muslims with the violent fringe of Wahhabism (a fringe that sees to the murdering of other Muslims who do not agree with them). In any serious, adult, sober and reflective discussion such a caricature is far less than appropriate.
To claim that Islam is responsible for 9-11 is parallel to claiming that Christianity is responsible for the invasion of Iraq and all that then followed (kidnapping, torture and so on) or that Judaism is responsible for the Gaza Strip Massacre (the use of white phosphorus on civilians and so on).
To hold all Muslims responsible for 9-11 (which is what banning the building of Islamic Centers and Mosques consists of) and punishing them all for it is precisely the same thing as to hold all Christians responsible for the invasion of Iraq and all Jews responsible for the Gaza Strip Massacre.
The reactionary claim that building an Islamic Center two blocks away from Ground Zero is tantamount to Muslims staking a victory flag is an extremely ugly generalization and prejudice. It also leads to the second and third points that you should address. The first is that there already are two Mosques within a several block radius of Ground Zero and have caused no controversy. One of the reasons the Islamic Center is being built is because these two Mosques are essentially one-room centers that are so small they are constantly turning people away for lack of space, hence the need for a larger Center in general (as was observed by Clare Hurley, “[w]hile the Jewish population is roughly twice that of Muslims in the city, there are at least eight times as many synagogues as mosques.”); there availability of Mosques and for the growing Muslim population is clearly inadequate and it is not for nothing that every attempt to construct a new Mosque or Islamic Center anywhere in the Country is being virulently opposed by the worst elements of the right.
As with any social issue context matters and here it matters very much. In the United States and, actually, the West more broadly, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice and racism are the last forms of open racism not only tolerated by the mainstream but even, in many cases, trumpeted. After 9-11 there was a wave of reprisal beatings and killings of Muslims, Arabs and anyone who was unfortunate to appear to look like either and there was also the federal persecution of Muslims and Arabs as initiated with, for instance, the Patriot Act and other reactionary federal policies (several hundred Muslims and Arabs were rounded up for “voluntary interviews” and there whereabouts and fate of many are as of yet unknown).
I believe any public statement in opposition to the Cordoba House for the fallacious reasons offered by the reactionary elements of society (reasons that are predicated upon ugly generalizations, caricatures and double standards) that does not offer any nuance, allow for any of the social context or even mention it (let alone criticize it) is perfectly dangerous given the context, a context I know you wish no affiliation with but with which, with this post and without the aforementioned caveats, you have lent your voice.
wtf? lol Fuck extremist Muslims
Post a Comment