Athée Canadien
Islam
One more kick at the old Mosque
Aug 28th
I’ve spent some time recently reading through the various posts and articles, both here and elsewhere trying to get a handle on this Terror Mosque issue. It seems you have to be either a narrow minded islamophobe, or terrorist sympathizer. No middle ground, no understanding.
This CNN article seems to want to take the crazy rhetoric out of the equation, not that I think it will change any minds, but I liked it very much, so I’m sharing.
The culture of offence
Aug 27th
Another prominent Canadian liberal Muslim has come out in opposition to the mosque. Irshad Manji finally chimes in. While not overtly against the construction, she has a few questions, mainly regarding how the centre will operate once opened.
Like Manji, I’ve also wondered what the freedom loving liberals, who have bent backwards supporting the construction, might think if the centre ends up segregating the sexes or hosts talks by people critical of gays, atheists, apostates, etc. Since the centre will always be under intense media scrutiny, the organizers will have to be careful what they say and do so I don’t anticipate any problems. But this presents a new problem since if they know they are being watched, do they ever really have any freedom? And if they do present a moderate, tolerant face to the world is it because they are genuinely supportive of these ideals or is it just a pretty picture for the cameras? There is no way to tell and both sides will remain convinced they were right all along.
Personally, I think the removal of prime real estate from the tax rolls is enough justification to cancel the project if anyone actually cared to do so. The rezoning of a commercial property to religious will cost the city millions in lost tax revenue. But real criticisms have always been irrelevant since people have chosen their sides and are unlikely to change. I wonder if the centre has been able to bypass the regular application process because the idea that a religious group can skip a standard government process should concern any of us.
The Fox News Link… and Hitchens
Aug 24th
John Stewart makes fun of how Fox News is ‘following the money’ with regards to the new ‘Terror Mosque’ in New York, and Hitchens points out why being tolerant should go both ways.
So the question is: Is Hitchens stupid, evil… or correct?
In my opinion Hitchens seems to be taking the rational middle ground, whereas Fox is typically…. well…. Fox.
What do you think?
Hijabs, Niqabs, and Burqas… oh my
Aug 24th
As part of my involvement with the secular community, I run the Toronto Atheists and Friends Meetup(the largest in Canada membership-wise, I might add:). We have monthly socials in different parts of the city.
The most recent one occured this past weekend and, as per usual, we had a good mix of new and repeat customers. One of the subjects that came up was the Ground Zero Mosque. Now, I know this has been dicussed a lot recently on this blog, so I’m not going to go further than to say that while I support religious freedom, I think the project is a bad idea, both because of the obvious sensitivities and symbolism and in terms of PR. Others at the meetup strongly disagreed with me on this however. So it goes.
Which brings me to this CNN article and the ever present topic of religious accomodation. Now, given what I have just said, one might assume that I view the various types of religious garb some muslim women(are forced to) wear as stupid too.
I don’t, although out of fairness I do think if you force a woman to wear something, you logically should force men to do the same. (I’m sorely tempted to buy a burqa and go on vacation, in France.)
The truth is, every society has rules about what clothing you can and can’t wear. If you walk down the street naked, or in a police uniform(assuming you are not a cop) you can be arrested. It all comes down to what your community is willing to put up with.
So if a man can grow a beard, and then wear sunglasses in public, I don’t see that as being much different from a woman wearing a veil. Now many feminists will argue what the veil means is bad, but this sort of prudishness is no different from conservative feminists who don’t like revealing cothing on women. If men have a fashion choice women should have it too, even if you don’t approve, don’t look.
In the end, accomodation is a two way street, both sides have to be willing to give a little, be sensitive and grow a thicker skin.
Moderate Muslims do condemn extremists
Aug 23rd
Forgive me that this article’s a week or so old, but I’m on vacation so I canned a bunch of articles to make it look like I’m contributing at a continual rate to this blog (whoa, meta).
The Canadian Council of Imams has recently released a statement that they read at hundreds of mosques in the country to start Ramadan (their holy month) which condemned extremist and violent Islam.
They claim to speak for “the silent majority of Canadian Muslims” in these views and I hope that’s true.
Specifically, they affirm that
- all human beings are equal and that “The best Muslim is the one who is good to his/her family and neighbours and one who avoids harming others with his/her hand or tongue,”
- peace is fundamental and “Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people, regardless of their creed, ethnicity, race, or nationality,”
- “the sanctity of religion, life, intellect, family/society, and property,”
- Muslims should be law-abiding citizens,
- gender equality and equal (divine) rights to “education, social contribution, work, and treatment with respect and dignity,”
- the right for people to run their own lives “(for example, in matters of dress or good manners)…as long as their conduct does not threaten the common good,”
- Muslims should “engage in civic life and contribute” as much as they can.
The statement is signed by 38 clerics, however there diversity is limited to Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I’m not sure why their representation misses the 10% of Canadian Muslims that live in BC or the 19% in Quebec, but I can’t claim to have much knowledge of the various Islamic associations of Canada and their demographics, so they may be counted under national umbrella organizations.
I am very impressed that they make the effort to use both “his” and “her” pronouns and unequivocally affirm gender equality.
While I think this is a very positive step forward, we should not forget that honour killings happen in this country (12 since 2002 by one report). Luckily, we have very strict laws prohibiting genital mutilation to the point where it is illegal to take a child out of this country to perform the operation. Unfortunately, there is no data or estimates on how many criminal cuttings occur.
The “Ground Zero Mosque” – A liberal atheist’s perspective
Aug 21st
First, let me set something straight:
Islam is not a single ideology. Islam is a family of ideologies based to greater or lesser extents on the Qu’ran. Furthermore, Islam is a living family of ideologies and so in a very real sense there is no “proper Islam”. Islam is what people identifying as Muslims profess to believe. Muslim behaviour is the behaviour of Muslims. We are particularly justified in saying that certain customs are Muslim customs if the practitioners of those customs claim to be inspired by Islam.
Having said that, I may now proceed: I dislike many Muslim customs and beliefs. Things like the veiling of women, female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation, homophobia, Sharia Law, prayer, etc.
But I’m a liberal first and foremost. Some of the things I just mentioned, particularly circumcision, should be illegal because they violate the rights of others. Many of these things, however, should not only be casually legal, but should be protected. Why is this? Although it might make us uncomfortable, freedom of religious, political, and ideological expression is the foundation of a free society.
I don’t like Islam. In fact, I don’t like any religion. However, people who are obeying all of society’s laws and ordinances and who are not violating anyone else’s rights must be allowed to build ideological structures on their own property. And they must be allowed to peacefully use them. If a large and powerful group can silence a political or ideological minority, that is oppression and it is unacceptable. And it doesn’t matter if they’re Wrong or if it’s Offensive.
I’m talking, of course, about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”. In the United States, not only is there a constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, but also a fundamental right to ideological expression, which includes religion. If I understand correctly, many who oppose the construction of this Mosque would like the government to make it illegal. This would be outrageous. It would be a flagrant violation of the rights of those Muslims, it would be unconstitutional, and it would place the United States one step closer to a state of theocracy. The fact that so many people support this possibility shows an unsettling willingness by a large number of Americans to violate the rights they too enjoy. There’s an expression for this: It’s called the “tyranny of the majority”, and every liberal democratic society has a duty to prevent it.
So, demands that the government put a stop to the project are clearly way out of line. No government should have that power. If one opposes the project, then, what should one do?
Picket. Have rallies, chanting, signs, slogans, t-shirts, demonstrations. As long as you are on public property and you aren’t destroying anything or violating anyone’s rights, you are free to express your dismay at the construction of a Mosque. But how dare you expect the government to pick sides? The rights that allow you to demonstrate your dismay are equal and identical to the rights that allow Muslims to worship.
I’ve noticed that even some folks in the atheist community have condemned the project, calling it “insensitive” or “offensive”. Opposition to the project is one thing, but I’m shocked and appalled that atheist activists would resort to this particular language. Offensiveness? Come on. We are the champions of offensiveness. If we stopped, backed down, or changed our minds whenever we offended people, this website wouldn’t exist, few of our clubs would exist, Dawkins would just be a biologist, and the world would be a less hospitable place for anyone passionate about thinking for themselves. Any atheist who opposes something because it is “offensive” is tacitly supporting the kind of conservative argument that is so often levelled against us. I thought we were above that. I thought we opposed things for good reasons, not just because they made us feel uncomfortable. Isn’t that what the bad guys do?
Look, offensiveness is a construct. We made it up. It doesn’t exist. My opinions are offensive to many people and everyone’s ideas are offensive to someone. Offensiveness is simply not a good reason to stop doing what you believe in. I don’t support the construction of this mosque because I don’t support the construction of any mosque, but I will defend with my life the right that those Muslims have to build it. And anyone who cares about free expression should agree with me.
Of course, if you disagree with me I can’t stop you, and that’s a good thing.
What do you get when you mix socialists with Islamic fascists?
Aug 18th
Go visit The Canadian Charger to find out. I would have found the site funny if I didn’t know they were actually serious about what they were writing as if combining two annoying ideologies could create some sort of exciting content.
I was pointed to the site by an article in the National Post that commented on one of the Charger’s articles that criticizes sick boy Christopher Hitchens. The Charger author implies that Hitchens deserves to die from cancer because of all the mean things he’s written. The article is ripe with every bit of all standard gibberish the extreme left can throw out there and isn’t really worth reading except for it’s entertainment value.
But what I found interesting browsing through the site was that is seems to be staffed by a bunch of passionate people who just want to write about issues they care about that go largely unnoticed by mainsteam media. I can certainly relate since I think we are in a similar situation at this site (although our bloggers will rarely ever agree on anything).
Their rhetoric aside, I still like their style and am wondering if something similar can be replicated for Canadian atheists. Can we sustain out own media outlet someday? We are horrible at donating money to existing organizations like CFI who have full and parttime staff devoted to getting our message out there and are forced to operate on an embarrassingly low budget. And yet last year the FAC was able to raise $50k in under two months, mainly from small donations, to put stupid ads on buses across the country. So I know there are enough people out there willing to put out to fund all kinds of amazing things. So how do we find them and what are we, as activists, doing wrong?
Modest or meaningless…
Aug 16th
Its an old argument; which is more effective, being agressive and demanding, or tolerant and accomodating. Richard Dawkins gets criticized a lot for the former, and I can’t say I always disagree. I’ll venture that its always a judgement call, and depends on the situation, but I’m an old relativist, so I guess I’m somewhat biased towards tolerance.
Tarek Fatah is another such instigator, but in his case, I find his arguments more compelling because he seems like more of an insider, compared to Dawkins’ barbarian at the gates routine. In this article from the National Post, he criticises “a declaration of fundamental Islamic values” created and then signed by a number of muslim groups.
It doesn’t include a strong affirmation of the separation of mosque and state or that the mosque is no place for political activity; it doesn’t demand that women be allowed to sit in the front row of mosques or be allowed to become imams; and most importantly, the declaration doesn’t denounce the theory of armed jihad, Mr. Fatah said.
Was this fair? Isn’t even a “modest” first step a good thing?
Unfortunately, I know just enough about Islam to know that its the things that aren’t said that can be the most important. And, this declaration, comes across as more of a lecture to ignorant outsiders than any kind of statement of principles that muslims should follow.
Is Islam a religion of peace? Is any religion? And if its not, what can we do about it? Certainly trying to force change seems a strange way to bring about actual peace, but leading by example, has its dangers too. Sometimes letting the other guy swing first means you wont be getting up from the canvas… at all.
Offend in every way
Aug 13th
I’m a sometime fan of Christopher Hitchens, in that at other times I find some of the positions he takes cringeworthy. His original position on waterboarding not being torture, for example (until he got waterboarded himself, a ballsy move, no doubt.)
His most recent article in Slate, however, reaffirms my fan status once again.
To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is “offensive,” and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument. You are even allowed to admit, as does Foxman, that the ground for taking offense is “irrational and bigoted.”
For the record, I think Cordoba House is ill-concieved. Like Zak, I don’t presume to tell people where they can’t build, but on the level of diplomacy and good sense, this amounts to throwing a hand grenade into a school yard, its just dumb.
That said, being dumb is par for this particular course. The rhetoric being flung against the building (and yes, my grenade comment included:) is just as dumb.
I don’t support being offensive for its own sake, for such childishness, there is no defense, even if its funny, but being offended doesn’t give you rights. Tolerance demands both accomodations, and thicker skins.
MCC vs Cordoba House
Aug 10th
Not all critics of the proposed mosque next to Ground Zero are redneck bigots. Our sometimes ally the Muslim Canadian Congress makes their case.
“Let’s not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.”
I always thought a Muslim group that purports to promote ‘tolerance’, as is the case with the proposed Cordoba House, would want to stay away from the former WTC site because of the obvious backlash. While I support their right to build whatever they want wherever they can, I see them as shit disturbers who don’t care at all about dialogue with other faiths. Tolerance involves empathy and compromise and the Cordoba House clearly has none.
The article ends on a bitter note but I still like their style.
“As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.
Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.”
Comments