This New York mosque controversy is not a circus, it is just another distracting and misleading tempest looking for an accommodating teapot. Anyone can build a building anywhere as long as it conforms to local regulations, is not in an area of eminent domain and conforms with the financial interests of politicians of import. If the mosque doesn't violate any of these restrictions, no one will have a logical objection.
And that is the point: The objections are not logical--but they are heartfelt and, somewhat, understandable. The Islamic movement in the U.S. has willingly joined what has up until now been the underclass' monopoly: Taking advantage of America's strange eagerness to reward bad social behavior. In 1999 two Muslim students on an American West flight were thrown off after wandering the plane cabin, refusing to respond to flight attendants, talking to passengers in ominous ways and trying twice to get into the cockpit. On Nov. 20, 2006 the six "flying imams" on a US Air flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix terrorized a passenger cabin by wandering the cabin, refusing to sit in assigned seats, speaking loudly in Arabic and voicing loud support for bin Laden and hatred for President Bush. They, too, were sent off the plane. Both these groups sued in court and got money.
I doubt any of these acts qualify as felonies or even misdemeanors but they are certainly obnoxious, antisocial and malevolent. Mutual concessions are mandatory in the civilized social world and pointed disdain for the comfort of others living responsibly under the social contract is a bit hard to take sometimes. While these people are only annoying and the problems minor, there is a larger point at stake. Societies--especially democracies--need a feeling of commonality of purpose. Diversity brings spice to the table but substance is always individual. People and groups with their black hole self importance will always ignore the common good. This mosque mosquito is just another such square religious/ethnic peg in the social round hole. And the opposition to it is little more than incoherent anger at sadistic jerks.
And that is the point: The objections are not logical--but they are heartfelt and, somewhat, understandable. The Islamic movement in the U.S. has willingly joined what has up until now been the underclass' monopoly: Taking advantage of America's strange eagerness to reward bad social behavior. In 1999 two Muslim students on an American West flight were thrown off after wandering the plane cabin, refusing to respond to flight attendants, talking to passengers in ominous ways and trying twice to get into the cockpit. On Nov. 20, 2006 the six "flying imams" on a US Air flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix terrorized a passenger cabin by wandering the cabin, refusing to sit in assigned seats, speaking loudly in Arabic and voicing loud support for bin Laden and hatred for President Bush. They, too, were sent off the plane. Both these groups sued in court and got money.
I doubt any of these acts qualify as felonies or even misdemeanors but they are certainly obnoxious, antisocial and malevolent. Mutual concessions are mandatory in the civilized social world and pointed disdain for the comfort of others living responsibly under the social contract is a bit hard to take sometimes. While these people are only annoying and the problems minor, there is a larger point at stake. Societies--especially democracies--need a feeling of commonality of purpose. Diversity brings spice to the table but substance is always individual. People and groups with their black hole self importance will always ignore the common good. This mosque mosquito is just another such square religious/ethnic peg in the social round hole. And the opposition to it is little more than incoherent anger at sadistic jerks.
This mosque foolishness is a real opportunity. The social contract demands a concern for the common good. Purposeful defiance of the common good must be publicly discouraged, even when that defiance is legal. This country has a long history of confusing narrow personal political goals with how the country should be. Malicious social disruption might be legal but it does not have to be tolerated. This discussion should move away from debate over political and legislative tolerance to the social responsibility debate. It is time to draw some lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment