Mosque controversy reveals Islamophobia
By Max J. Castro
majcastro@gmail.com
Even before President Barack Obama weighed in on the subject, a plan to build a Muslim cultural/religious center in New York City, two blocks from ground zero, provoked a firestorm of criticism and demagoguery among Republicans and the right.
Using the unhealed wounds of 9/11 for political gain, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, U.S. New York Republican Representative Peter King, Texas GOP Senator John Cornyn and a raft of the usual suspects have been stoking the fires of Islamophobia that simmer, just below the surface, of a substantial sector of the population of this country.
Since 9/11, there have been in the United States numerous expressions of fear and loathing of Muslims, including hate crimes and myriad expressions of prejudice. Time and the predominance of other issues, such as the economic meltdown, have changed the focus and tempered feelings that burned white-hot in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Now, the proposal to build Cordoba House, a 13-story building that would include meeting rooms, a Muslim prayer space, an auditorium and a pool, has rekindled some of the lingering anger and presented an ideal issue for opportunist Republican politicians to exploit as the November elections approach.
At first glance, the controversy seemed to be just another Republican political talking point, one more point of debate between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But support for the project on grounds of religious freedom by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a former Republican (currently an Independent), added some nuance to the otherwise stark ideological division.
Then the issue took an entirely new dimension on August 10, when, speaking to a group of Muslims gathered at the White House to celebrate the start of the Muslim holy season of Ramadan, President Barack Obama spoke on the issue:
“But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.”
The president’s comments were extremely courageous, given that 68 percent of Americans oppose the building of the Muslim cultural/religious center near ground zero and that his own public approval ratings have been plummeting in recent months. They were also consistent with his efforts to reach out to Muslims around the world.
Predictably, however, Obama’s comments provoked a paroxysm of rage and indignation from Republicans and the right-wing blogosphere. The president’s statement delighted Republicans, who see his unpopular stance as further contributing to what they hope to be a resounding GOP victory in the mid-term elections. It also feeds the narrative that paints Obama as somehow not wholly American, either by reason of birth (the false accusation that he was not born in the United States or that he is a Muslim) or allegiance (the charge that he is cozy with and may even identify with radicals of various stripes).
Writing in the right-wing web site Nesmax.com, neoconservative Frank Gaffney exemplifies this mindset:
“At a White House celebration of Ramadan tonight in the company of representatives of several of the nation’s most prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, President Obama announced his strong support for one of their most immediate objectives: the construction of a mega-mosque and “cultural center” at ground zero. In so doing, he publicly embraced the greatest tar-baby of his presidency.”
In Gaffney’s take, the president is a (witless?) tool of radical Islamic organizations and is endorsing “one of their most immediate objectives,” a move with a huge political cost (“embraced the greatest tar-baby of his presidency”). “Tar-baby” has two contemporary definitions. One is any particularly sticky situation, in effect an imbroglio. The other, according to the online “Urban Dictionary: “Tar baby is a synonym for nigger, except that it is only used in bigoted manners, whereas nigger can be a sign of respect, if the speaker is also African American.”
Yet it is too easy to use veiled racist references and to cast political aspersions by speaking of “front organizations.” But why doesn’t Gaffney name these allegedly front organizations and present proof that they are indeed flying under false colors?
As to the Cordoba House, never mind that it has been the subject of intense scrutiny by New York City authorities and has been approved by them. Never mind that the Iman associated with the proposed cultural center/mosque is regarded as a moderate who has spoken out against violence, or that the Cordoba House is intended as a model of tolerance. The average American, ignorant of the details and the context, is susceptible to the argument that the building of a “mosque at ground zero” is a provocation and an insult to the American people, especially the victims of 9/11 and their families.
Obama’s defense of the right (if not the wisdom) of building the Cordoba House is an act of brave statesmanship that Republicans will no doubt use against him in 2012 (and against Democratic Congressional candidates in 2010). By defying the political tide instead of pandering to Islamophobia, President Obama has reminded progressives, disappointed by some broken promises and compromises on too many issues, why we voted for him and why his is still the best game in town.
