SB, 'wrong on some level' is another language trick.
It's wrong on every level. Wrong is wrong. Or, if 'wrong' itself isn't the best word, 'harmful' and 'detrimental' fit just as well. It's intolerance in a word; not only that, but worse: it's intolerance
that is completely unwarranted , completely baseless, and very reactionary. It's a product of consuming and readily listening to, whether consciously or not, the same media coverage that's appealed to all kinds of emotions - honest emotions that have been targeted and effectively milked by a largely and ultimately indifferent (and
opportunist and
parasitic in the fullest degree) media in the name of endorsing American imperialism - which is what 9/11 regretfully spiralled into at the very moment it happened. Sorry for the mouthful; 'the same media' that stirred, for instance, this 'not so logical part' of you:
...the part that witnessed the smoke rising from the towers that day, the part of me that has seen the devastation wrought upon families by the deaths that day, the part of me that heard the church bells and bagpipes of countless funerals...
Firstly, that sort of sensitivity to something as horrific as 9/11 isn't illogical; secondly, though, nor should it be 'the part' of you that stirs anger at this mosque being built. There's a leap in logic there
That's the issue at stake here.
I haven't quoted you at length so far in this thread because the intolerant bigotry I spoke of was directed more at Mignon and Pizzaboy, the first of whom doesn't think burning this 'bullshit' mosque to the ground
isn't an overreaction and the second of whom is consciously listening to the 'part of him' that voices the same sorts of anger-fueled concerns as you, 'and
doesn't feel bad about it. At all.'
I'm not saying this is some simplistic issue, but I am saying - especially to those showing at least some concern about their own Islamophobia - we've got to be very careful about the language we use to defend, justify or acknowledge the prejudices we uphold for whatever reason. Because language is the manifestation of both what we are thinking and what in many ways we have been taught to think, whether consciously or not.
Apologies if this seems like irrelevant philosophizing; it isn't, though. It's an attempt to chisel underneath these prejudices that are being put forth here.
We'd be getting off to a much better start if we tried to understand
where these prejudices might come from. And saying, 'they originated at the moment extremists flew two planes into the World Trade Center,' isn't going to help one bit, because the issue is much more complex than that.
And I'm saying that because frankly I don't see how 'a mosque', even one built at Ground Zero, is offensive to anybody who isn't in some way holding - conscious of it or not - a deep prejudice against Muslims as people or Islam as a faith. That's regardless of whether or not the same offended people are still angry at and hurt by the events of 9/11, because that anger and hurt is finding manifestation on quite an irrational level, as a result of all kinds of social phenomena endorsing American imperialism in the wake of a terrorist attack on home soil; the same anger and hurt could and should be channelled elsewhere, through other means, directed at different targets, so to speak.
I don't see a connection between
watching the horror of a plane going into the WTC and
then being offended, angered or upset by a mosque being built on the same site 1 year, 10 years or 100 years after that isn't in some way the result of a deeply irrational, destructive and dangerous prejudice.
Which is why the last three words of this earlier post (italicised here) are indeed reprehensible, because they cling onto that 'gut instinct' even more sharply due to a previous concession to reason:
Lilo, like I said above, I completely agree with what you said. You're 100% right. And yet, not.
