Subtitle: Sir, I disagree with your building a Mosque at this site, but I will defend to the death your right to build it.
Morning blog fans,
I have actually been finding out more about blogs recently for my work - and apparently I break all the rules. Mine are way too infrequent and way too long. I'll try and change that... but I don't promise anything!
Couple of ideas for blogs have come to me recently. One resurfaced due to a friend posting a new link about fairness and the differences in the US and UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10869722). I had been thinking about writing a blog on the concept of fairness anyway due to a recent article in the economist that advocated banning the word, because it is an ill-defined concept (http://www.economist.com/node/16485338?story_id=16485338).
I am pretty sure that the same author wrote both articles as he uses the same example (that one side (the US) think fair is letting winners take the spoils and the other side (the UK) think each need an equal share) and in both articles, in my opinion, he mis-defines fairness - because he defines it by its misuse.
His examples of "fair" meaning different things to different people are actually examples of feelings of personal entitlement not fairness. For example, with the "winner takes the spoils" differences between the US and UK, these are cultural differences which affect the sense of what competitors believe they are normally entitled to. That plays into the concept of fairness, but by no means encompasses it.
For example, you will hear American's across the right and left complaining about the fairness of recent Investment Bank profits, despite the fact that they played a 'game' by the rules and won. Conversely, there is much more of the capitalist cut and thrust about the way British league systems are set up (teams promoted and demoted) whereas American leagues are ring-fenced arenas of combat where teams can fail year after year but never be kicked out or sent down to the minors.
The term "Fair is Fair" is telling. It suggests that fairness is a universal concept that all are aware of. It contains notions of justice, but can trump the law; it contains notions of proportionality, but will sometimes be disproportionate; it may be based on moral rectitude but it may also countermand claims based on it. Its fluid nature is powerful (and necessary) because it allows fairness to act as a check to rigid, codified laws and statements of rights, that are open to abuse.
For this reason, fairness expressed as a statement of fact is almost always really a statement of entitlement. "That's not fair" almost always means, "I have either justice, morality or proportionality on my side so I should win" - it is rarely a measured response after consideration of all three. Due to its fluid nature, 'fair' can only ever truly be expressed as a question, to encourage decision-makers to look beyond the ideology they are using and bring in other standards.
It is just, but is it fair? It is moral, but is it fair? It is proportionate, but is it fair?
For example, Fair Trade (shot down by the Economist writer) is a great use of the word fair - as it asks us to question whether the rules of international trade (the justice portion) need to be reconsidered in the light of morality and proportionality. It is entirely correct to question this, and the suggestion that it is meaningless to do so is shocking.
Now onto the next portion of this blog - I believe it is worth considering the building of Cordoba House (the interfaith centre and Mosque, two blocks from 'ground zero') in this context.
Frankly, I am surprised that the liberal and centrist response to the building of the centre has been overwhelmingly positive. I think that this is probably due in part to the far right having come out so strongly in the negative that equilibrium needed to be restored. Sarah Palin's ridiculous "refudiate" tweet was ill-informed and offensive to the people behind the centre (they are not war-mongering Muslims as her tweet suggests) and other responses suggesting it is Muslim triumphalism are equally galling. Given this, there was a definite need for the conversation to be pulled back to reality.
However, in my opinion, the frame of the conversation needs to be widened to include a consideration of fairness. At the moment it is tied too strongly to laws and statements of rights - as it does not consider whether taking advantage of those rights is always the fair thing to do.
Most commentators, including Michael Bloomberg in his passionate defence of the centre, concentrate on religious freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights. This is truly something that makes America great. The freedom Muslims have in the US to worship and build places of worship shames the attitudes of and laws enacted by many European countries. In no way should that freedom be denied.
But to stop the conversation there is to stop it too soon. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should do it. That is the essence of fairness.
If what you are entitled to do (morally and/ or legally) is going to cause offense (even undue offense) and even possibly incite others to commit immoral and/ or illegal acts then there is an onus on you to consider whether you should do it.
The Cordoba Initiative are clearly aware of this because the description of the centre on their website does not contain mention of the Mosque (http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/cordoba-house-new-york-city). To me this shows awareness that the New York site is a potentially inflammatory place to build a Mosque.
Why not simply build what the description on the website suggests - an interfaith cultural centre? That seems to me to be a perfect way to build bridges. Acknowledge the emotional timbre that the ground zero site has for many Americans (whether that is right or wrong), so make the same concession in your planning that you make in your website copy and leave out the Mosque - or bring it in quietly when the temperature of the conversation has died down.
The one thing that should rightly act as a corrective to this is if Muslim's are underserved in New York, and particularly in the southern tip of Manhattan. Religious freedoms are hollow if you are unable to practice your religion, and I must admit that I do not know whether there are a sufficient number of Mosques in that specific area. However, there are over 90 Mosques in New York (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HST/is_1_5/ai_96125938/?tag=content;col1), so there does seem to be the suggestion that the inclusion of the Mosque is a symbolic one, aimed at enhancing interfaith dialogue, rather than enabling full Islamic observance in an area where it is not possible.
If the former is the case, then real consideration needs to be given to fairness - otherwise Cordoba House risks profoundly undermining the very thing it seeks to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Addendum:
ReplyDeleteThere have been a couple of editorials recently suggesting that this sort of opinion is spreading hate about Islam. That is utter nonsense.
The thought underlying those editorials is that Islam had nothing to do with 9-11 so anything suggesting it did is Islamophobic. These sort of comments are indicative of people living within, or wanting to live within, a liberal bubble - that doesn't help with dialogue in the real world.
Yes, moderate Islam had nothing to do with 9-11. Unfortunately (unless you believe in conspiracy theories) extremist Islam did. Even if you see a complete unbridgeable chasm between the two, you have to be aware that the symbols and ideals of Islam were appropriated (or rather misappropriated) by the extremists.
Moderate Muslims are right to want to claim back those symbols, but if they want to reclaim those symbols in the minds of many Americans (those outside of a liberal bubble) they need to do so with awareness of their feelings in relation to the way the symbols and ideals have been misappropriated in the past.
An analogy could be given of a Hindu wanting to decorate a property near to a synagogue with Swastikas. They are Hindu symbols, representing the Sun or Brahma, and a Hindu would have every right to want to express their religious freedom in this way. However, the community of the synagogue might well take offense because Swatikas were appropriated by Nazis. In this context I don't think any liberal would be opposed to talking calmly and rationally with both communities to try to find a solution that would be acceptable to both - even though the Hindu had nothing to do with the misappropriation of the symbol and has every right to use it.