ADVERTISEMENTS

Rob's post considering potentially non-bigoted arguments against the construction of a mosque near ground zero highlights how problematic those arguments really are.  Arguments 1 and 4 rely on inaccurate and essentialized views of Islam.  Argument 2 is similarly inaccurate and is also an insult to those Muslims, like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who have opposed violence and supported interreligious dialogue. Argument 3 is more complicated, because it does not appear to rely on bigoted assumptions and because it appears to be rooted in concern for the good of others.  As a moral argument, I suppose that it ought to be considered by the developers of the Park51 project.  However, there is a risk that assuming collective guilt actually contributes to the tendency to overgeneralize and villify Muslims.  Despite the furor raised by this controversy, it has created an opportunity for Muslim leaders to distinguish between the Islam practiced by the vast majority of Muslims and the actions of al-Qaeda.  It has also helped to refute the notion that Islam is monolithic.  I doubt that most Americans opposed to the contruction of Park51 would use an essentialized lens when considering Christianity.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.