There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.
But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora ”” and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.
These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.
Mr. Douthat’s article is balanced as far as it goes. However, it skirts two major issues: Immigrants in earlier centuries wanted a better life, saw America as the way to that life, and wanted to be part of that way of life. Conversely, it is the goal of Islam to impose Islam’s rules and values on those lands where they live and establish itself as THE government (Sharia law anyone?). Secondly, any retaliation against a Muslim country, regardless of the circumstances, is seen by more than a few Muslims as an attack against Islam, yielding such results as homegrown terrorists (a la Fort Hood). This was not the case in WWI or II with Japanese or German Americans.
The melting pot worked because new groups shared common values and aspirations. I have deep concerns that we are now in a different situation.
“These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. ”
This statement by Mr. Douhat is either the result of an incomplete comprehension of the inter-relationship of American culture and the Constitution in the success of American democracy or it is a ‘twisting’ of the facts and the relationships between those facts.
American culture and the Constitution have NOT been in tension throughout America’s history.
America’s culture and the Constitution COMPLEMENT each other and are not in tension with each other.
In fact, it is America’s culture that led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There is a small but important item which we ignore at our peril, and it is this: The symbols of Islam. The scimitar……the sword of Islam……signifies warlike conquest of non-Muslim peoples. The crescent……the half moon of the East…….originated as the symbol of the Arabian Moon God……a pagan deity. The significance of these symbols and the meaning behind them should not be lost on anyone…..but apparently they are.
False dichotomy. America is the only country in the world founded upon an idea. If you accept that idea you’re one of us. If you do not, then I have a problem.
My in-laws are European, and my wife was born right off the boat. She is as American as I, though my people have been here over 400 years. We share the idea of individual liberty, capitalism as the fruit of freedom, and the utter exceptionalism of the American experience.
The governance of this nation combined the best of English parliamentary democracy and (primarily) Algonqian democracy into something completely unique in the history of the world. As long as those who come here embrace who we are and incorporate it into their family’s future, all will be fine, for our people come from absolutely everywhere.
There has never been so great a force for good in the entire history of the world. If you do not accept that — and are unable to present a documented, credible alternative — you don’t get the idea of America, and to my mind (whether you were born here or not) you’re no American.
You’d also better watch yourself, or I shall consider you an adversary.
His first paragraph is simply false. That America exists or has existed only in the imaginations of idealists. From the first moment that Amerind and colonist saw that bloodshed was inevitable, the second America has been the common reality. I do wish that somehow, the first America could be got out of the liberal mind. I have no objection to ideals, but to mistake them for the facts on the ground is to create a cultural falsehood whose pursuit can only lead to the Constitution’s being used as a soft bludgeon wherewith to beat the opponents of those who wield it into bitter submission – as is happe3ning in Cal right this moment. Larry
There is an element of Christianity that would impose its morals on the rest of america (no drugs, no gay marriage, prayer in schools, no gambling, no internet porn). Let’s ban all mosques and all churches. That will rid us of these problems.
#4 Bart Hall says:
Really? I know some who would argue that a certain Jewish carpenter holds that distinction.
This is a classic NYT piece in that it creates a unnecessarily complex hyperintellectualized explanation of a very simple problem, in an effort to appeal to an Ivy League readership.
To understand the scandal of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque, you don’t need a rarefied discussion of American history and the complex forces behind it. The whole “second America” idea is unnecessary here. Almost none of us are shocked that Muslims exist in the US, or that they might want to build a mosque. None of us want to force these people to look and act like June and Ward Cleaver.
What is shocking is the desire to build a mosque THERE — at ground zero. It’s like this: suppose the Aryan Brotherhood raped, tortured, and murdered all the students at a girl’s school and then blew it up — and did so with a huge panoply of hyper-German nationalism and symbolism. Then suppose a few years later, a local German group demanded that it be able to hold Oktoberfest celebrations right over the same bloody ground. It would be outrageous. No German group would demand such a thing, of course, because they’d have a deep sensitivity to the horror committed there and a desire not to hurt those victims further.
In this case, of course, the very point of the mosque is to hurt the victims. It’s going to be run by a man who thinks the victims of 9/11 deserved it.
It’s clear that you do equate Muslims with terrorists and Germans with Nazis. Tell me Jon why it is okay for you to leap from *12 Muslim terrorists did this* to *all Muslims have to stay away from here*? Some would call that xenophobia, but don’t worry, it’s okay, you’re not equating one black’s actions with all–that would be sinful.
#9…. can you explain what you mean by “equate”? Are you suggesting that I think that all Muslims are terrorists and that all Germans are Nazis? That’s preposterous. It’s obviously untrue.
Equate? No. Guilt by association? Yes. Why in heaven’s name should muslims be unable to worship in a square mile of the world trade center because of what a few fanatics performed? Thank God it wasn’t a black or a Jew who did similarly, or who knows what you would require.
If they are truly trying to foster peace and understanding, they should know that what they are doing will accomplish just the opposite. If they are trying to foster peace and understanding, their goal would be furthered by showing sensitivity and moving future away. Since they continue to do things that obviously do no further their stated goal of peace and understanding I can only come to the conclusion that that is not their true goal.
In post #9 you wrote “It’s clear that you do equate Muslims with terrorists and Germans with Nazis.” In post #11 you say that I do [u]not[/u] “equate” them.
It’s hard to respond to your allegations against me because you are shifting ground so fast.
I’ll ignore the “equating” claims right now since they are going back and forth.
As far as your question in #11, you write:
“Why in heaven’s name should muslims be unable to worship in a square mile of the world trade center because of what a few fanatics performed?”
Well, first of all, as far as I understand it, the proposed mosque is not a mile away from Ground Zero, but within two blocks of it. A mile in Manhattan is a big distance. Two blocks is not.
Second, regarding your word “unable” — if by “unable” you mean “forbidden by law” the issue here is not what the letter of the law permits (e.g. Obama’s speech which was a masterpiece of nonaddressing the issue) but what good hearted Muslims (and there are many of course) would naturally WANT to do, if they indeed felt horror at what had happened and compassion for the victims.
Post #12 (justOneVoice) just tried to explain that — take a glance and see if that helps you understand.
St. Paul addresses a conflict in the church in the church over the eating of meat which may help you understand. He agrees that the people who want to eat meat sacrificed to idols are theologically “correct”, and that they have “the right” to do so — but in a deeper sense he condemns them because they are doing so knowing they are injuring people they should care about. The law of love should trump their “rights.”
No one is suggesting that mosques can’t be built in Manhattan. It is the deliberate building of one right at Ground Zero, the deliberate symbolic F-U to the terrible wound suffered there by America, by the grieving victims, and so on, that is being criticized.
This man is obviously confused. My Grandfather was an immigrant in the early 1900’s. No one cared he was Lutheran. No one cared he was German. NO one forced him to learn English. He learned it so he would be able to actually contribute (read: Get a decent job). He could have continued speaking German. What would that have done but kept him a second class citizen? Those that are constantly pushing a country where we are forced to educate the children of our immigrants (legal an illegal alike) are forcing them into second class jobs, with limited future in the US. How many people in Mr. Douthat’s profession in the US are bilingual, and what good would it do them? Why wasn’t his ‘op-ed’ piece in Spanish?
My grandfather came here because what we have is better than what others have, and he wanted to be a part of that. Get over it and become a part of it.
It’s a melting pot, not a la carte.
And people need to remember that Islam is more than a religion. Islam is also a political thing. Not all, but a significant number, of Muslim sects advocate law based on their religious tenets. Enough that there is a tangible threat of death for people that say bad things about Islam, or dare to draw a cartoon of their prophet….
Some sects of Islam do in fact build mosques on the sites of their conquered enemies shrines.
The ground zero mosque has acknowledged to be openly provocative by moderate Muslims. In fact, the radical Muslims are in a win-win situation and moderate Muslims get pushed aside. Radical Muslims want to make it hard for moderate Muslims to live peacefully with the other American neighbors and inflaming anti-Muslim sentiment does exactly this. Even if the mosque gets cancelled, the radical muslims win.
This is obvious to the most casual observer. Liberals should also want to help moderate Muslims hand, but they make useful idiots and abet the radicals. They will make good dhimmis.
Douthat is beginning to look a bit like Tiger Woods before the fall. He has put up two very thought=provoking, insightful columns in a row. Bravo. Writing short columns that say something is quite a rarified skill.
It’s false #4 because it never really existed except as an idea. Some immigrants were not harried when they came. This historically was rare. Each nationality, when it arrived, suffered through oceans of contempt and contumely – the Poles, the Latvians, the Italians, the Jews, The Irish – they all went through the same misery. America was NEVER a melting pot. Those immigrants who succeeded did so because they fought their way into integration and this took generations – and many are still not there. Qiute literally fought. Once most boxers were Irish or Jewish.Then Italian. Then black. And now Latino. Indeed, many continue to pride in their separateness. The Irish are a good example.
And we are glad of it. We like our Little Italies, our Jewish Quarters,
The Polish sections because we like their diversity. We go there to eat all the time because we like ethnic food, and we like the music. We don’t WANT them to integrate and become homogenized.
It wasn’t founded on an idea. It was founded in blood as each group sought dominance – As the Algonquins discovered. Money and land greed moved the “best ” of us. Washington himself was a powerful member of a considerable land speculation scheme. The lesson was “every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost” as the early history of New York City (e.g.) makes clear. The Declaration of Independence was a device to bring some kind of order to a country that was radically separate and disordered. But the real America was already well formed by 1780. If your have been here since the outset of the country, as my ancestors were, then you remember that we hated Quakers here in New England and harried all and killed some. As we did to Mormons. We never thought that all men were created free and equal and we don’t think so now. Free, maybe, but not equal. You are not granted equality; you fight for it, in the cultural battlefields, not in the courts, because winning a court battle changes no minds. All our history bears this out. And now it is the Latinos turn. Larry
seems to me that early emigrants did try to assimilate by anglicising their names and learning english. we didn’t have vote cards in anything other than english. a lot of people kept their heritage but assimilated on a societal scale; others assimilated so much that they don’t know what their history is beyond what their surnames represent. yah, i like the different ethnic food and music and such but i want them to like my culture too and desire to be a part of it by assimilating to a certain degree.
The hypocrisy of all this is that the city of NY has yet to allow the Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed by the 9/11 attacks to rebuild. It owns the property. Yet, NY, Obama, and Blomberg are currying favor in the Muslim community. Yes, they have the right to build, however, it will not foster healing. Since the majority of the terrorists were Saudis, let Saudi Arabia allow Christians/Jews build community centers in Mecca/Medina as a gesture to foster religious tolerance between Infidels and Muslims.