The builders want to build it as a healing gesture, but healing is impossible without dialogue By Howard Dean
Last night, I asked Dean to record a podcast interview with me about his position. Thus far, he has submitted a written response to what I wrote here for publication on Salon, which is re-printed below in full. For me, several questions remain about his rationale, as well as some new ones raised by this statement, and it's still my hope that he'll be willing to answer some of those questions and have a discussion about his views:
First of all I am not going to back off. The reaction did surprise me because most of the negative reaction had to do with defending the constitutional rights of the builders of the center. Of course I never attacked those rights, I explicitly supported them as the President also did this week. Nor did I side with the Islamophobic rhetoric of Newt, Palin et al. There are a great many people in this debate talking past each other as is often the case these days.
Here is my case. First, no one who understands the American Constitution can reasonably doubt the right of the builders to build. Secondly, the building site is very close to the site of a violent tragedy that seared the soul of every American including Muslim Americans. Thirdly, the builders of the proposed Islamic Center say they want to help heal the nation and there is a preponderance of evidence that that is true, based not least on the fact that the last administration viewed the leadership of this group as a. pro American bridge to the Muslim world.
Fourth, there are many Americans, about 65 or 70 percent, including many family members of the victims, who have very strong emotional resistance to building on this site. Some of them may have other feelings such as hate, fear, etc. but the vast majority of these people are not right wing hate mongers.
My argument is simple. This Center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens.
That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are "justified" or not. No doubt the Republic will survive if this center is built on its current site or not. But I think this is a missed opportunity to try to have an open discussion about why this is a big deal because it is a big deal to a lot of Americans who are not just right wing politicians pushing the hate button again. I think those people need to be heard respectfully whether they are right or whether they are wrong.
more Yeah, Rosa Parks should have considered the feelings of the rest of the passengers and civil rights opponents before taking a seat in the front of the bus.
Updated to add this from
Glenn GreenwaldThe mere fact that a majority of Americans hold a particular view -- including perfectly nice and well-meaning people -- doesn't mean the view is free from bigotry and irrational fear. Does anyone doubt that? The history of most nations is suffused with episodes whereby perfectly well-intentioned people ingested -- unwittingly or otherwise -- irrational and even horrific positions about a whole host of matters. As for why opposition to Park 51 is necessarily and by definition grounded in classic bigotry -- i.e., all Muslims bear responsibility for the 9/11 attack --
see my NYT contribution here. For how that bigotry expresses itself in practice among project opponents, see
here and
here. The central question raised by this controversy is the same one raised by countless similar controversies throughout American history: whether the irrational fears and prejudices of the majority should be honored and validated or emphatically confronted. That question, and several other issues raised by Dean's response, are what I hope to discuss with him.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
