Our political
landscape nowadays is like a landfill, filled
with lots of junk. This is most apparent on
the heightened debate over the building of a
mosque near Ground Zero and the posturing
around the upcoming mid-term elections.
Republicans are fast chasing after President
Obama, and Democrats are fast running away from
him. But what does that mean about where we
stand, especially on the mosque?
The debate over the mosque (really a religious center that houses a mosque) is no open and shut case. Like many tough issues, there are conflicting values at work here. There are clear concerns over freedom of religion and tolerance; and yet there are issues about respect too – even if one can place the center near Ground Zero, it is wise to do so? I’ve heard reasonable arguments on both sides. But what I haven’t heard is a real conversation that explicitly joins these values and sorts through them.
Indeed, as the political season has
heated up, I’ve found myself cringing – no,
actually being downright disgusted – with
much of the political rhetoric surrounding the
religious center. Republicans act like
President Obama and other “defenders” of
tolerance have committed treason. They are now
using the mosque as a “wedge issue,”
reminiscent of the culture wars of the 1980s
and 90s. They seem to believe that such
worn-out tactics will be a key to the 2010
mid-term elections.
Meanwhile, many Democrats, even
before the most recent debate over the
religious center, have been slowly but surely
slinking away from the president – hoping
that voters will see them as bold and
independent. Of course, this is a time-honored
tradition during mid-terms. But before we
readily accept this year’s version, I do
wonder what these political maneuverings mean
when it comes to the debate over the mosque
and Ground Zero. For while one can hear many
Democrats mumbling something about freedom of
religion when it comes to building the center,
they quickly take cover by saying this is all
a local zoning issue.
For sure, it is a local zoning
issue. But let’s be real – it’s much more
than that, too. This issue strikes at the very
heart of what kind of country we seek to be,
and who we will ultimately become. Some people
might say that my take on this is too
abstract, too general, too out of touch with
the daily reality of politics.
But my response to such a critique
is that it is our politics that is out of touch
with the daily reality of our country, that it
has become too jaded, too narrow, and too
self-referential. That politics has come to
distort those things that we actually care
about, and which we actually need to speak
together about. Of course, there are times
when some issues are better left unaddressed,
left for another day, a better time.
But this issue is not one of them.
Instead, this issue summons us to engage. And
in doing so, we face a fundamental choice. How
will we engage? In this particular debate, and
in others, we find ourselves struggling as a
nation about whether we will be defensive in
who we are, in a sense cowering in the corner,
attempting to beat back those challenges and
“enemies” who approach us; or we will
choose to actively create who we will become,
always mindful of the values and history we
wish to guide our engagement and actions.
When people spend all their time
either chasing after or running away from
someone else, it’s usually not long before
they realize they do not even know where they
stand. Maybe that’s the point. But, for me,
I want us to engage on this issue. For it is
only by engaging that we can figure out where
we stand, and get to create who we will
become.