The Mosque Debacle

Well I can hold off no longer. The amount of commentary in the mass media, focused upon the proposed building of an Islamic mosque within a few blocks of the former WTC location, has caused a number of reactions by me, from interest, to confusion, to boredom, to outrage, to perplexity, and I’m sure others as well. But despite the mountains of words spewed on both sides, I feel I still need to express my, slightly limited, view. But hopefully that will work to my advantage, because, as usual, I feel that people are discussing things at the already-confused, diffused surface of the topic. In true philosophical form, I want to discuss something that I take to be at the root of this (or at least only what I can infer must be there, based on the rhetoric people have been using).

Things I want to point out: 1) the logic implemented by the people who do not want the mosque to be built. 2) how Obama's religiousity is related.

This is just one video, but does give you an idea of the sorts of logic being used. Where’s the argument in that video? “The mosque is wrong, so wrong.” There it is; that’s the argument being put forth in that video. Well that’s fine as a conclusion, but it doesn’t work so well as an argument, which is something you won't find in that video. So let’s keep going.

Please, please watch this 10-minute Daily Show clip. It is, in my opinion, one of the best Daily Show pieces they've done, although they typically are pretty good at reporting on things like this. Hopefully, that'll give you a taste of some of the points being made, and what sort of logic they are attempting to use.

Most (but not all) people realize it is not a legal issue, as they have the right to build there. Its not illegal because the constitutions only mentions of religion are stated in the first amendment and are as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And that mentions nothing about prohibiting a religious center, based on its location.

So it is not illegal, but "wrong". So what is wrong about it? They want to build a Muslim religious site close to a place where terrorists, who are Muslim, killed thousands of people. What's the connection? Apparently, they are not being sensitive, or respectful, to those who were affected by the attack. This isn't exactly a horrible plea. Out of all the jargon, I can respect this point more than any other. But nonetheless, to believe that an entire religion can be represented by the actions of less than 20 of its members is ludicrous. What about recent Christian leaders such as Ted Haggard, George Alan Rekers, Tony Alamo, Joe Barron, as well as the slew of Catholic leaders who have been accused or convicted of having sexual relations with children. Does this prohibit the building of Christian churches near schools? Does it make it "wrong" to have Sunday School? It hasn't seemed to be a problem yet. We isolate those "bad characters" from the rest of Christianity in attempts to retain the pristine character of Christianity. But when it comes to Islam, one represents all.

So here is my contention, which is nothing original, pertaining to the logic behind prohibiting the building of the mosque: muslim = terrorist = non-american = non-christian = immoral = wrong

The same logic is being used simply by the fact that Obama's religion is being questioned and that that makes it somehow relevant to the U.S. political realm. This is an extremely well-researched op-ed piece in the NYT on Obama’s religion. My point, which is one of the ones mentioned in article, is that it should not matter. But, according to that logic, if Obama is a Muslim, then he becomes all those things in that equation above. And if you don't trust that equation, notice how his nationality (which in America, perplexingly remains tied to ethnicity) and religion are always brought up together, always. And why, even when Obama says he is a Christian, do people not believe he is a Christian? That's usually good enough for most other politicians, even when their actions say otherwise.

Certainty Without Religion

Certainty doesn’t require knowing. In fact, certainty doesn’t even require facts; except the fact which it itself creates. And in that case, such a requirement fulfills itself.

A little while ago at work, a lady I was working for began talking about god and Jesus and stuff and how (almost verbatim, but forgive my memory) “you may think you’re certain, but the only true certainty is with God.” I just smiled and nodded politely, as I didn’t have the desire to have any form of in-depth conversation given the circumstances. Well I didn’t agree with that statement when I heard it, and I disagree with it more and more as time goes on.

What she is telling me is that human certainty is no certainty at all. Ok then, what certainty is actually certain? Well her reply would be a certainty found through a relationship with god (whatever shape her god and her relationship to it might take). In sum, humans, on their own, are incapable of having certainty (how Cartesian of her). And as you can tell, I disagree.

I assume this religious relationship she is referring to involves a belief, and a faith. In which case, certainty seems to be precluded. Or would she say that? Does she gain a certainty from her faith? I bet she does; she just doesn’t want to grant me the same (godless) result.

But analogously, I think we create our own certainty by taking all sorts of leaps of faith, and without a religious figure in the picture. When two people, both possibly standing on quite uncertain ground, take a leap of faith and create something new through a pact or some sort of agreement, they create their own certainty. In other words (and somewhat perplexingly), through uncertainty, they gain their own certainty. This is because we can create it. And this is what a relationship (of any type) is; for if both parties agree to it, or in other words put their faith/trust in the other, then of course the relationship will be fulfilled. And in fact, that is the only way for it to work. I am not saying that her religious certainty is fake; rather, I am saying it is no different than a secular certainty.

We gain our certainty when we first cease to doubt; and we don’t need religion to do that. [and for the students of philosophy, this is one of the most critical and logically fallacious mistakes of Descartes’]

Re*vital*ization

Revitalization: a constant construction of an end as a conscious or unconscious realization of the lack of a final one.

It's seen everywhere: sports, church, school, video games, running, education, and in every goal we create. In every event, we *create* the end (or the final event). But the fact is, they all come to pass.

Sports:
The championship happens again the next year (or in four years for the olympics). But what does this final goal (of a championship, or perhaps a lesser goal of a .500 record) require of us? Concentration and commitment. Conscious time, effort, and devotion, It's something that gives us a reason to keep struggling through life.

Video Games:
Now, with the advent of the avatar and Gamer-Ranks, all those meaningless single-session games (whether football or halo) are now valuable. Creating these final ends, we are making our little tasks that we go through day-to-day worth something. And as a result, we have addiction. People are addicted because they have to play more and more games to *improve* their character on WoW, their EASports tag in Madden and their team slayer rank on halo. But there is no end, just the opportunity at improving your character.

Church/Religion (this one might be touchy):
I was always confused as to why we had to keep having retreats and conferences and special events at church (why can't the love of an all-powerful god sustain us without having to fully submerse ourself in and with fellow believers to boost our *faith*-bank). The answer back then was that the devil (or society) had been dragging you down, slowly draining you. I agree that we slowly become worn out from living, but I no longer believe there is a devil on the other end. I also disagree with having to go on a retreat to get revitalized. So in this sense, these conventions are a way to drill in to your head that there is some final end, and that, as a result, all this living is going to be worth something in the end.

Running/exercise:
This became my baseball and my religion. What do you do? You sign up for a race 4 months down the road and suddenly you have a purpose for those 4 months. But then the race comes and goes, and what are you left with? A sense of accomplishment sure, but what do we almost invariably do? We sign up for another one, because a sense of accomplishment does little for our life down the road.

Conclusion:
I think life is a series of small goals, constructed in such a way as to keep us moving forward. What about all those people working for the weekend or getting through the last months of school for their spring and summer breaks? (I don't think this is a new concept but) what about mid-life crises? You get through high school to get to college. You get through college to get a good job. You keep working hard to get promotions. Now what? All of the sudden, we realize all the goals we've created for ourselves have gotten us to this point, but they're ends have come and pass. We are constantly unsatisfied with some aspect of our current selves, so we create a goal to improve ourself, and so it goes


What happens if we no longer create goals for ourself? Desire, the essence of human existence, is expunged and leads to apathy and nothingness. But I don't want to be depressing on this hump-day. I don't believe there has to be a final end. Perhaps, if we continue to have goals to aim for, a final end is not necessary. Surely a life of constantly striving for our goals is one that will be *meaning*ful and show us that a final end is not needed to have joy in this life we've been given. We must also live in the present,but that is for a whole other post or 5.

Well this is far too long, and although I feel that I could write on this forever, I have some homework to do... so I can do well in this class... so i can get a degree... so I can get into grad school... so I can get a good job, make money, and retire young.

Lucky for me, there is a lot of knowledge at the end of my rainbows.