Symbols of Multiculturalism: Pork, Mosques, and Fear

Last month, journalist Daniel Denvir wrote a thoughtful analysis of the city of Dearborn, Michigan as a symbol of multiculturalism, a place where Arabs and Muslims have found acceptance; where different cultural traditions share the same space; and where, through entrepreneurship, Arab-Americans have revitalized decaying parts of the city. As a response to those extremists whose celebrity was built on the myth that Dearborn is under Sharia law, his article is a priceless rebuke: "The neon signage on the enormous buildings housing the Pantheon Club and BT's Executive Club [strip clubs] are among the city's most conspicuous landmarks....Then there's the matter of the Dearborn Sausage Company, churning out its famous pork products across the street from a Southend mosque".

Dearborn’s image as a multicultural city is a point of pride for many of its residents. Yet, for others, that multiculturalism feels like an encroachment, not a gift. Like most residents, I have come to understand the coded, and not-so-coded, language of neighbors who prefer to insulate from, rather than associate with, Arab-Americans and Muslims. They won’t visit the neighborhood park or swim at the local pool; some want to relocate to cities that symbolize white homogeneity. For these residents, cultural differences mean values differences. As it stands, extremists, the Debbie Schlussels and Terry Joneses of the world, are the only ones reflecting these fears, so it is their self-affirming vitriol that stands-in for thoughtful discourse (Denvir).

But, thoughtful discourse isn't really what we need—yet—talking only works if someone opens the proverbial door. What we need right now is to get people opening their doors. So, those who embrace multiculturalism will need to reach out to those who do not. Not in a formal, I-love-multiculturalism button-wearing kind of way. No, this is an organic process. It’s asking that friend to dine in East Dearborn, to visit the Arab American National Museum, to cycle around Levagood Park, or to tour the city’s Art in Public Spaces. It's taking the opportunity and accepting the invitation. This is how residents re-engage with their city; this is how we grow a sense of belonging and association and develop an appreciation for the contributions of all residents. This is how our city becomes more than a symbol of multiculturalism. It becomes a model for multiculturalism.  

Sources:

“About Debbie.” Debbie Schlussel. Debbie Schlussel, n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2012. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/bio/

Denvir, Daniel. “Dearborn: Where Americans Come to Hate Muslims.” The Atlantic Cities. The AtlanticCities, 25 Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Oct. 2012. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/09/dearborn-where-americans-come-hate-muslims/3360/

Warikoo, Niraj. “Quran-Burning Florida Pastor Terry Jones Speaks Near a Dearborn High School about What He Says Is Bullying by Muslim Students.” Detroit Free Press. Detroit Free Press, 11 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2012. http://www.freep.com/article/20121011/NEWS02/310110180/Quran-burning-Florida-pastor-Terry-Jones-speaks-near-a-Dearborn-high-school-about-what-he-says-is-bullying-by-Muslim-students

Shell Game: Women’s Health at the Expense of Religious Freedom?

On Saturday, October 20^th, across the country, the Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom (a.k.a. Stand Up for Religious Freedom) organized another round of rallies protesting Obamacare (a.k.a. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) as an infringement on a religious institution’s right to practice its religion.

Per a recommendation by the Institute of Medicine, Obamacare requires employers, including religious institutions, to provide contraception services on their insurance plans. For churches and other houses of worship, the law provides an accommodation which requires the insurance company, rather than the employer, to pay for contraception (Sonfield). According to the Stand Up for Religious Freedom movement, this accommodation is just a “shell-game” whereby insurance companies will pay for such contraceptives with the money paid to them by religious institutions.

But if the accommodation is a shell game, so is the conviction that Obamacare represents an assault on religious freedom. The conflict over contraception is not a case of the government imposing some secular ideology on religion. Rather it is the offshoot of the involvement of religion in the secular economy. To fulfill its mission, religion has opted to take part in secular society through the establishment of hospitals, schools, churches, and other businesses. Through these businesses, religion pursues its mission of proselytizing, healing, serving those in need, and delivering its doctrine to the masses. Both secular society and religions benefit from these businesses, but these institutions are businesses. As such, they must follow applicable tax, finance, and employment laws and regulations. Despite an anti-contraceptive doctrine, religious institutions are bound to an economic reality that ties employment to health care and individual health care to the whole society.

Entirely exempting religious institutions would ignore the many societal and economic benefits of making contraception accessible, including minimizing the risk of unintended pregnancies, appropriately spacing pregnancies, timely pre-natal and infant care, and promoting women’s educational and financial success (Sonfield). All of these benefits have broader implications for American society as a whole.

If the shells are taken off the table, the legitimate issues are revealed: Women’s health and women’s impact on society and the economy. It is women who must shoulder the emotional and economic responsibilities of an unintended pregnancy, and, if they falter, society must pick up the slack. Despite these realities, religionists speak only of the value of the embryo, the sanctity of marriage, and the freedom of religion (Tollefsen). All the while, beneath these shells, lies the tangible life of the woman.

Sources

“About the Institute.” Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Institute of Medicine, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM.aspx

“About President Obama’s HHS Mandate.” Stand Up for Religious Freedom. Stand Up for Religious Freedom, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2012.  http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/mandate/

Draper, Electa. “Catholic Church Defends Birth-Control Stance Amid Strong Opposition.” Denver Post. Denver Post, 20 May 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2012. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20664414

“Health Care Law Gives Women Control Over Their Care, Offers Free Preventive Services to 47 Million Women.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 31 Jul. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/07/20120731a.html

Sonfield, Adam. “The Religious Exemption to Mandated Insurance Coverage of Contraception.” American Medical Association Journal of Ethics Virtual Mentor. American Medical Association, 14.2 (Feb. 2012). Web. 21 Oct. 2012. http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html

Tollefsen, Christopher. “Contraception and Catholicism.” National Review Online. National Review, 16 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2012. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291220/contraception-and-catholicism-christopher-tollefsen

Reframing the Fear Narrative

A few weeks ago, in response to the "Innocence of Muslims" movie trailer, several world leaders called on the United Nations to enact anti-blasphemy laws. These leaders had an opportunity to deflate the extremist narrative, but, instead, they became a party to it.

In asking for such laws, these leaders (Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Yemeni President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, and Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, to name a few) justified the extremist belief that Muslims need others to behave or they themselves will not (a.k.a. Muslims are innately violent). These leaders missed the opportunity to highlight the fact that, of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet, only tens of thousands demonstrated. Even one million Muslims demonstrating is only .000625 or 0% of the total, global Muslim population. Put another way: Instead of protesting, almost every Muslim on the planet stayed home, went to work, took the kids to school, went to dinner, read a book, went to Mosque, met friends for coffee, grocery shopped, cleaned the house, prayed, or did some other activity that was not demonstrating against this movie.

Instead of suggesting that Muslims need protection from hate speech, world leaders should have pointed out that radical speech begets radical responses. Those who preach hate are counting on radicals to act. As Steve Coll wrote in the October 1 issue of The New Yorker, some of these protests were organized by “fringe political parties and radical activists”. Such protests “do not typically attract even a large minority of the local faithful”. These protesters were “shock troops, comparable to Europe’s skinheads or anarchists”.

Even in their call to temper freedom of expression through social responsibility, world leaders only helped emphasize the polarizing West-versus-Islam narrative. Freedom of expression is not the problem, and social responsibility is not the answer. Extremists do not respond to laws, logic, or social responsibility. These things are the antithesis of their mission. Mark Basseley Youssef (a.k.a. Sam Bacile) is a US citizen who made a movie and put it on YouTube, but he is not representative of Western ideals. He’s an anti-Muslim radical.

Then there is the video itself. World leaders and the media repeatedly and primarily describe the video as portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a war-mongering pedophile, womanizer, and fraud. While that description of the video’s message is accurate, the video should be just as repeatedly and primarily described as haphazard, unintelligible, low-budget, and soft-porn. Rather than a call to arms, this video is an embarrassment, a joke, not on Muslims or supporters of tolerance but on anti-Muslim radicals. Is this the best propaganda they could produce? (Will those actors ever find work outside of the porn industry?) Considering nearly 100% of Muslims did not protest the video, why can’t world leaders and the media acknowledge that this video is a message by extremists, for extremists. The rest of the world is too busy living to take this thing seriously.

All too often, radicals control the narrative. Whatever is the most shocking grabs the most headlines. Whoever screams the loudest gets heard. The rest of the world barely has time to view a movie trailer on YouTube, much less stop their lives to go protest about it. It is for world leaders, those with a built-in pulpit, to create an alternative narrative from that of the radicals. They have to present, repeatedly, and in many forums, the narrative of reason and logic. Doing so does not minimize the impact of radical violence and hate speech, but it puts it in the proper perspective. Rather than such actions consuming the entire frame, they should be viewed for what they are: one small part of the entire picture.

Sources:
“Algeria at UN: Limit Free Speech, Protect Islam.” NPR. National Public Radio, 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162013363
Bacile, Sam. “Muhammad Movie Trailer.” YouTube. YouTube, 2 Jul. 2012. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
Coll, Steve. “Days of Rage.” The New Yorker 1 Oct. 2012: 21-22. Print.
Craig, Iona and Sara Lynch. “Violence Tied to Anti-Islam Film Rises Across the Middle East.” Detroit Free Press. Detroit Free Press, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. http://www.freep.com/article/20120914/NEWS07/309140093
Kaleem, Jaweed. “At the United Nations, Organization of Islamic Cooperation Calls for Ban on Insulting Prophet Muhammad.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Sept. 2012. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/united-nations-organization-of-islamic-cooperation_n_1927166.html
 “Man Behind Anti-Muslim Film to Appear in Court.” Associated Press. Associated Press, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=dzNLdSbg
“Pakistanis Protest Against Anti-Islam Film.” NPR. National Public Radio, 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162003958
“The Future of the Global Muslim Population: Projects for 2010 – 2030.” Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Pew Research Center, 27 Jan. 2011. Web. 9 Oct. 2012. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1872/muslim-population-projections-worldwide-fast-growth
“The Worldwide Protests Against Anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims: By the Numbers.” The Week. The Week, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. http://theweek.com/article/index/233439/the-worldwide-protests-against-anti-islam-film-innocence-of-muslims-by-the-numbers