In Search of Hairbands

In the howling wind comes a stinging rain
See it driving nails
Into the souls on the tree of pain
--U2

Much ink has been spilled in the media and the blogosphere about the Muslim center to be located near Ground Zero. Commentary has been all over the map, which perhaps should not be unexpected given the impact that 9/11 had, and continues to have, on so many. A few things have struck me in the commentary that I wanted to reflect on here.

Analogies. Many people have been offering analogies in attempts to convey their point of view on this issue. When used appropriately, analogies can be an effective form of persuasion and learning because they help people connect current situations to past lessons learned from experience. However, analogies can be misleading or downright nonsensical when they fail to use examples that allow for 'apples to apples' comparisons.

It seems to me that in the present situation, the most effective analogies are those that aggregate a) an event in which heinous murder was committed that directly or indirectly affected a large group of people (the 9/11 event) b) a group perceived as having traits in common with the those who committed the heinous murder (Islamic religion or background) c) intent of said group to locate a facility near the location where the heinous crime was committed (Muslim center near Ground Zero).

As such, the most appropriate analogies seem related to hypotheticals such as:

-->a center for Japanese culture located near the USS Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor
-->a KKK meeting hall located around the corner from the hotel in Memphis where Martin Luther King was shot
-->a Nazi history museum located outside the gates of Auschwitz

Majority beliefs and democracy. From the data I've seen, it appears that a majority of Americans do not want the Muslim center to be built close to Ground Zero. However, it also appears that most Americans would be against a law prohibiting such a center from being built.

Most Americans seem to understand that it is the Constitutional right of this group to locate where it wants to, regardless of whether citizens think it's a good idea or not. This is encouraging.

Things might be different, however, if this issue were put to a vote, as many folks might vote with emotion of the minute. Which once again suggest the danger of putting social issues to a democratic vote, where mob rule might very well trample the freedoms of the few. Sadly, many people seem to recognize the dangers only when it is their cause that the mob threatens. When their cause happens to align with the mob, then these same people jump behind democratic vote as 'just.'

Intent. The question whose answer escapes me is this: Why would a Muslim organization want to locate a facility so close to place where a terrible crime, among the worst in American and perhaps world history, was committed by people with Muslim affiliation?

When these plans hit the tables of the organizers, they surely had to realize that this action would be viewed as a threat to many who are still in the process of healing--a process likely to take a generation or longer to conclude.

Those who have expressed 'surprise' at the ensuing pushback seem either ignorant of the human condition or politically motivated.

There's a scene in the movie Road House where the local crime boss and his henchman stroll into a bar that has been trying to turn itself into a respectable establishment. The boss orders a round of drinks for everyone, and then suggests that his lady get up on stage and do some dancing for the patrons. Meanwhile, his gang splits up and saunters around the club. As this situation unfolds, one of the bar's 'coolers', played by Sam Elliot, takes out a rubber band and begins tying back his long hair, because he senses that a volatile situation is about to ignite.

Why would he sense otherwise?