The Two America's And The WTC Mosque Debate

[Richard]

And here's the gist of it all for Americans and for America - the best OpEd piece I've read on the topic.

Richard's $.02

Islam in Two Americas
Ross Douthat, NYT, 15 Aug 2010

There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.

But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.

These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.

The first America, not surprisingly, views the project as the consummate expression of our nation’s high ideals. “This is America,” President Obama intoned last week, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” The construction of the mosque, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers, is as important a test of the principle of religious freedom “as we may see in our lifetimes.”

The second America begs to differ. It sees the project as an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness. And beneath these concerns lurks the darker suspicion that Islam in any form may be incompatible with the American way of life.

This is typical of how these debates usually play out. The first America tends to make the finer-sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes. The first America welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses; the second America demanded that they change their names and drop their native languages, and often threw up hurdles to stop them coming altogether. The first America celebrated religious liberty; the second America persecuted Mormons and discriminated against Catholics.

But both understandings of this country have real wisdom to offer, and both have been necessary to the American experiment’s success. During the great waves of 19th-century immigration, the insistence that new arrivals adapt to Anglo-Saxon culture — and the threat of discrimination if they didn’t — was crucial to their swift assimilation. The post-1920s immigration restrictions were draconian in many ways, but they created time for persistent ethnic divisions to melt into a general unhyphenated Americanism.

The same was true in religion. The steady pressure to conform to American norms, exerted through fair means and foul, eventually persuaded the Mormons to abandon polygamy, smoothing their assimilation into the American mainstream. Nativist concerns about Catholicism’s illiberal tendencies inspired American Catholics to prod their church toward a recognition of the virtues of democracy, making it possible for generations of immigrants to feel unambiguously Catholic and American.

So it is today with Islam. The first America is correct to insist on Muslims’ absolute right to build and worship where they wish. But the second America is right to press for something more from Muslim Americans — particularly from figures like Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the mosque — than simple protestations of good faith.

Too often, American Muslim institutions have turned out to be entangled with ideas and groups that most Americans rightly consider beyond the pale. Too often, American Muslim leaders strike ambiguous notes when asked to disassociate themselves completely from illiberal causes.

By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.

They’ll need leaders, in other words, who understand that while the ideals of the first America protect the e pluribus, it’s the demands the second America makes of new arrivals that help create the unum.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/op...me&ref=general

[LongWire]

Good Post, Thanks Richard...........

[Dad]

That was an outstanding article. I think many Americans find their feet in both camps

[greenberetTFS]

Interesting article.................

Big Teddy

[Irishsquid]

Originally Posted by Dad

That was an outstanding article. I think many Americans find their feet in both camps

I'm definitely one of those. I DO see America as having a distinctive culture, but I think it is (or at least should be) a culture of allegiance to the Constitution, where the newest arrival is just as American as anyone, provided he/she shows allegiance to the Constitution before the "old country." Sadly, most native-born Americans have no such allegiance to the Constitution...in fact, most don't even know what it says.

[akv]

Good article, sums things up well IMHO

[EasyIan]

Although it has been expressed already, I still must commend you on this post. A quality find which brings together both perspectives.

Ian

[T-Rock]

Did John Edwards write that

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Richard

And here's the gist of it all for Americans and for America - the best OpEd piece I've read on the topic.

Richard's $.02

Islam in Two Americas
Ross Douthat, NYT, 15 Aug 2010

There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.

But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.

These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.

The first America, not surprisingly, views the project as the consummate expression of our nation’s high ideals. “This is America,” President Obama intoned last week, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” The construction of the mosque, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers, is as important a test of the principle of religious freedom “as we may see in our lifetimes.”

The second America begs to differ. It sees the project as an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness. And beneath these concerns lurks the darker suspicion that Islam in any form may be incompatible with the American way of life.

This is typical of how these debates usually play out. The first America tends to make the finer-sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes. The first America welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses; the second America demanded that they change their names and drop their native languages, and often threw up hurdles to stop them coming altogether. The first America celebrated religious liberty; the second America persecuted Mormons and discriminated against Catholics.

But both understandings of this country have real wisdom to offer, and both have been necessary to the American experiment’s success. During the great waves of 19th-century immigration, the insistence that new arrivals adapt to Anglo-Saxon culture — and the threat of discrimination if they didn’t — was crucial to their swift assimilation. The post-1920s immigration restrictions were draconian in many ways, but they created time for persistent ethnic divisions to melt into a general unhyphenated Americanism.

The same was true in religion. The steady pressure to conform to American norms, exerted through fair means and foul, eventually persuaded the Mormons to abandon polygamy, smoothing their assimilation into the American mainstream. Nativist concerns about Catholicism’s illiberal tendencies inspired American Catholics to prod their church toward a recognition of the virtues of democracy, making it possible for generations of immigrants to feel unambiguously Catholic and American.

So it is today with Islam. The first America is correct to insist on Muslims’ absolute right to build and worship where they wish. But the second America is right to press for something more from Muslim Americans — particularly from figures like Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the mosque — than simple protestations of good faith.

Too often, American Muslim institutions have turned out to be entangled with ideas and groups that most Americans rightly consider beyond the pale. Too often, American Muslim leaders strike ambiguous notes when asked to disassociate themselves completely from illiberal causes.

By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.

They’ll need leaders, in other words, who understand that while the ideals of the first America protect the e pluribus, it’s the demands the second America makes of new arrivals that help create the unum.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/op...me&ref=general

No SOG man I know would buy the NY Times unles out of toilet paper. Not a single SF old timer I know would welcome the folks who fail to assimilate. Yes, I grew up with Italians who spoke that language, but; they learned English. They damn sure did not demand press 1 or 2.

[Richard]

FWIW - my parents read about anything they could get their hands on to get as many points of view as possible to be considered (whether they agreed with the author or not) when forming an opinion and encouraged us to do the same - I found that same mentality of value while serving in the Army and as an educator - still do. I also served with many who had served in SOG, who found the NYT to be a valuable source of info when doing our ODA area studies and who taught me how to glean valuable bits of information from an article - usually a smaller back page piece and not a headline.

I also grew up in an area where there were quite a few first generation immigrants who never learned English but absolutely made sure their kids did so - learned a lot of lessons which stuck with me visiting the homes of friends who had to translate for their parents - Chinese, Japanese, 'Slavonian' (a common term for Southeastern Europeans and Russians in that area), and Mexicans. My Mom only spoke English but my Dad spoke Spanish and encouraged my brothers and I to learn at least one other language - he always said it helped to better understand someone's POV and gave you an edge when doing business or working with them. I found the people who did not learn English were no less American in their ideals than we were - something I've seen over the past couple of decades whenever I return to the family ranch and find myself mingling with Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Sikh immigrants throughout the area. I also came to realize that many people struggle in their native languages and not everyone is capable of learning a second language - something else I witnessed throughout my Army career and as an educator.

I'll never forget one time when on an FTX in Northern Arizona and meeting with a US Forest Service Ranger whose wife was Russian and spoke no English - we were 'gold' because our 11F, a Polish Lodge Act recruit and old 10th Grouper, spoke Russian...and several other European languages plus a smattering of English. He also served in SOG and was a Sunday NYT reader. You never know.

I also cannot remember all the times I heard Americans in another country complaining about why 'these people' can't learn to speak English - and to assimilate in a country as diverse as America, does one have to know the language? IMO - something is lost and you cannot fully benefit from all a society has to offer if you don't - but it doesn't mean you have to do so to live here and be a good citizen.

However - this is MOO and YMMV - but so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richard

......... - and to assimilate in a country as diverse as America, does one have to know the language? IMO - something is lost and you cannot fully benefit from all a society has to offer if you don't - but it doesn't mean you have to do so to live here and be a good citizen.......

Depends on if the individual wants to become an American - or just wants to live here and make it into the place they came from.

[Richard]

Depends on if the individual wants to become an American - or just wants to live here and make it into the place they came from.

American citizenship doesn't have a language requirement - neither does loyalty to our nation and its national ideals. I knew many people who either could not or spoke very little English but were better citizens than many I have met who can claim membership in groups such as the DAR.

However - YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by Irishsquid

I'm definitely one of those. I DO see America as having a distinctive culture, but I think it is (or at least should be) a culture of allegiance to the Constitution, where the newest arrival is just as American as anyone, provided he/she shows allegiance to the Constitution before the "old country." Sadly, most native-born Americans have no such allegiance to the Constitution...in fact, most don't even know what it says.

I agree with you. I have no problem at all with someone who wishes to immigrate here, but if they do, I expect them to live by our rules. It aggravates me to see anyone refer to themselves as (put name here) - American. They are either American or they are not. I have no problem with anyone celebrating their own unique heritage, but if they have decided to become citizens here, they need to observe our customs as well.

I think we, as a country are blessed, in that we have melded the customs of many countries, and cultures, into our own. We are able to see and enjoy the customs of various cultures equally, while simultaneously remaining loyal to the constitution and our own national pride. Yes, we as a nation have made many mistakes when dealing with others; the treatment of Native Americans, the Japanese internments during WWII, the treatment of black Americans, etc. I would hope that we have learned from these mistakes.

On the other hand, when a group sets themselves apart, demanding recognition of their own customs, which may run counter to our constitution; i.e. Sharia law, I find that unacceptable.

[Peregrino]

Nor is the solution new.

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Richard

FWIW - my parents read about anything they could get their hands on to get as many points of view as possible to be considered (whether they agreed with the author or not) when forming an opinion and encouraged us to do the same - I found that same mentality of value while serving in the Army and as an educator - still do. I also served with many who had served in SOG, who found the NYT to be a valuable source of info when doing our ODA area studies and who taught me how to glean valuable bits of information from an article - usually a smaller back page piece and not a headline.

I also grew up in an area where there were quite a few first generation immigrants who never learned English but absolutely made sure their kids did so - learned a lot of lessons which stuck with me visiting the homes of friends who had to translate for their parents - Chinese, Japanese, 'Slavonian' (a common term for Southeastern Europeans and Russians in that area), and Mexicans. My Mom only spoke English but my Dad spoke Spanish and encouraged my brothers and I to learn at least one other language - he always said it helped to better understand someone's POV and gave you an edge when doing business or working with them. I found the people who did not learn English were no less American in their ideals than we were - something I've seen over the past couple of decades whenever I return to the family ranch and find myself mingling with Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Sikh immigrants throughout the area. I also came to realize that many people struggle in their native languages and not everyone is capable of learning a second language - something else I witnessed throughout my Army career and as an educator.

I'll never forget one time when on an FTX in Northern Arizona and meeting with a US Forest Service Ranger whose wife was Russian and spoke no English - we were 'gold' because our 11F, a Polish Lodge Act recruit and old 10th Grouper, spoke Russian...and several other European languages plus a smattering of English. He also served in SOG and was a Sunday NYT reader. You never know.

I also cannot remember all the times I heard Americans in another country complaining about why 'these people' can't learn to speak English - and to assimilate in a country as diverse as America, does one have to know the language? IMO - something is lost and you cannot fully benefit from all a society has to offer if you don't - but it doesn't mean you have to do so to live here and be a good citizen.

However - this is MOO and YMMV - but so it goes...

Richard's $.02

This must have been prior to 73 or he just was never informed that the NY Times plus another newspaper ran stories about SOG OPS. Now, I cannot imagine a military man period reading this rag as the NY Times has time and time again put their story above National Security. From cell phone tracking to you name it. This bunch at the NY Times has helped our enemies, not our military men and women.

Politics or not, I will not read a rag that endangers our military and national security.