History repeating itself?

[resqgeek]

The current atmosphere of suspicion and anger directed towards America's Islamic minority has me reflecting on our history, and in particularly our history of Anti-Catholicism. While the issues aren't exact parallels, there are many striking similarities. Much of the current debate centers around claims that the growing numbers of Muslims in this country will overwhelm our system of law and impose a Sharia legal system in its place. There are questions about the loyalty of American Muslims, about the alleged incompatibility of being a Muslim and and American.

Much of this sounds strikingly similar to the rhetoric of the American Party (i.e., the "know nothings") in the middle of the 19th Century. Spurred on my the large numbers of Catholic immigrants from Europe, the "Know nothings" argued that these Catholic immigrants would obey their priest and bishops rather than the secular authority of this country. There was a belief that the Pope was plotting to use the Catholic vote to subvert the legal system and legislate a Catholic system in its place. Questions about whether it was possible to be both a good Catholic and a loyal American lingered well in to the 20th Century, when such questions were raised during the Presidential campaign of John Kennedy.

While the majority of this country seems to have accepted that Catholic Americans are loyal and present no threat to the nation, the current rhetoric shows that perhaps we need to revisit the lessons of this history. The current opposition to the building of Islamic Centers in NYC is the most visible case, but there is also vocal opposition to the building of a mosque in Murfreesboro, TN. In all likelihood, the opponents in these cases are either unaware of this history, or would dismiss it as not relevant. After all, I don't know that there was any allegations that the Catholic Church was actively engaged in violent terrorism in the 19th Century. However, in both cases, bigotry has allowed the opponents to use a religious label as a smear against an entire segment of the population. It was wrong then, and it is just as wrong today.

Comments

[miketroll.livejournal.com]

Alas, bigotry never stops repeating itself in different forms. But there does seem to be an awful lot of it around at present!

A New Yorker said on CBS News that holding all Muslims responsible for 9/11 is like holding all Christians responsible for Timothy McVeigh. An excellent simile!

Still, there is an internal problem for the Muslim community to address. That was brought home to us in the UK by the London 7/7 bombings, when the terrorists were home-grown. The police have been criticized for picking on Muslims, but where else were they supposed to look? There are objective reasons for suspecting that the terror cells lie within the Muslim community and not, say, at the Royal Horticultural Society.

For their part, I don't find Muslim clerics vociferous in their opposition to fanaticism within their creed, or active in dissuading young Muslim men from joining groups sympathetic to jihad. For Muslims to feel integrated, they must be seen to be with the rest of us in opposing terror.

[resqgeek]

The police have been criticized for picking on Muslims, but where else were they supposed to look?

Fair enough, but that's not the same as widespread opposition to an entire population of people simply because of their professed religion. Our law enforcement and security operations need to focus on the source of threats, wherever they might be, but the rest of us need to remember that the majority of Muslims are *not* terrorists.

For their part, I don't find Muslim clerics vociferous in their opposition to fanaticism within their creed, or active in dissuading young Muslim men from joining groups sympathetic to jihad. For Muslims to feel integrated, they must be seen to be with the rest of us in opposing terror.

I absolutely agree. Such outspoken opposition to extremism would do much to help reduce the current levels of antagonism against Muslims, I think. Again, there are historical similarities. Many of the priests and bishops in the 19th Century did little to counter the allegations of those that opposed them. The nature of the Church's hierarchy made it slow to adapt to the changes required by the more open, secular societies it suddenly found itself in. Perhaps there are lessons for the Muslim leaders in this history as well...

[katekintail.livejournal.com]

Interesting parallel and well said.

Personally, I think people have every right to build their community center or mosque near ground zero (or anywhere else they want.) I also think it's a little insensitive for them to build in that particular location, given that some 9-11 families clearly have a problem with it. I think BOTH sides have forgotten all about that little word called "respect."

I was pretty shocked at an interview on TV with someone I heard a few days ago where a Christian was speaking out against the building, saying he didn't want something connected to violence built near Ground Zero compared to Christianity, "a completely peaceful religion." Clearly he forgot all about history as well and has never heard of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition or the Revolutionary War... or this whole debate, which is getting so heated and full of hate.

[skyring.livejournal.com]

When I was in Amsterdam, my guide showed me a few buildings that had been used as clandestine Catholic churches. Or synagogues. Outlawing a religion means that it goes underground and there is a feeling of resentment amongst its practitioners.

The Romans didn't stamp out Christians in the catacombs and the Colosseum. Why on earth should anybody think that making life tough - and unfairly so - for Muslims will make them vanish?

Such people should look to their own hearts before condemning those of people they hate.