{"id":3203,"date":"2015-10-22T13:33:19","date_gmt":"2015-10-22T18:33:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/napervilledemocrats.org\/ntdo\/?p=3203"},"modified":"2015-10-22T14:29:04","modified_gmt":"2015-10-22T19:29:04","slug":"mosque-alert-a-personal-reflection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/napervilledemocrats.org\/ntdo\/mosque-alert-a-personal-reflection\/","title":{"rendered":"Mosque Alert: A Personal Reflection"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"naperville_mosque\"

Naperville’s Old Nichols Library with Fictional Extension (image courtesy of http:\/\/www.artplaceamerica.org\/grantee\/mosque-alert)<\/p><\/div>\n

My wife and I went to the read-through of the Mosque Alert script Tuesday night at North Central College<\/a>. \u00a0It was a fun event (and brilliantly carried off by a cast that, as we found out later, had had only 2 days’ rehearsal time!). \u00a0The cast had changed some since what we saw in May<\/a>, and the story had taken on new twists, but the broad outline was still the same interesting and challenging exploration: What happens when a (fictional) Islamic congregation proposes to build a mosque in downtown Naperville?<\/p>\n

Afterwards people were invited to stick around for a “talk-back” in response to what we had heard and seen. \u00a0Audience members had insightful and sometimes revelatory comments and questions and it was well worth staying. \u00a0Playwright Jamil Khoury asked what people thought about a particular speech in which one character, Uncle Dan – I guess you’d call him the main antagonist – presented his case against the proposed mosque. \u00a0He wasn’t subtle; it was an outright Islamophobic screed, but expressed in a relatively measured way, designed to appear reasonable.<\/p>\n

One of his main lines of attack was to point out many ways in which Christians and LGBTs can expect to receive terrible treatment in Muslim countries around the world, from ISIS and others, and yet “we” should allow “them” to just walk into our communities and be welcomed with open arms? \u00a0An audience member worried in the talk-back that maybe this presentation using facts was more effective and convincing – at least to some – than an obvious rant. \u00a0We talked some about that, and about whether or not all of his “facts” were true. \u00a0Some were and some where not, and isn’t it possible that maybe the intermixing would lead listeners to accept all of them because at least some of them were supportable?<\/p>\n

As ever, I was unable to quickly clarify and articulate my own response and so missed a chance to get it out there, but here’s what I wish I had been able to contribute.<\/p>\n

I see at least two major\u00a0flaws\u00a0in Uncle Dan’s argument.<\/p>\n

First, I would suggest that the factuality of his talking points is immaterial. \u00a0While we of course have to acknowledge that there is bigotry, intolerance and brutality in the world, we don’t have to treat it as license – or demand – to respond in kind. \u00a0The answer to intolerance is not more intolerance. \u00a0If “they” do it, then maybe instead of doing the same ourselves, we should demonstrate that there’s a better way.<\/p>\n

But if “they” are only taking advantage of our openness to dominate “us” by another means, then we are dupes. \u00a0Which leads to another flaw in the argument.<\/p>\n

Isn’t his entire presumption of “we” and “they” warped and arbitrary?\u00a0 Apparently, Uncle Dan’s “we” is white American Christians. \u00a0We are under attack and need to stand up for ourselves. \u00a0(It could as easily have been “straight white American Christians,” but another character in the play, Uncle Dan’s nephew Carl, is gay and Uncle Dan has consented to allow gay folks – or at least this one – inside of his “we” circle.)<\/p>\n

Uncle Dan’s world is clearly demarcated, and very scary. \u00a0The people on the outside of the “we” line are different and thus presumed to be inherently hostile; they are threatening and are to be resisted because they are intent on dominating “us.” \u00a0Really? I suppose that’s one way of thinking about the world, but it seems to me more than a little bit small and fearful. \u00a0Why draw such a hard line? \u00a0Why assume folks on the other side of it are implacably hostile? \u00a0That certainly doesn’t match my experience.<\/p>\n

And it took me a day or so to see the suggestiveness of the fact that Uncle Dan has extended his “we” to include his gay nephew. \u00a0He moved the line for one case but digs his heels in on another. \u00a0Isn’t the arbitrariness and foolish destructiveness of this obvious? \u00a0How many tired individual bigotries do we have to put behind us before we lift our heads up and see the pattern? \u00a0How many groups who were once “other” have become part of “us”? \u00a0Irish, Italian, Jewish, Catholic, Asian, Black, Latino, LGBT… \u00a0And that’s just in the last few generations. \u00a0Now that “they” have become part of “us,” where is the threat that justified all the fear and hostility when they were outside trying to get in? \u00a0Gone. \u00a0Evaporated. \u00a0Do we dare to admit that the threat was always something between wildly overblown and entirely imaginary? \u00a0Are we really willing to give ourselves over – again and again – to arbitrary divisions like these? \u00a0Look at the death and suffering they create: Christian\/Muslim, Shia\/Sunni, Tutsi\/Hutu, Serb\/Croat, Jew\/Gentile, Black\/White, Straight\/Gay, and on and on. \u00a0I think we can do better. \u00a0I think we should be able to learn not to repeat past mistakes.<\/p>\n

And yet many people continue to find Uncle Dan and his kind of arguments persuasive. \u00a0Maybe in the end a lot of folks\u00a0can’t\u00a0feel like part of a cohesive “we” until they identify (and demonize) a “they.” \u00a0It’s sad, and obviously deeply ingrained.<\/p>\n

But I can’t help hoping that maybe calling out the arbitrariness and destructiveness out loud might rob it of some of its power.<\/p>\n

The discussion had to break up at 10:00. \u00a0Which was good because 5:30 AM is coming at 5:30 no matter how interesting your diversion might have been the night before. \u00a0I feel like those of us who were there benefited from the event, and am even more hopeful that as more people engage with the story they might be encouraged to open up as well.<\/p>\n

So thank you again, Silk Road Rising<\/a>, Malik and Jamil, folks from NCC and all the attendees for raising these and so many other challenging questions. \u00a0Maybe together we can build a better, more inclusive place for us all to live.\"silkroadrising_logo\"<\/p>\n

(BTW, the play is still being polished, and will be staged in its “final” form in Chicago next spring. \u00a0Details here<\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>\n