Bp. Chane: ‘We Are an Angry Country’

Opposition to building an Islamic cultural center near the site of the former World Trade Center springs from those “who feel threatened by what they do not understand and by what they have not had time to process,” according to the Rt. Rev. John B. Chane, Bishop of Washington.

“In many ways, our psyche as a nation was attacked,” Chane said during “Park51 Islamic Center Near Ground Zero: Issues in Conflict,” a panel discussion held Sept. 7 at Georgetown University.

“We have never been able to grieve” collectively as a nation, he said. “The current fear should not surprise any of us.”

The Bush administration’s response of “anger and aggression” toward Osama Bin Laden after the 9/11 terrorist strikes left “no time for the nation to grieve at all,” Chane said. “We are an angry country.”

The 90-minute discussion sometimes revealed substantially differing opinions among the four panelists.

Dr. John Esposito, a Georgetown University professor and founder of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, said that “the voices of demagogues and hate speech often drown out” more moderate opponents. He called for Americans to denounce members of their political parties who engage in such speech.

Dr. Intisar Rabb, assistant professor of law at Boston College, spoke of a misunderstanding of Islamic law by many Americans: “Rather than equating Shariah with harshness and violence … it behooves us to find out what Shariah actually is.” She said American Muslims, particularly those “most active in the public square,” see Shariah as “an ideal moral code that invites its adherents to champion the best values.”

Some American Muslims define Shariah more harshly, Rabb said, but “they really are marginal.” She described as “scary” the “strained interpretations of a minority that happen to agree with [former House Speaker] Newt Gingrich and [former vice-presidential candidate] Sarah Palin.”

Dr. Thomas Farr, visiting associate professor of religion and international affairs at Georgetown, dissented from arguments made by Rabb and Chane. “Other interpretations [of Shariah and jihad] are dominant” among some Muslim groups, he said. “We shouldn’t run from discussions of religion and violence.” He disagreed with Chane that “there is a climate of fear in the United States.”

Farr repeatedly expressed concern that mosque opponents are too often inaccurately characterized as radicals or bigots. “We do need a civil discourse on both sides,” he said.

The four panelists also disagreed on whether Park51 should be built. Farr supported the constitutional right of Muslims to build the center and argued that Christian conservatives were “making a huge mistake in failing to credit” religious-freedom arguments in favor of its construction.

But Farr also said there were wise reasons not to build the center and urged its supporters to “take more seriously the predominant argument against it”: that it is a painful issue for families and friends of those who were lost in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Chane cited a question by Newsweek’s religion editor, Lisa Miller: “Does being American mean holding the personal pain of some above the constitutional rights of others?” If Americans give greater weight to personal pain than to constitutional rights, “we put democracy at risk,” Chane said.

Esposito called religious discrimination “a threat to our very democratic way of life.”

Rabb said she was “offended by the sensitivity argument” offered by Farr, adding that it reminded her of arguments against civil rights for African Americans. The Park51 controversy “raises fundamental questions about how we want to” define ourselves and engage with others from different backgrounds, she said.

Both Farr and Chane expressed disappointment with the Obama administration’s handling of the controversy. Farr charged the administration with having “utterly abandoned” the cause of “religious freedom [for] Muslims around the world,” even as it has defended the rights of American Muslims.

“We haven’t seen a whole lot of action” from the administration, Chane said. “This is not good news.”

Chane and Esposito recommended educating Americans on Islam. “We know so little of Islam in this country that this conversation would not play well in Defiance, Ohio,” Chane said.

Esposito said “a significant number of Americans have continued, year after year, to show both no admiration for, and no knowledge of, Islam.”

To reverse the trend, Esposito advocated putting “more pressure on the media.” Chane was skeptical about that idea, given how many religion reporters have lost their jobs in recent years.

Rabb found hope in personal friendships and religious education. “The public profile of Islam, even though it is a negative one now, is an opportunity” to motivate people to meet their Muslim neighbors, Rabb told The Living Church. “Christian leaders have a responsibility to educate their own cohorts.”

For Farr, America’s religious freedom best addresses the challenges posed by the Park51 project. “Our system of religious liberty is a system of creeds in intelligent dissent,” he said. “Religious freedom — that’s the answer to this conflict.”

Chane expressed doubt about the effectiveness of more dialogue on Islam. “There has not been a good deal of progress because when we get into the uncomfortable issues,” fear arises, he said. “So we get to a point and then nothing happens.”

Still, he told The Living Church that he sees value for dialogue “where it has not occurred.” Such dialogue needs to be marked by a serious engagement with Muslims — not only “about our religious similarities and differences, but also about the pain.”

“I think the mosque ought to be built, yet one cannot even begin to calculate the pain” of the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, Chane said. He has told some Muslim leaders: “You need to understand the pain that you caused our country.”

Ralph Webb, in Washington, D.C.