Students and faculty gathered to participate in a panel discussion on Oct. 4 about the proposed building of a Muslim community center near Ground Zero. The purpose of the discussion was to inform and engage the audience with the issue of the ongoing effects of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Each speaker was given 10 minutes to present their position, and then the discussion was open to the panel to interact with one another. The last half of the presentation was open to the floor, and all students and faculty could participate.
Sam Sloss, professor of sociology, focused on the facts about the actual events of Sept. 11 and the proposed building of the Muslim community center.
“Firstly, the attack was not directed at Christian churches or Jewish synagogues,” Sloss said. “It was directed at the world’s financial center and the empire’s military.”
His slideshow presentation then showed images of existing locations near the proposed site of the Islamic community center.
“Technically, there is already a mosque in that location that has been operating for a year,” Sloss said. “The real debate is whether or not they will renovate the building, and, if you look at the current businesses in the area, you can see that it consists of a vacated Burlington Coat Factory, street vendors, a few Arab businesses and a handful of sex and pornography shops. So, possibly the real threat of this mosque at Ground Zero is that it could chase the prostitutes away.”
Sloss wrapped up his position by including the aspects of why the War on Terrorism still exists and the causes behind it. He stood firm that wars are never about religion and are usually, instead, about power and wealth.
“Leaders use religion for a cause as a tool to get recruits to die for them, rally support for their wars and to keep public focus off war profiteering,” Sloss said. “When we attacked Iraq, all we did was protect the oil. Our bases are now surrounding Iran and nowhere near Saudi Arabia. Our soldiers guard Iraq’s Ministry of Oil and oil wells.”
The debate was turned over to Roy Fuller, adjunct professor in religious studies. He began his focus on Islam and the treatment and misunderstanding of Muslims.
“The events of Sept. 11 have become a line of demarcation,” Fuller said. “I’ve noticed two trends since these events. Bush stated we weren’t going to war with Muslims because the religion is not our enemy. There had been an extensive effort by religious groups to reach out to Muslims during that time. I saw firsthand how inter-faith groups reached out to Muslims through volunteering in ways like painting over obscene graffiti or taking them shopping to avoid some of the ridicule.”
Fuller then began to expand on the second trend he’d noticed post-Sept. 11.
“Colleges now offer new courses in Muslim and Islamic studies,” Fuller said. “A new appetite for Islamic culture was revealed.”
Another problem Fuller noticed is there seems to be a resistance to seeing Islam as a strong, self-standing religion. He said many view Islam as a political ideology. Fuller also paralleled how Muslims are treated today with how Catholics were treated many years ago.
“As a nation of immigrants, we have a hard time assimilating immigrants,” Fuller said. “People are scared of Islam because it threatens the fading dominance of Christianity in the American landscape. The most depressing fact is that 25 percent of our population believes that Muslims shouldn’t be able to build mosques in our American communities, even if they follow the laws of other religions.”
Fuller wrapped up his presentation by ending with one last push toward religious freedoms for Muslims.
“If religious freedom is eroded, then democracy is eroded,” Fuller said. “Muslims in America have been very willing to assimilate and have been cooperative with law enforcement officials. Muslims should build where they wish because religious freedom is so engrained in the American experience, and I think that anything other than that is un-American.”
Finishing out the panel positions was Tom Kotulak, associate professor of political science. His presentation focused on the history of religious freedom and how protected we truly are by the First Amendment.
“In U.S. government under the First Amendment, we have two religious clauses — the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, and we must begin here,” Kotulak said. “In our founding, it became apparent that we — with our religious freedoms — we were going to have to accommodate many religious sects.”
The panel was encouraged to interact with one another briefly to better understand the positions of the other members. Sloss and Fuller both said the impact of religion is barely being taught, if at all, in public schools.
“Students don’t know that our government used to be open seven days a week,” Sloss said. “They weren’t closed on Sunday for a holy day. They think God has always been on our money, rather than just post Civil War. Is that our fault for not better educating them?”
Fuller decided to expand on this question by talking about education and religion at the grade-school level.
“We’re constantly struggling to find the parameters of the First Amendment when it comes to religion,” Fuller said. “Public schools must stay completely away from religion when it comes to religious literacy. In the public system, we are scared of religion.”
Kotulak said it may not be religion they’re scared of but possibly the school boards because they essentially create policy.
A handful of students expanded on some previous ideas. Amanda Wilson, sociology senior, said some of the student responses were amusing.
“What cracks me up is the actual ignorance of some of the students at IUS,” Wilson said. “Well, more so their ignorance about issues like the ones we discussed today. I’m just really surprised that — even after all we’ve discussed — conspiracy theories are still being brought up by students.”
By MICHELLE JONES
Staff
mdj7@imail.iu.edu