‘Sikhs are not Muslims’ sends a sinister message
by SCOTT C. ALEXANDER
Sikhs attend a news conference Monday in Oak Creek, Wisc., on Sunday’s mass murder at a Sikh temple. PHOTO/Tasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty Images, August 6, 2012
Such declarations by the news media and others has an insidious subtext: that there’s something wrong with being a Muslim in America.
Almost from the beginning of their coverage of the horrific and deadly shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, CNN and other news media went out of their way to send a message to the American public: “Sikhs are not Muslims.”
But what were we to make of that message? If the temple’s members had been Muslims, would the attack have then been justified?
We say we don’t endorse prejudice against one group or another, but for some reason we also want to make sure people know who the “we” and the “they” really are. CNN would probably say it was simply trying to clear up a common misunderstanding that, in this case, may have been shared by the gunman himself. Fair enough. The assertion that Sikhs are not Muslims is certainly true. Jains are not Hindus, and Mormons are not Methodists either.
…
As president, Obama has made an effort to stress how important Muslims are to the fabric of U.S. society and has praised the enormous contributions made by Islamic civilization to human history. Still, his behavior as a candidate was disappointing. When “accused” of being a Muslim, he didn’t challenge the darker assumptions behind the assertion. He simply tried to distance himself from Muslims. His campaign also made sure there were no photo-ops in mosques and no women in hijab as part of the diversity tableau that served as a backdrop to his stump speeches.
John McCain got into the act when attempting a noble defense of his opponent in the 2008 race. At a Republican rally late in the campaign, a woman said she couldn’t trust Obama because “he’s an Arab.” McCain objected: “No, ma’am; no, ma’am. He’s a … decent family man, [a] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.” It was a defense that undoubtedly left many Arab Americans (as well as Arabs around the world) horrified by the implication that Arab men must be, therefore, indecent and un-American.
At the height of the accusations that Obama was a closet Muslim, the only public figure I saw get it right was former Secretary of StateColin L. Powell, the first black man ever to hold that office. In his famous”Meet the Press”appearance on Oct. 19, 2008, Powell, like others, condemned the “false intimations” that Obama was a Muslim. But he then went on to say: “But really the right answer is, what if he is [a Muslim]? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s ‘No; that’s not America.'”
Los Angeles Times for more
Romney: Don’t shoot the God-fearing
by DAN TURNER
I often feel the criticism of GOP hopeful Mitt Romney over his near-daily supposed gaffes goes too far, and yet… he just makes it so easy. The latest case in point: His statement of condolence following the mass shootings Sunday at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisc.
“This was a senseless act of violence and a tragedy that should never befall any house of worship,” read part of Romney’s official statement in the wake of the slaughter, which left seven dead, including the suspected gunman. Does that mean such killings are any less vile when they don’t occur at a house of worship — like, say, when they take place in a movie theater in suburban Aurora, Colo.?
In Romney’s defense, he isn’t alone in presuming the Wisconsin shootings hold particular resonance for the religious community. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., also put out a statement that would strike most non-religious people as a tad insensitive: “People of faith everywhere must stand together to condemn this terrible act, and to reach out in support of the victims and their families in this time of need.” So, only people of faith need to do that? Because those without it are devoid of sympathy?
President Obama steered clear of such sentiments, merely noting that the shootings took place at a house of worship and that our nation has been enriched by Sikhs, who are “a part of our broader American family.” This probably just indicates that the president has smarter and more inclusive speechwriters than the GOP nominee, but it also points up why Romney, whose statement seemed to imply that the lives of worshippers are more important than the lives of others, is having trouble connecting to people outside his base on the religious right.
There is a possible justification for Romney’s statement. It’s still unclear whether Sunday’s attack was an act of domestic terrorism, a hate crime, or neither. But if it does turn out to be one of the first two, then it’s a crime that our laws consider more serious than a simple act of mass murder. The facts that the shootings targeted Sikhs, who are often mistaken in this country for Muslims, and that they took place at a temple seem to suggest an assault on a specific group. That would be more reprehensible, legally speaking, than a deranged gunman slaughtering people at random. But then, that’s really not what Romney said; he just seems to think it’s terrible that any religious facility would be targeted.
Los Angeles Times for more
(Thanks to Aslam Merchant)