After days of viewing surreal landscape, taking in breathtaking vistas, and engaging with wildlife, it’s natural to reflect on how similar human interaction is to animals - lionesses protecting their cubs; ostriches strutting to attract a mate; hippos lying on top of each other in the water. The most striking interaction for us though was watching the migration of wildebeest. Due to annual rain patterns, wildebeest migrate over the vast plains of the Serengeti from central Tanzania up to southern Kenya and then back down. On their journey they follow greener grasses to the north crossing several rivers to get to their Elysian fields of the Masai Mara.
Not particularly picturesque beings, the creatures remarkable talent is survival by maintaining strength of their herd. Their movements can be orchestrated – forming a single line to wander down a hillside – or haphazard – fleeing from an approaching airplane - but they always move together. The Mara River is where we saw the crossing of our herd of wildebeest that we had been tracking for the past three days.
Any crossing is fraught with danger from hungry crocodiles, uncooperative hippos, or the inability to dive and swim safely without breaking a leg. It takes a considerable amount of time for the wildebeests to determine if they should cross. They delay or change their mind with the slightest adjustment of the wind or the smallest ripples in the water (thus 3 days of waiting). As our guide Ishmael put it, “They are very skittish, but you would be too if your life were on the line.”
But when they do make a decision to traverse, they go with all their heart. The entire herd, 1000 – 2000 individuals at a time, will run to the crossing point that was chosen and just jump in. They know that there is less danger for any one individual if they all go in at once – there is strength in numbers and though one or two may get hurt – those are reasonable odds to preserve the larger community.
In the US, we are faced with two major issues that need crossing.
New York City and the country are debating the building of a Muslim community center and mosque near the site of the twin towers. The edifice is meant to symbolize tolerance, yet it has embroiled the nation into a debate suffused with fear of Islam and memories of 9/11. Some see the building of Cordoba House, the name of the center, so close to Ground Zero as a slap in the face to the families who lost members. The conservative right has used the issue as a way to stir anti-terrorist fervor. The local community board has approved the construction, and national religious groups have endorsed the idea.
Recently, Obama joined the debate proclaiming “I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
Mayor Bloomberg (a Republican) who historically has given his strong backing to the cause declared that “This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
The mosque is moving forward, despite the protestations of conservative politicians from around the country who may never have set foot in Lower Manhattan. This is a good path and is a testament to the constitutional separation of church and state. American Muslims should be proud of a country that supports minority rights despite the stream of hatred against the site.
The second issue has bubbled up across the country in California. In a striking ruling, Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, overturned Proposition 8, the California referendum banning same-sex marriage. In a 136-page well-reasoned decision, the Judge found that the basis for the Proposition was unconstitutional because “Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women… is not a proper basis on which to legislate.” A law based on the hatred of one portion of the population for another is not the foundation on which our country is based.
The impressive part of the ruling is that the beginning 109 pages are devoted to the “Finding of Facts” which is typically uncontested findings from the broad review conducted by the court. Written in a clear and logical tone, the order is surprisingly easy to read and can be found at the New York Times website. Similar to Cordoba House, the case brings up the question of separation of church and state and protection of minority rights. A primary argument from religious groups is that granting marriage rights to same-sex unions diminishes heterosexual marriages and lead to non-productive unions which can’t produce children. As Walker points out:
“Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.”
Religion can sanctify a marriage but the church has no ability to prevent the state from authorizing marriage. The fact that the same-sex union does not produce off-spring is irrelevant since as Walker relates:
“Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse… [I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”
The ruling is impressive but the arguments still need to make it through Circuit Court and the Supreme Court before becoming the law of the land.
One group thrown at the center of these two debates is the American Muslim Community. Backing the construction of Cordoba House fundamentally uses the same arguments – “separation of church and state” and “equal protection” – as the issue of gay marriage. By making a case for one, it implies belief in the principles and support for the other.
The debates are interesting because the discussion has evolved beyond liberal versus conservative distinctions. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich (conservative Republicans) are against the ruling and the construction, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (moderate Republicans) are supportive of both.
The Islamic community can not choose to be on one side of the Cordoba argument and argue against the other. Either we need to embrace the greener grasses of minority rights protection or we choose to stay on the drought side of the river. To maintain the strength of the community, it’s time for moderate Muslims to jump in and start swimming across these waters.
August 14, 2010
