Islam and the (seemingly) popular American sentiment By Chad Stevens

One need only to scratch the surface of news headlines to see an alarming trend in what appears to be the popular perspective of many Americans. Articles and news stories questioning President Obama’s religious stance, the legitimacy of erecting a Muslim community center near Ground Zero and the stabbing of a Muslim taxi driver in New York have captured America’s attention these past few weeks. Of course, it’s easy to understand why. Since the events of September 11, 2001, widespread American sentiment has been cautious, at best, toward Islam and its followers. At worst, we’ve witnessed reactions such as that of Michael Enright, the man accused of attacking an NY taxi driver. Any logical individual would respond that counteracting hatred with hatred is a medieval idea, so the question remains: why do we (Americans, at large) continue to demonize, not just certain members of our society, but an entire community of individuals? Stanley Fish, a law professor at Florida International University, made an interesting observation is his recent NY Times post. Fish studied the rhetoric surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. He notes that prior to the arrest of Timothy McVeigh, speculation arose that focused on Islamic extremists as the responsible party, but “when it turned out that a white guy had done it, talk of ‘culture’ suddenly ceased and was replaced by the vocabulary and mantras of individualism.” Fish follows with an accurate but rather embarrassing observation: “The formula is simple: If the bad act is committed by a member of a group you wish to demonize, attribute it to a community or a religion and not to the individual. But if the bad act is committed by someone whose profile, interests and agendas are uncomfortably close to your own, detach the malefactor from everything that is going on and characterize him as a one-off, non-generalizable, sui generis phenomenon.” We cannot so easily forget the events of Sept. 11. Maybe building an Islam-based community center so close to the grounds of tragedy is hitting a little close to home. But the outcries and rhetoric encompassing such events present a very dangerous sentiment that supersedes caution and moves directly to outright hostility. By associating with a division of society, the individual must be aware that - good or bad - they adopt all stereotypes and associations that go along with their assumed affiliation. Now, simply because certain stereotypes may apply to a title does not mean that the individual MUST adhere to the expected words and actions of their group. Often, stereotypes exist because they were actually applicable at some point in time. However, the emphasis on individuality in our cultural is in direct conflict with our clichéd ideas of group representation. It seems as though Fish’s observations are correct: if we disagree with an action, we blame an affiliation, but if our agendas are the same as those held by the perpetrator, we tend to shift the guilt to the individual, not to the group they represent. Somewhere along the lines, so to speak, we seem to have forgotten that cultures, societies and religions are made up of individuals. Individual responsibility should remain supreme, regardless of group affiliations. Demonizing an entire community simply because we are unwilling to admit our own prejudice is unacceptable.