Indiana’s Painfully Objective Political Analysis goes to the credit-where-credit-is-due file to extend some praise for Gov. Daniels. Go read the entire post, but the Governor deserves some credit for not being knee-jerk anti-Muslim and for recognizing that the pretense of water based casinos is a little bit ridiculous.
On the first:
Shariq informs me that, yes, it was the Governor, and he called because he had read the press release issued by the Muslim Alliance of Indiana (MAI) decrying the actions of the shooter at Ford Hood, Texas. The Governor tells Shariq he’s proud of MAI. Unlike some other Muslim organizations nationally, MAI does not focus solely on Muslim soldiers and the microscope they are undoubtedly going to face now. MAI’s statement (and its ensuing editorial) is an unequivocal denunciation of the inexcusable act, and it calls on all Muslims to extend their prayers and generosity to military families.
On the second (regarding pleas from the Indiana gaming industry in the wake of Ohio opening up for gambling business):
The Governor states that, if “bailouts” were to occur, they certainly wouldn’t go first to an industry that is profitable. However, the Governor agrees to scrap some costly and ridiculous regulations, such as requiring an engine and sea captain on a boat that never goes anywhere.
I might have more on it later, but with respect to the Fort Hood shootings, Leo Morris had a good point when he said that mental illness sometimes travels through religious extremism to get where it’s going. Now, many Christians, are going to use the fact of Hasan’s religion as an excuse to be pissed off at Muslims generally. I suspect when we find out more about Hasan, we’ll find that he would have been angry about his situation regardless of his faith but he sought out a version of Islam that allowed him to justify murder to himself. We should cast a skeptical eye those aspects of religion, or any belief system, that provides a pretext for acting on violent emotions.
I think we associate Islam with violence because of a sort of confirmation bias coupled with our relative unfamiliarity with Muslims. When Christians commit acts of violence, even in the name of supposedly Christian beliefs (think abortion related violence), we tend not to pin the act on Christianity generally because we personally know plenty of Christians who aren’t violent assholes. Generally speaking, most of us don’t know too many Muslims personally and the ones who make the news are exceptions, and yet, for most of us, Muslims in the news make up the majority of our interaction with Islam. (When I say “us” and “our” – I’m thinking of Hoosiers.)
Lest it be forgotten: Mitch’s family background is Syrian. Outside of Indiana he gets touted as a high-ranking Arab-American.
Blaming all Muslims (or Jews or Christians) for the actions of some makes about as much sense as blaming all men for the actions of some men. (Not that we women aren’t sometimes tempted to do that…)
Hoosiers may interact with Muslims more than we realize. Even in some of the smaller cities, there Indian and Pakistani professionals, some of whom are also Muslim.
As for Mitch Daniels, given his family background, I would doubt that he would be knee-jerk anti-Muslim. I suspect that his campaign schedule not matching up with Sarah Palin’s campaign appearances may have had to do with some of her inflammatory statements last year. No matter what his own religious beliefs are, Daniels probably did not want to be associated with Palin.
By the way, is the average Hoosier aware that Gov. Daniels is proud of the statement of the Muslim Alliance of Indiana? I doubt it. Some who are making anti-Muslim comments, such as many of the people on the Indy Star website, would be surprised to know what Daniels did. It’s nice that Daniels made the comments, but did he really go out on a limb if he simply made a private telephone call?