Even in houses of worship, libraries are meant to expand knowledge, not limit it.
By Ben Daniel
 |
On January 28th, Freedom House, an organization that monitors human rights and promotes democracy and American-style freedoms worldwide released a report entitled “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fills American Mosques.” The report details the presence of Saudi-funded tracts that advocate a strict Wahabi Islam and denounce all things Western, with particularly strong condemnations of Christians, Jews, moderate Muslims, and women who dare to consider themselves human.
It is clear from reading the report that Freedom House sees the content of libraries in American mosques as a potential battleground in the war on terror. It is noted that several of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis with ties to mosques in which the offending publications were found. In the final paragraph of the report’s introduction, James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA who is now the Chair of Freedom House’s board of directors, makes the following statement about the report’s goal:
“This report is a first step in an effort to contain the destructive ideology being proliferated by [Muslim extremists]
 |
within the American homeland. Hopefully it will lead to the removal of tracts spreading hatred within American mosques, libraries and Islamic centers. The publications analyzed in this Report and others like them that advocate an ideology of hatred have no place in a nation founded on religious freedom and toleration.”
As the spiritual leader of a religious institution I am troubled by the report. I doubt that anything good can come of removing materials of any kind from libraries of any kind, and I am especially troubled when libraries in houses of worship and religious institutions are targeted for censorship.
It simply cannot be assumed that a mosque the library of which has objectionable reading materials will become a cauldron of terror. That’s not how libraries work. The presence of evangelical publications in the library of my church does not make me an evangelical. In fact, I would hate for my Christianity to be judged by the contents of my church’s library. We have books that call homosexuality an abomination and abortion murder. We have a series of popular novels that forecast Jesus’ return as a day when the Temple will be reestablished in Jerusalem and there will be a mass conversion of Jews. One book even claims that the drip paintings of Jackson Pollack and the atonal music of Arnold Schoenberg are evidence of our society’s perverse godlessness. I don’t believe any of those things, nor do most of the people in my congregation, but the books remain on the shelves because even in houses of worship, libraries are meant to expand knowledge, not limit it.
 |
By advocating the removal of offensive materials from mosque libraries, Freedom House is giving in to the fear that the purveyors of such hatred may actually have ideas that will stand the test of time—seductive ideas that must be erased before they deflower the innocence of the uninformed, making terrorists of otherwise healthy and balanced Muslims. And so the war on terror contemplates an assault upon mosque libraries.
It’s a bad idea. To defend America’s freedom of religion and to promote tolerance by censoring the libraries in houses of worship is to create a situation the irony of which certainly won’t be missed by America’s detractors abroad. And it should not be tolerated by Americas defenders at home.
A graduate of Westmont College and Princeton Theological Seminary, Ben Daniel is the pastor of Foothill Presbyterian Church in San Jose, California. His writing has appeared in many local, regional and national publications. His last contribution to The Revealer was “A Misunderstanding Between Friends.”
Even in houses of worship, libraries are meant to expand knowledge, not limit it.
The problem is that religious libraries and bookshops are usually seen as existing to promote certain ideas, rather than as merely specialist outfits. Since certain materials are, by definition, excluded, it is assumed by outsiders (and perhaps by some insiders?) that what can be found must therefore be “endorsed” in some way.
But do your examples of dodgy literature from Foothill Church really compare with some of the alarming material found by Freedom House? Would you really be willing to carry a book that stated that ex-Christians should be killed, or that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is genuine? I know that Wesley Owen, the British Christian chain-bookstore, declines to carry material produced by Jack Chick, and I don’t think that’s a great loss to the world.
(This doesn’t mean I think much of the Freedom House report overall. Junaid M. Afeef’s critical response on alt.Muslim is required reading. And being lectured on religious freedom by an organisation that has Diana Negroponte on its board is just too much to take)
Bartholomew,
When you say that the materials in my church’s library are not comparable to the materials found in mosques, I see your point, though I’m not sure a book calling abortion murder would be seen as benign by a woman who had made the painful choice to terminate a pregnancy. Nor would any gay members of my church enjoy reading a book that calls their relationships abominable.
To be honest, because of limited space and finances, I would never seek out for inclusion in our church library books like the ones you described (books advocating the killing of ex-Christians or making an apologetic for “the Protocols of the Elders of Zion”). There are other books that are much more important to me and to the educational ministry of the church. However, here are two reasons–one moral and the other economic– why offensive books should be in libraries:
1) The evil ideas in offensive books should be refuted, and you cannot refute the ideas in a book with any kind of efficacy or clarity until you’ve read the book; and
2) If offensive books are in a library, then people can read the book and reject the ideas without purchasing the book, and thereby avoid giving finacial aid to the authors and publishers of hatred.
Anyway, we agree that the report is problematic, and that is the important thing for now.
Best,
Ben
Why does Ben Daniel (“In defense of libraries”, 17 February) say, “… I am especially troubled when libraries in houses of worship and religious institutions are targeted for censorship”? Why should libraries in houses of worship be any different. Surely, Mr Daniel, if you defend free speech, you do so for everyone equally (provided it is not incitement to violence, of course) – not especially for religious institutions, which, anyway, aim to propagate dangerous superstition swallowed, it seems, by a much greater proportion of Americans than, thank goodness, by us British. As an atheist, I would not wish to censor religious writings, but merely hope that their existence holds them up to the ridicule they deserve.
That’s a little besides the point, don’t you think, Andy? How about dropping the sarcasm and the tiresome comments about religious superstition long enough to consider what Mr. Daniel is actually talking about. He’s brought this report, with its scary implications, to people’s attention, which is important in itself. I don’t want to speak for him, but it seems to me that one should be especially concerned about censorship that targets religious books. Focusing on religious texts, hateful or not, is tantamount to admitting that the goal of censorship is controlling ideas, and not just the regular asinine preoccupations of the Parents Television Council: bare nipples, cartoon lesbian Vermonters, and imperfect piety on ‘That 70s Show.’ I think that (and all) censorship is wrong too, but this is a little more troubling — if we’re going to come out and say that these ideas are too dangerous for people to see, we’ve crossed a line in terms of what level of authoritarianism we’re willing to allow. It will become too hard to discuss the benefits of academic freedom or a free press, to defend the unpopular Ward Churchill when Bill O’Reilly calls for his head, or Seymour Hersh when The Washington Times declares him a traitor, once we’ve already decided that some ideas are too dangerous to deserve protection.
Andy,
First let me thank you for reading, thinking about, and responding to my piece.
In response to your post, I second everything Kathryn has said and would only add this: censoring religious libraries is especially problematic because it compounds the violation of the freedom of expression by adding a violation of religious liberty. It makes it a double violation of the U.S. Constitution
this report includes one of the mosques in Houston. I visited this mosque many times and I know many people overthere. No one has the right to judge on what people read and judge them by what they believe. I have never heared about Wahabi ideology being promoted in any of these Mosques. I’ve been here for 13 years. The important question now is if you want to show your patriotism, pick up a topic on Islam or Muslims. There is no benefits to the whole society from these propaganda. we neeed to focus on building a trust in the community between different faith groups instead labeling others. I challenge any of those who prepare this report in the Freedom House to give me any name of Muslim People who helped them in gatjhering these information. I’m saying that for a simple reason, he or she does not represent the true Islam. He or she should go to these Mosque’s leaders and ask them for authenicity of these resources. Muslims living here in U.S.A. came here with good will to live and produce. Whoever says something different is committing a big mistake to the whole community.
Should we also be censoring the Torah, Bible and Quran?
No, but keeping them to the user’s selves would be nice. If they are out there they should be held up as the ridiculous books of superstitions that they are, despite what the apologist’s say.