William of Rubruck on all the fuss

[I posted this on Facebook a few days ago; now it's your turn, unless you already saw it there.]

This summer I've been taking a day every week or two to study medieval political thought, because I'm scheduled to give a talk fairly soon on the subject. I find the era fascinating, but under-studied, especially by me, so it's been interesting getting prepared. It has also given me a chance to escape from an unusually seamy political scene, even by the standard of election years.



Along the way this summer I met an interesting character named William of Rubruck. He was a Dutch monk who was sent by the French King Louis IX on a mission to the Mongol Empire in 1253. (That puts him ahead of the more famous Eastern explorer Marco Polo by a couple decades, but "William of Rubruck" doesn't sound as good yelled at a beach, particularly when you have to find a third person to yell "of.") The king had heard a rumor that the heir to the Mongol throne had converted to Christianity, and wanted William to check it out.



The truth turned out to be even weirder than King Louis or Brother William could imagine. The Khan's strategy for holding the empire together and maintaining its strength was to tolerate and even encourage a variety of languages, customs and religions. The rulers were fascinated by religious studies, and encouraged different religious leaders to debate their theologies before them. William himself participated in these debates. He found he had to rely on reasoned arguments rather than the coercive power of church and state, and found himself acknowledging some salient points other religions had to offer. He particularly had to acknowledge that the Khan's strategy, weird as it was by European standards, seem to be working for an empire greater than Europe had ever seen.



I juxtaposed the insights of the Khan, and William of Rubruck, with the utter nastiness that is dominating today's political discourse. I particularly am disgusted by what passes for debate on the Arizona immigration law and the New York City mosque. Senator Cornyn of Texas has said these issues show Obama and the Democrats are out of touch with the American people, and that Republicans expect to use them to leverage victories in this fall's congressional and gubernatorial elections. Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, has warned Republicans against pushing this too far; I hope other sane Republicans will speak out. These situations call for leadership, not pandering, to the fearful and prejudiced.



American immigration policy is awful. No matter what your position on immigration in general, or on Arizona's law, you may take your favorite negative adjective and comfortably apply it to American immigration policy. The problem, in a nutshell, is that there is more demand for immigrant labor than our current laws will accommodate, so laborers and businesses get by by ignoring the law on a massive scale. This brings chaos, disrespect for the law, and an uncertain and dangerous life for the illegal immigrants. However, there is not political support for any solution, so we are in a classic Prisoner's Dilemma. Greater law enforcement cuts off the supply of workers, may tend to harass Latinos who are here legally, and contributes to economic tensions in Mexico. Taking the lid off is opposed by many labor and environmental groups, as well as those who fear a massive wave of Spanish-speaking poor people.



Into this mess pops the government of Arizona, which contributes a law allowing police to demand proof of immigration status of anyone they suspect. This is not law enforcement, folks, this is button-pushing; it gains attention and political support from the gullible for the proponents. Arizona does not have anything like the resources to make this work. More damningly, the state has passed at least two other laws aimed at Latino culture, including one forbidding the teaching of Mexican heritage in schools, and another restricting the use of Spanish in public fora. This isn't about law enforcement, it's about one ethnic group sticking it to another. No other state bordering Mexico is following Arizona's lead, which is significant.



The New York City mosque business is even more egregious. The mosque is only vaguely near the site of the former World Trade Center, and even if it was across the street, who cares? As President Bush eloquently declared in September 2001, we are not fighting a war of Christians against Moslems. Except that some people are, notably Newt Gingrich, who ought to know better, and Sarah Palin, one of the most irresponsible public figures ever to walk the earth. They're promoting themselves, folks, by getting you riled up. Don't fall for it.



Here's Gingrich on "Fox and Friends": "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center." His analogies are as false as his facts are.



What makes America great is our spirit, which embraces a bigger share of diversity than even the Khan could have imagined. The vile perpetrators of 9/11 are narrow-minded; we show we are better than they are by embracing Islam as well as Christianity. It is hardly "disrespectful" for American Moslems to act like they're part of the American fabric, and only the most twisted of minds could call it a victory marker or whatever sputum Gingrich is spewing. Building this mosque represents a victory for the American spirit over the crabbed spirit of hatred offered by bin Laden and his ilk.



As for S.B. 1070, it is useless except to stir up emotions, unless somehow or other it gets us thinking as a country what a rational and fair immigration policy might be. It's hard to see us getting there from here, but maybe. Meanwhile, go ahead and press "1" for English, because America is number "1," and will be as long as we keep clear heads and don't fall for the wiles of those who would manipulate our fears for their own political gain.