In July of 1995, Bosnian Serbs killed 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in and around the town of Srebrenica, in the worst atrocity of its kind since World War II. The Serbs did so in the name of ethnic supremacy and tribalism, not religion, but religious and tribal identities are so tightly knotted together in the Balkans that it's fruitless to insist on their separation as a practical matter.
Let's say a group of American Orthodox Christians bought land in Srebrenica, and announced plans to build an Orthodox chapel and community center. "We are Orthodox Christians who had nothing to do with the atrocities Serbian Orthodox committed here," they said in their press release. "We seek to show the true, peaceful face of Orthodox Christianity, and to be a witness to and facilitator of peace and reconciliation between Orthodox and Muslims. "
Let's assume that under the law, the Orthodox had a right to do this. Would this project be a good idea? Why or why not?
I think absolutely not. The pain and the offense created by the act of murderous terror carried out against Muslims by Orthodox Christians because they were Muslim makes such a project far too risky, no matter how good its organizers' intentions. It would seem to me to be rubbing salt in the wounds of Bosnian Muslims. If Orthodox Christians really wanted to sow seeds of peace and reconciliation, they should find other, less provocative ways to do it. As an Orthodox Christian myself, I would feel deeply uncomfortable (at best) telling Bosnian Muslims that they need to be fair about all this, and not to judge all Christians by the standards of those who massacred the Muslims of Srebrenica. It may be true, but it's somehow not right to get up in the face of those people in this way. Looking at the shocking photos this morning of dead Muslims dug up from mass graves made me deeply ashamed as a Christian, and an Orthodox Christian, of what was done to innocent people to establish supremacy of an Orthodox people over Muslims. My sense is that the decent thing to do is to avoid causing unnecessary offense, and to work for peace and reconciliation in other ways.
That's my view. What's yours? Keep your remarks confined to the thought experiment only. Any comments about the NYC situation will not be published. I want us to work through this hypothetical.
I never got the whole thing about the Carmelite nunnery. It always seemed to me that Foxman, steeped in hatred for Christianity (although Christians saved his life) was running off his fat mouth.
If a church is built in a true spirit of humility and repentance, as opposed to triumphalism, I see no problem. This sets aside the legal issue of whether one is legally entitled to build the thing.
Rombald has a good point - whoever wins, looses.
The reason the American Orthodox Christians are being insensitive here is because they are outsiders imposing something. They are not part of the "we", the "us" who were slaughtered.
A twist on the hypothetical: let's say that among those Bosnian Muslims slaughtered there were also Bosnian Orthodox Christians slaughtered, albeit a very small minority. This is probably false, though actually I have no idea. But go with it; pretend there were a few dozen Bosnian Orthodox Christians slaughtered. These Bosnian Orthodox community members, then, are part of the "we" of Bosnia, not outsiders.
This group, perhaps with FUNDING from American Orthodox Christians, but on their own terms and by their own initiative, want to build a chapel and community center. Let's say they explicitly say that they want the center to be a place to grapple with what it means to belong to the same religion as the people who committed the massacre, but to present an alternative vision of the faith. To repair relations with Muslim neighbors, and to rebuild their own confidence that their faith can mean peace instead of slaughter.
I say that's fantastic.
Freedom has never been bought by being sensitive. It has been bought by saying, "We do not care if you are offended or not. It is our right and we are going to do it whether you like it or not."
The hypothetical is missing information that would color the answer to the question, Rod.
Do we assume the American Orthodox Christians live in Srebrenica, or that they don't live in Srebrenica? Do we assume that Srebrenica is an ethnic enclave, or that it prides itself on being inclusive of the whole world?
Because these things make a difference. If the Americans have no history of living in Srebrenica and Srebrenica is a fairly homogenous ethnic enclave, then it might be rational to see their project as provocative. If on the other hand the Americans had been migrating to Srebrenica for decades prior to the Serbian war, and in fact made up a significant portion of the population and Srebrenica prided itself on its multi-ethnic, multi-cultural "melting pot," then it would be irrational to see their project as a provocation.
So what assumptions are you making that you're not stating?
I would have to say it would be a bad idea, but we have to be very clear that this owes a lot to the fact that Srebrenica was hardly a one-off event, historically speaking.
Communal strife in Bosnia has been a constant theme since at least 1389, when the Serbs were defeated by the Ottoman Turks near Kosovo, which introduced Islamic rule to the area. From the late 17th century until the early 20th century, European geopolitics often centered around expelling the Turks from Europe. World War I was just one such climax of violence originating in the Balkans.
Indeed, one could say that the latest violence got its start in 1989 - the 600th anniversary of Kosovo - when Milosevic marked the anniversary with a speech celebrating Serbia's recovery and warning against a repeat of the Serbian disunity and weakness in the face of it that led to defeat in 1389. We all know what happened next - *Yugoslav* disunity, ethnic nationalism, and attempted genocide.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's the long-term historical context of the Balkans that makes an Orthodox Church near the massacre site a needless provocation. Unlike some other western countries I could mention, this region does not have a 200-plus-year legal tradition of religious freedom; rather, religious and ethnic identity has been used as a blunt instrument for three times as long. I'm naive enough to think this makes a difference in how we should view this situation.
John O.: "And people would rightly see it as an unnecessary provocation and the explanation that it was all about religious freedom would be unpersuasive."
If it were seen as an unnecessary provocation, how would an act of violence against the completed church be viewed? Would the Orthodox congregation have to be blamed for inciting the Muslims to violence?
The issue of blood-guilt begins to rear its head with discussions like this. In the example you cited above, for it to be a true parallel to the other situation, the head of the Orthodox community that is proposing the church would have worked with the Bosnian government in the aftermath of the genocide in an effort to promote healing. Would that make a difference in the thought experiment? Would honoring the objections of the Muslim families in Bosnia be an admission that ALL Orthodox members bear the stain of the actions of their radical brethren?
We border on a very dangerous position in this scenario (and in the other scenario) of saying that all members of a group, even those who are demonstrably innocent, must curtail their freedoms because of actions they may well have condemned or worked to try to stop. If the former abortion clinic in Wichita were put up for sale, would it be wrong for a Christian pro-life group to purchase it and establish a pro-life museum there? Of if a Jewish group were to wish to build a synagogue adjacent to the site of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, should the voices of those Christians who hold Judaism at least partially responsible for the death of Jesus be given a hearing?
Finally, where does the Church begin modeling the much mentioned forgiveness that is at the heart of Christian teaching? Should it be modeled in Staten Island, Murfreesboro, TN or Temecula, CA, three other communities which are protesting proposed mosques in their towns?
Where does forgiveness enter into your thought experiment, Mr. Dreher?
I would say that if the Orthodox insisted on the building, they would be disgusting and insensitive.
I also think that if the Muslims strongly opposed the building, they would be bigoted and unforgiving.
I think pretty much the same applies to the Manhattan case as well.
You know, maybe I'm just a pie-in-the-sky optimist about human relations and human nature, but it seems to me that such a project - if it were done sincerely in a spirit of humility, contrition, and desire for reconciliation would actually be a good thing.
Read Full Article »