Personally, I believe that the debate will be good for us in the long run. It is important for us to actually confront the social issues before us and find a way to deal with them rather than ignore them and let them fester. The issue I see forming is that many politicians, particularly those on the far left, tend to see these issues as a hassle and just want them to go away.
The ground zero mosque has shown some of the true colors of many of the citizens of this nation. From the man on the street to the men on the hill, just about everybody has made their opinion known on the issue (including this guy). The problem is that many politicians won't actually confront the real issue. David Axelrod and Michael Bloomberg are particularly good (or bad) at this.
While giving a speech about the ground zero mosque, Bloomberg said, "The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution." (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/bloomberg-stands-up-for-mosque.html)
David Axelrod also made a similar statement without actually saying anything when he encouraged President Obama to defend the mosque when he was speaking to middle eastern leaders. Concerning President Obama's remarks, Axelrod said, “It makes me uncomfortable when government starts deciding which religions can build and which can't. It makes me uncomfortable when we stigmatize a particular faith. That's not what America is all about.” (http://hamptonroads.com/2010/08/obamas-mosque-moment-frustrates-dems)
Now the contrast:
Yesterday, Michael Bloomberg said, "I happen to think that it is distasteful...But the First Amendment protects everybody, and you can't say that we're going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement." He then added, "If you want to be able to say what you want to say when the time comes that you want to say it, you have to defend others no matter how much you disagree with them." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015823-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody)
Axelrod told CNN reporters, "The reverend may have the right to do what he's doing but it's not right. It's not consistent with our values ... I hope that his conscience and his good sense will take hold." (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/08/081504/fla-minister-quran-burning-still-planned/)
Did you see the contrast? I wasn't sure at first, so I had to do some poking around to be sure I saw what I thought I did. Have you figured it out yet? If so, congratulations. If not, I'll lay it out for you:
In both cases, the guys rush to assert the constitutional right of the party in question. Imam Rauf does have a right to build his community center. Rev. Jones also would be acting within his rights if he did burn the Qu'ran. All okay so far.
Here's the problem - When it's a crazy white Christian guy, the left has no problem saying it's wrong. They say it's his right to burn the Qu'ran, but it's innapropriate or "distasteful' or "not consistent with our values". But when an Imam wants to build a mosque a stone's throw from where radical Muslims slaughtered nearly 3,000 Americans, they simply assert his right to do so. No statement on the wisdom of the decision. Nothing.
Common sense conservatives (I would like to consider myself as such) have been saying this all along. As I said earlier concerning the mosque, "I feel it's a slap in the face to the citizens of New York and to Americans in general....It's just plain bad form...However, from a legal / political standpoint, I don't see a problem with it." (http://conservative-conversation.blogspot.com/2010/08/mosque-at-ground-zero.html)
Axelrod and Bloomberg focus on the right of the Imam instead of focusing on the issue of its wisdom. Well, here's a news flash: Every third grader and his dog knows Imam Rauf has a right to build his community center. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's a smart and proper move.
Yet they refuse to take a moral stand on the mosque issue. So why are Axelrod and Bloomberg willing to take a stand against the book burning reverend but won't give an opinion on the mosque? As I see it, there are three possible reasons.
1 - They don't want to offend their base and lose votes for themselves or their bosses.
Liberals are by nature underdogs. They're always seeking an "oppressed minority" to pit against the "machine". Perhaps they just can't resist rooting for the poor Muslim who just wants a community center while bashing the stupid Christian.
2 - They equivocate law with values, and therefore really have no value system of their own.
When we forget what is right and only focus on rights, we have forgotten ourselves. Living strictly by the letter of the law is dangerous, as the law is indiscriminate and sees not intention or wisdom. In other words, just because it's legal doesn't make it good. If we equivocate legal with right, then we are no longer good at heart.
3 - They're cowards who are afraid of offending any Muslim.
This may be the most dangerous option. When we refuse to identify a threat as such and confront and deal with it, then it is only a matter of time before we expose ourselves to that danger. I fear that Bloomberg and Axelrod's policy is to skirt around the mosque issue as a way of avoiding the possibility of offending some radical offshoot of Islam. That is simply ignoring a problem and kicking the can down the road for somebody else to deal with. Clinton did that. We all remember how that worked out.
So which is it guys? Are you trying to pit Americans against each other in order to win votes, valueless, or cowards? I tend to think you're a bit of all three.
3 comments:
I disagree with you on this one, Riley. In one case, the Imam is creating a community center and denies any hostile intent with its location. In the other case, the Reverend is burning Qurans/Korans in an attempt to make a statement that Americans are not afraid of radical Muslim terrorists. When someone appears to have peaceful intentions, people tend to stick up for his or her rights whether or not they agree with his/her reasoning. When someone has stated violent or inflammatory intentions, people tend to shut him/her down. It has nothing to do with cowardice on the left - it is just how people are reacting to one person who says he is peaceful and another who is acting through anger.
I think you missed my point. It's not that I want anybody on the left to oppose the mosque, it's that I'm perplexed by the unwillingness to make any moral stand on it. It seems to me that the left is afraid to address the wisdom of building the mosque at all. I presume the Imam's intent is good, but the wisdom is my question. He has clearly struck a nerve in his announcement. Yet many on the left seem completely unwilling to make any moral stand on the issue - in support of or in opposition to it.
Bloomberg might be simply reacting as you say, but Axelrod is a renowned political tactician. He knows that anything he says can affect foreign affairs. So anything he says (or doesn't say) is definitely intended to have a political end. This is Obama's chief political advisor we're talking about. It seems to me that the foreign policy of this administration is one of appeasement. Including avoiding any commentary at all on the mosques wisdom.
If the white house wanted to stay out of the controversy, then they should have just stayed out of it instead of inserting themselves into the debate then refusing to take a moral stand.
Riley -
Mayor Bloomberg HAS taken a moral stand on the mosque issue. From a speech he gave on Governor's Island after the committee voted to refuse landmark status to the building:
'"We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life and it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11," he said.
'"Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values - and play into our enemies' hands - if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists - and we should not stand for that."'
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/mayor-bloomberg-on-the-ne_b_669338.html)
He makes no comment about the wisdom of it, because he supports it - not just legally, but morally. I don't necessarily think he is "equivocating law with values" and "therefore really has no value system of his own." Sometimes (often) the laws do reflect our values. I know that legal does not equal correct, but it only makes sense that in a society "for the people and by the people," the laws would reflect the general moral feelings of the society they protect.
And he obviously doesn't equivocate law with values, or he wouldn't be making a moral judgment on the issue of burning the Qu'ran. He would be defending the idiot with the same passion with which he defends the mosque.
He has openly said that he is not making any friends, and has lost a lot of support, but he hasn't changed his stance on the mosque issue.
Obviously, I disagree with you on your assessment of Bloomberg. On Axelrod - I'm with you. If the White House really wanted to stay out of it, they should have stayed completely out of it. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Post a Comment