Mosques, Qu'rans, and Teflon Men

The debate over the ground zero mosque and the controversy with the idiot who decided to make 9/11 the unofficial "National Burn a Qu'ran Day" has brought some tensions and formerly suppressed issues to our nation's attention. We are caught in a debate concerning the proper way to handle relations with a religion that has a militant and radical offshoot that is conducting all out war against us.

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.

Mosque at ground zero

For the last few days I've been collecting my thoughts on the issue of building a mosque near ground zero. My position on the issue has been consistent, but I've been trying to find a good way to lay it out. So here goes:

I do oppose the building of a mosque that close to ground zero. I feel it's a slap in the face to the citizens of New York and to Americans in general. I'm offended at the thought that an Imam would think that a mosque that close to where some radical Muslims slew 3,000 people would be a good idea. It's just plain bad form.

However, from a legal / political standpoint, I don't see a problem with it........WHAT!? No problem with a mosque at ground zero? I can hear some people screaming at their computer screens, "What's wrong with you!? You un-American explicative! How dare you bend to the terrorists will!! How can you claim to be a conservative and say you support this crap!"

Before you decide to never speak to me again or resolve to set my house on fire, allow me to explain myself.

I have a pretty strong libertarian streak. What that means, in the simplest of terms, is I don't support the attitude that says, "I like this, so the government should make everybody do that." And conversely, and especially relative to the case of this mosque, I oppose the view that says, "This offends me, so it should be illegal." I don't turn to the government to solve all my problems. Nor do I want government to force my will on others. The fact that Islamic extremists killed people nearby does not mean that we should outlaw the construction of a mosque in the vicinity of the site. Hitler was Roman Catholic. So a cathedral in Auschwitz should be outlawed as well, right?

Asking the city, state, or federal government to do or stop something just because you do or don't like it is called political activism. It's the political equivalent of demanding that all businesses have special rooms for breastfeeding mothers or that schools serve a vegetarian selection with school lunch.

"But building a mosque there will only create more terrorists!"

Many claim that allowing a mosque near ground zero is conceding victory to the terrorists who masterminded the 9/11 plot and will result in increased terrorist recruiting. For one thing, the Islamic faith didn't attack us on 9/11. An Islamic extremist terrorist cell did. "Muslim" does not equal "Islamic extremist terrorist". In geometric terms, squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. The argument that a mosque will just be a terrorist recruiting tool is irrational and, honestly, Islamophobic. In my time fighting Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, I learned two things. First, Muslims are people too (okay, I already knew that, but it seems that some have forgotten it). But above that, most Muslims want peace and quiet just as much as Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, and Sikhs want it. Second, Islamic extremists hate you - period. It doesn't matter if you try to appease them, ignore them, or kill them. They'll still hate you.

Extremism is just that - extreme. It's illogical and stupid. If you do what an extremist demands, then you are a pushover and must be killed. If you ignore him, you are stupid and must be killed. If you oppose him, you are an enemy and must be killed. If you join him, you are less than pure and must be killed. All your decisions end in your death being required. Any argument stating that choice x, y, or z will result in less or more terrorism is null. So, if we can't base our decision on how the terrorist will react, perhaps we should base it on what our own constitution and laws dictate.

Last time I checked, we live in a country that upholds the freedom of religion. That means you can subscribe to any religion and worship, who, what, and where you want as long as your acts don't infringe on the safety or freedom of others. Building a mosque near ground zero does not infringe on the safety or freedom of anybody. It's rude and offensive, but feelings aren't protected by the constitution.

"But Glenn Beck said that this guy has ties to Hamas!"

From what I can tell, this guy knows a guy who donated to a group that's affiliated with Hamas. Where I come from (America), that's circumstantial evidence and is invalid. I'm pretty sure I probably know a guy or two that donated to a group that's affiliated with some questionable organization, too. Should I be investigated?

"He and the sources of his funding should at least be investigated!"

If we investigate him, then it's only fair that sources of funding for all religious buildings in the U.S. be investigated as well. Additionally, investigating the sources of his funding would require due process, which requires reasonable suspicion. "He knows a guy who donated to a group that's affiliated with a terrorist group" is not reasonable suspicion.

"But you said you oppose the mosque. Then you defended it. You're a hypocrite!"

I do oppose the mosque on principle. But principle does not equal law. Nor should it.

"If you really oppose the mosque, then you'll at least tell me how to stop them from building it!"

Okay. Here's how. You protest. The same amendment that protects this Imam's right to have a mosque protects your right to freedom of expression. You boycott the companies supplying the mosque's building materials. You boycott the construction companies. You do some research and let any company that does any work on that mosque know that you will ensure that it's current and prospective customers know that it helped build the mosque at ground zero. You get up and go stand in front of the building and protest. You cancel your membership to any organization that supports the mosque, etc, etc, etc. And the day there is real evidence that this Imam is actually recruiting, supporting, or training terrorists, you demand that he be investigated.

"But that's hard!"

So was gaining our independence from England and creating a republic that defends individual freedoms. Including religious freedom.