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.

The Ambulance Down in the Valley

'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke and full many a peasant.
So the people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally;
Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."

But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,
For it spread through the neighboring city;
A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
But each heart became full of pity
For those who slipped over the dangerous cliff;
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave pounds and gave pence, not to put up a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.

"For the cliff is all right, if you're careful," they said,
"And, if folks even slip and are dropping,
It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below when they're stopping."
So day after day, as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would those rescuers sally
To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
With their ambulance down in the valley.

Then an old sage remarked: "It's a marvel to me
That people give far more attention
To repairing results than to stopping the cause,
When they'd much better aim at prevention.
Let us stop at its source all this mischief," cried he,
"Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;
If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley."

It seems to me that many of the entitlement programs out there could be considered an ambulance at the bottom of the valley instead of a fence at the top of the cliff. Giving people 2 years worth of unemployment compensation does not help to solve unemployment. Foodstamps, wic, chip, and other so-called "welfare" programs do little to raise people out of poverty.

I understand the basis of the argument for entitlement programs, yet I also understand the argument for their elimination. I personally believe that the federal government should administer very few if any entitlement programs.

Legitimacy of their existence aside, I take issue with another philosophy as well. Encouragement to sign up for the programs angers me. When I was preparing to come home from my training in the army, one of the briefings that I received was called "re-integration to civilian life" or something like that. I was infuriated by the content of the briefing. There was virtually no discussion on finding work, financial planning, and no emphasis on personal responsibility. Instead, the so-called counselor encouraged us to go straight to the unemployment office and get "signed up". She told us to sign up for wic if we had kids, gave us information on affordable housing and HUD, and gave us information on a slew of other programs. Later, when Nikki and I had Keely, a nurse approached us and asked us if we wanted information on how to sign up for CHIP and WIC. Then again, while getting Keely some shots, another nurse asked us if we wanted to get CHIP.

This encouragement to sign up for entitlement programs aggravates me. I just don't think there should be an effort to recruit people to become participants. If someone inquires about an existing program, great, but I don't think we should go around asking for new enrollments. It's almost like somebody's getting paid commission. It's an affront to me to suggest that I can't take care of myself and my own without the government helping me along every step of the way. I would be ashamed to take federal (and therefore taxpayer) money just because I qualify. Even if a person needs the help, I would certainly hope that he or she would be embarrassed enough about it that they get off as soon as possible.

But I digress (always wanted to say that). Back to my original point. It seems that the government all too often focuses on the symptoms of society's ills instead of the root causes. Perhaps that's because many of the problems that entitlement programs address are rooted in social issues more than simple economic problems. And, unfortunately, you can't legislate human behavior.

Credit or Financial Bondage?

When I was in Russia, I often encountered signs at retail stores that read "купить в кредит". The phrase means "buy with credit" or "financing available". These signs were on all types of stores. Clothing stores, electronics outlets, even grocery stores were adorned with the phrase. I remember thinking to myself, "Who in their right mind would walk into a store and use financing to buy a t-shirt or a pair of pants, or their food?" The concept seemed truly insane to me.

After returning home I got on with my life and forgot about the silly signs. Eventually I got married, found an apartment to rent, started school, and became involved with life. That's when, at the age of 22, I was talked into getting a credit card. I honestly didn't understand the concept of the credit card at the time. I knew the fundamentals of the card (an open line of credit that, if not paid off in a set period of time, gathers interest), but I didn't understand what the card offered me that I couldn't obtain without it. I nonetheless decided to keep the card and my wife and I used it to buy groceries and gas. We were good little cardholders and paid it off at the end of every month.

I soon discovered that this good behavior was rewarded with a higher credit "rating". As my credit score climbed, I was offered cards with higher limits. Before long, cards showed up in the mail offering me limits higher as high as $10,000. That was neat and all, but I saw no need for a fancy card. I stuck with my $1,600 limit gas and grocery card. About 6 months ago my wife and I decided to just stop using the card altogether. Budgeting was just easier without the card.

To this day, I still don't understand the justification for using a credit card. I think it comes back to the same voice in the back of my head that asked while I was in Russia, "Who in their right mind would walk into a store and use financing to buy a t-shirt or a pair of pants, or their food?" After all, that is what we do when we use a credit card. We finance whatever we buy with it.

In my opinion, using a credit card, or any form of consumer credit, is like playing with fire. It may be fun, but eventually you will get burnt. I see nothing that you can buy with credit that you can't buy without at a lower risk. To be honest, if you don't feel comfortable buying something without credit, then it's probably not a good idea to buy it with credit.

What does a credit score really get you? More opportunities for borrowing. So we get caught in this cycle where we assume that in order to succeed in life we have to borrow money and pay it back so we can borrow more money later. And so we borrow, and borrow, and borrow. We don't get any more wealthy as our monthly payments grow. In fact, we probably actually get poorer as our payments grow. It seems that the only people who do get rich are the lenders from which we borrow. I just don't get it.

A financial guru I recently discovered by the name of Dave Ramsey says his entire philosophy of how to achieve financial freedom and wealth is based on his observations of what made the wealthy wealthy and what keeps the middle class in the middle. He discovered, surprise surprise, that the wealthy become such by avoiding debt, living within their means, and budgeting their money while the middle class bought into the myth that you have to borrow money to survive.

I personally believe that wealth is actually measured in units of time, not in dollars. That is to say that a person's wealth is actually measured by how much time he or she can survive if his or her active income dries up. True wealth is when your passive income (dividends, interest, etc) outgrows your expenses. At that point, you are "infinitely" wealthy.

For example, say man 1 has $10,000 in the bank. He makes a measly $20,000 per year, but has no debt at all. His utilities, food, and other necessary expenses total $1,000 per month. This man is 10 months wealthy.

Man 2 has $10,000 in the bank as well, but he makes $45,000 per year. It may be contended that he is "richer" than man 1, but he, unlike man 1, has a $1,500 per month mortgage, a $300 car payment, and his minimum credit card payment is $200. I doubt he's unlike the average american. Let's assume that this man's utilities, food, and other necessary expenses also total $1,000 per month. This means that man 2 is a little over 3 months wealthy. Man 2 undoubtedly needs a higher income to support his needs than man 1 does. Conventional wisdom may say that man 1 is poor, but I believe him to be more wealthy than man 2.

Debt is the greatest hindrance to financial freedom. There's no getting around it. Debt, not income level, is what makes people poor. I'm just amazed how many people willingly tie the noose around their own necks.

Bumper Sticker Patriotism

As I checked my email this morning, I discovered that I was the fortunate recipient of a chain letter that included a smattering of pictures of soldiers, helicopters and tanks. It droned on about the troops out there serving us and how lucky we are to live in a country like this. At the end of the message there was a nice line informing me that if I was truly a patriot that I would forward it on to at least 1o people and that if I didn't do so I dishonored the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. Upon surveying the subject line, I noticed that at least 4 great patriots had shown their love for this country as I could see as many "FW:'s" there.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't intend to mock the individual who is touched by a message and forwards it on to a friend. Nor do I want to say that using a blog or email to make a patriotic or political statement is stupid (if that were true, I'd be the stupidest of us all). What I am trying to point out is that emails and bumper stickers should not be the sum of our efforts. Or, rather, I am trying to contrast that to what I view as real, honorable patriotism.

When you go to your town's independence day parade, look for that beat up pickup truck carrying the 70 and 80 something year old guys in white shirts and dark blue hats. There you'll find a handful of patriots.

If you find yourself at a city council meeting, look at those council members who work through mountains of red tape and monotony to serve their fellow citizens. Look at the concerned citizens sitting on the broken metal chairs who come time and time again to ensure that their community is served properly. You'll likely find some patriots there.

This November as you wait in a surprisingly short line to show your support for one or another candidate, look at the gaggle of people in the room with you. There are some patriots among them.

Next time you see a handful of kids from a church group strolling the shoulder of the highway, picking up the trash you threw out your car window, realize you're looking at a handful of patriots.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that involvement, service, and action are the real signs of patriotism. Bumper stickers that read "Obama-nation" or a t-shirts that say "Hope and Change" do nothing to serve the best interest of you or your fellow men. But when you study candidates and place your vote, or when you voice your opinion at a council meeting, or when you volunteer to serve your community, then you have made the brave leap from peanut gallery to patriot.

Patriotism is not shouting, "Yes we can!" It's quietly standing up and saying, "Yes I will."