Sunday, August 29, 2010

The Boogeyman

“Bigoted,” “Intolerant,” “Small Minded,” “Fearmongering,” “Assisting Al Qaeda in its Recruiting,” and even “Hateful.” These were some of the charges leveled at me directly by some of my left wing friends and indirectly by the op-ed writers at the New York Times for my stance against the building of the Ground Zero Mosque.

When my liberal friends don’t have much to counter with, they dredge up the old bigotry charge. Immediately prior to the ’08 election, they had the “Bradley Effect” arguments at the ready. Obama was leading in the polls and it was inconceivable that someone as wise, wonderful and articulate (and, according to Joe Biden, clean) could lose. It would have had to have been latent racism. Only he got elected and that ended that. They have tried to pin the racist moniker on the Tea Party movement, too, but so far, it has not gained much traction. The Tea Party movement is simply made up of patriotic, limited government voters, and no hard evidence of racism has been unearthed. With the heated debates over health care reform, the liberals again attempted to trot out racism charges, but, again, there was no evidence to support that at all, even though Nancy Pelosi made a valiant attempt to provoke an incident by walking arm in arm with black congressmen after its passage.

Once again, the left is attempting to tar us with those ugly labels, and they are dead wrong. While I do not dispute the legal right of this group to build, I oppose the Ground Zero Mosque on the grounds that this site is sacred and because of the nature and reach of Militant Islam.
It is true that we enjoy religious freedom of expression here in the United States to an extent found in almost no other place on earth. Here, you can worship in any place and in any way you like, and there is almost no religious bigotry of any kind. Except for a few lunatics in the hills of Tennessee or the woods of Oregon, not only are different religions tolerated, they are accorded a great deal of respect. Heck, I don’t care much if you practice Santeria, as long as your chickens don’t bleed on my side of the fence. And we get a little queasy when folks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell got too close to the mechanisms of government.

But Militant Islam is different. In many ways, it is an enemy uniquely adapted to our weaknesses. We do well against large armies on a battlefield. Our forces are designed to defeat people like Saddam Hussein or Soviet tanks rushing through the Fulda Gap, not bands of suicidal jihadists. Second, and more importantly, Militant Islam is uniquely designed to exploit our religious tolerance. Unlike our society’s relationship between religion and government, which, for the most part occupy separate spheres, Militant Islam’s view is that they are necessarily intertwined, and that makes it difficult. You simply cannot tell the difference between a “moderate” or a “radical” or discern who will morph from moderate to radical. While it runs counter to our society and culture to limit the rights of Muslims to worship in any reasonable way, it is also offensive to common sense to have a mosque built so proximal to Ground Zero when the perpetrators of that atrocity did it invoking the name of Islam. We’re not saying you can’t build a mosque. We’re not curtailing your ability to worship in any way. We’re just asking that you don’t build this center on this particular piece of real estate.

Several left leaning writers have said that opposition to the mosque gives Al Qaeda a propaganda tool. I assert that just the opposite is true. It is more likely that Al Qaeda will interpret our willingness to accept a mosque at Ground Zero as a huge propaganda victory. It will be seen as a monument to their martyrs and will be celebrated throughout their ranks. They will see the U.S. as a weak willed “weak horse” and that will be a recruiting tool. What other country would permit this to happen? Even pusillanimous France won’t permit women to wear hijabs. If headscarves were similarly banned here, the ACLU would go into convulsions.

Second, the location and political controversy gives rise to legitimate security concerns. Militant Islam has been very adept at mixing terrorism with mosques and charities. Imagine the propaganda victory if the next big terrorist attack on the U.S. was planned out of the basement of the Ground Zero Mosque. Further, at least one of the donors has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent holding company of Al Qaeda.

Third, Imam Rauf, the leader of the Cordoba Project and self-proclaimed “bridge-builder” has been anything but in this process. “Bridge builders” acknowledge the concerns of their opposition. Rauf has done nothing of the sort. He has stubbornly pushed ahead with his wife on national media circuit denouncing the bigotry of the opposition. His earlier statements on terrorism have been equivocal. He has not condemned Hamas and his statements indicate his belief the U.S. is just as culpable for discord around the world as the terrorists. His renouncement of terrorism and Hamas has been equivocal but his support of Sharia has not.
Fourth is its symbolism, which I touched on earlier. Ironically, liberals are in a frenzy over the symbolism of Glenn Beck’s rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of his “I have a dream” speech, even though MLK was referred to in the most respectful terms and slavery was singled out as a terrible blight on our history. Yet they insist that nothing of the sort is going on with respect to the Ground Zero Mosque. Hmmm.

I reject this charge of bigotry in most stark terms. Like most Americans, I do not care who, where or even if people worship. My opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque is rooted in the propaganda victory it will hand Al Qaeda, the equivocal approach to terrorism and Sharia law that Imam Rauf has taken, and a legitimate concern of a “mixed use” property. We are not at war with Islam, but we are at war with Militant Islam. In war, symbolism is important. Our marines raised an American flag on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima and that image is part of our national lore. It would be a travesty if the Ground Zero Mosque became a similar symbol for Radical Islam.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

More on Cordoba House


So today, House Speaker Pelosi calls for an investigation into those providing financial support for opposition to Cordoba House. Madame Speaker, given the events of 9/11, the Fort Hood shooting, the underwear bomber, Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, does it even occur to you that you might consider investigating the source of funding for the Ground Zero Mosque instead?
Just a few more months........

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Cordoba - NO!


Once again I suspect Political Islam is using our Constitution as a shield to make a statement. In a highly inappropriate and controversial move, an Islamic group is attempting to build a mosque in the shadows of Ground Zero in New York.
Clearly, they have the legal right to do so. We do not distinguish between religions when granting private property rights. Imam Rauf, the leader of this project, describes himself as a “bridge builder.” However, Muslims all over the world howl when their “sensitivities” are offended. They rioted across Europe when a cartoonist portrayed Muhammed with a bomb in his turban. A bounty was put on the head of Salman Rushdie’s head for the unconscionable act of writing a book. Film director Theo Van Gogh was murdered for offending Islam after being condemned by a local imam. Offend the sensibilities of Islam and you will get a reaction.
But now, it seems the shoe is on the other foot. Many of us are now having our sensibilities offended by the audacity of this group to put a mosque in the shadow of the place where 3,000 of our fellow citizens were murdered by fundamentalism Muslims that did so while invoking Allah.
If Imam Rauf and his group are truly dedicated to interfaith harmony, I dare them to prove it. I would take their claims to be “bridge builders” more seriously if they said, “We understand the pain that was brought by this errant group of young men that murdered in the name of Islam. They were wrong and they did not in any way represent Islam. We understand the painful association of that day with Islam and we will do everything in our power to distance Islam from it. We will build our mosque in another place.”
But that is not their approach at all. The governor of New York has offered to find another, more suitable, location. But this group wants none of it. One can only conclude that they mean to put salt in the wound.
Symbolism is important. Flying a confederate flag on one’s car antenna on Martin Luther King Day would say something very bad about you even if you have every right to do it and even if you are claiming solely to be proud of your Southern Heritage. The symbolism of the name “Cordoba House” (commemorating Muslim conquest of Cordoba in a bloody battle) is not lost.
As a legal and Constitutional matter, there is not much that can be done if this group doesn’t voluntarily come to its senses. But I am in New York frequently and if they do built it (I still have my doubts), I plan to stop by. I will park in front of it, pop open a beer and flip through a Playboy magazine. Maybe I’ll even find a girl in a bikini to sit on my lap. It would also be great if I can find a couple of friends that are gay, so that I might have them join me while they hold hands in plain eyesight. I’m all for celebrating tolerance.