A New York Mosque

World Trade Center photo courtesy of myrnaslist.com

The building of an Islamic mosque in New York City near the 2001 attack site is controversial.

In May, Community Board 1 in lower Manhattan approved the construction of Cordoba House, a Muslim community center. The Islamic prayer room in Cordoba House is the cause of the controversy.

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs is concerned. So is Peter Gadiel, a guest on the 8/4/2010 Peter Boyles show here in Denver on KHOW radio. He uses the disquieting Holocaust term “oven walkers” to make his point.

Others don’t see it that way. Hugh Hewitt worries about the Constitutional grounds. Parvez Ahmed sees the outcry as symptomatic of American hate and anger.

Your point of view on this issue is largely determined by whether you perceive Islam as a religious movement or a political movement. If you see Islam as a religion, then the 1st Amendment to the Constitution becomes the defining point. If you see Islam as a political movement, then you worry more about threats to peace and security.

The nexus of politics and religion is what is actually being debated. The passions of political ideology and religious fervor create power. Political forces seek religious fervor; religious forces seek political passion. When the two combine, we see far-reaching societal changes, often accompanied by a great deal of human suffering and death.

A political movement backed by religious zeal or a religion which incorporates political ideology: Which forms the path to the greatest power?

That’s a philosophical question worth considering. However, we really don’t need to fret about the starting point.

The goal is always the same.

UPDATE:
Tim Daniel at Left Coast Rebel links!

UPDATE 8/18/2010:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal that characterizes the controversy as a "Clash of Civilizations", using the formulation of the late political scientist Samuel P. Huntington of Harvard.  She notes that the Western media frame the issue as one of religious tolerance while it is predominantly a cultural conflict.  She gives examples of this type of conflict in France, Morocco and Switzerland.  (She appears to come from the perspective that Islam is essentially a political movement.)

UPDATE 8/19/2010:
Roger L. Simon has a beautiful rebuttal to Nancy Pelosi's comments on the controversy.  If nothing else, it introduces you to the philosophy of Karl Potter.  That alone is worth a visit to Mr. Simon's site.

UPDATE 10/4/2010:
John Hinderaker of Power Line comments on a speech by Geert Wilder discussing the characterization of Islam as both a religion and a political movement.  Mr. Wilder comes down on the side of the political characterization.  That impression tends to result when you find yourself politically persecuted for "hate speech."

Return to Start

Return to Bottom

Moral Authority

Unless you are trying to figure out the impact of politics in our society, you probably don’t think about “moral authority.” The concept is more at home in the realm of religious studies.

However, religions don’t have an exclusive right to moral authority. Cultures throughout the world vest this power in political entities. Just as it is possible in Saudi Arabia to hold a conventional belief that people of the Jewish faith are inferior, so is it possible in the United States to hold an accepted belief that Republicans are “bad people.” The society in which we live gives us clues as to what is acceptable and what is controversial. We learn “the ropes.”

Paul Mirengoff, writing in the Power Line blog, touches on this idea when he contrasts the philosophical differences between liberals and libertarians: “liberals think their ideology makes them, above all, morally superior.” Combining moral superiority with politics is a powerful force, but there can be difficulties.

A sobering example was on display a few years back when Madeleine Albright proclaimed that she and her Democratic Party colleagues did everything that could be done to avert the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Our culture took her at her word.

Why bring this up?

There are currently three significant areas of national policy that are being defined in moral terms by the Democratic Party. Using the language of moral authority, they are:

--Afghanistan is a good war.
--Human beings are not illegal.
--We must increase taxes on the rich.

Each of these national policies uses the power of moral authority to render profound judgments. Here is a quick evaluation:

The War in Afghanistan
The great religions of the world probably have this one right: War is never a good thing. When you get into the business of judging one war good and another bad, you are confusing moral issues with political ones. Wars have a way of testing every one of us. At some point, most of us find that we prefer not to engage in warfare. It truly needs to be a “last resort” kind of activity, without the attachment of a moral component.

Illegal Human Beings
This moral judgment confuses the actions of humans with the state of being a human. To exclude members of a certain demographic group from being responsible for their actions is a purely political move. It is similar to granting legal immunity to a group of foreign diplomats. It can be done (perhaps for reasons of reciprocity) but to many people, the practice seems unfair.

More Taxes on the Rich
This, in political terms, is what is called a “populist argument.” It goes hand-in-hand with promises of entitlement. We like to think that someone is looking out for us and taking advantage of others for our benefit.
But here’s the problem: “The Rich” derive their income from wealth. Most of the rest of us derive our income from labor. When income taxes are put in place, those who work for a living are “stuck.” We have no escape. We must work to survive, and the taxes are extracted.
If your income comes from wealth, you can relocate your wealth to avoid taxes. If you receive dividends and the government decides to raise taxes on those dividends, you can put your wealth into tax-free bonds. If the government decides to do away with tax-free bonds, you can move to a different governmental jurisdiction. You simply stay one step ahead of the taxation policies.

In each of these examples, we see a questionable policy being embellished with moral authority.

The upside of all this is that we are starting to see a national discussion over moral authority. Republicans seem to be fairly clear on this issue. They rely on the work of some very bright philosophers with names like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Adams.

Independents are coming to the realization that the moral authority they see being exercised is not favored by a majority of those being governed. That is causing some anxiety.

A few Democrats are even questioning the moral authority being imposed. They have competing influences in their lives: family, religion, heritage, etc. They are feeling less content with simply doing whatever increases the power and authority of the Democratic Party.

This week, our Congress recesses for the summer. We will see Senators and Representatives in their home districts presenting arguments with intellectual authority and with moral authority. Which do you think will have the most impact?

I’m afraid the emotional arguments married with moral authority will carry the day.

Afghanistan is a war worth fighting!

Human beings are never illegal!

We must tax the rich!

And, oh yes…

Republicans are bad people!

Fasten your seatbelts.


UPDATE 6/28/2011:
A clear example of the righteousness of those who hold moral authority in their political beliefs is this comment via Real Clear Politics from Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary.  The mindset of "true believers" flourishes in the world of politics.

UPDATE 5/31/2012:
Daniel Henninger has a great column in The Wall Street Journal that highlights the difficulty encountered by a political body applying its moral authority on an established religion.  America was founded on the basis of religious freedom, and Americans may still not appreciate a political organization telling them what they must believe and how they must practice their religion.  

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Intimidation

My heart goes out to bloggers such as A Conservative Teacher. Here is a person passionate about the teaching profession, who writes about political events that affect the future of our children.

We don’t know the name of this blogger. It is a price the blogger pays for protection of career and family.

Tim Daniel, the inspiration behind Left Coast Rebel (and a supporter of this blog), recently had a post in The Daily Caller. The article displayed Tim’s understated “can you believe THIS!” style of writing, and yet it was significant for another reason.

Tim published it with his name and photograph.

Why is this significant? It is because our culture supports the idea of Republicans being continually “under siege.” We accept Republicans having shoes thrown at them, eggs thrown at them, speeches drowned out, and cars vandalized. Our culture simply shrugs and continues with the idea that Republicans deserve this treatment.

It makes a difference. It intimidates us. We hesitate.

That’s why this has been an interesting week. The people who run the town of Bell, California didn’t expect pushback from folks like Tim Daniel. Senator Kerry didn’t expect to be called on his tax avoidance techniques. The NAACP didn’t expect to be criticized for working to label Republicans as “racists.”

The blogging community is now the primary agent for transparency over governmental heavy-handedness. It’s a service delivered unapologetically, with a simple appeal to human fairness.

Tim Daniel is a leader in this effort. Let’s wish him all the best, as well as the quick reflexes to dodge any shoes that come flying his way!

UPDATE:
Thanks for the link, Tim.  Maybe as Glenn Reynolds says, there truly is "An Army of Davids" out there. Thanks also to A Conservative Teacher for the comment on the dangers of expressing your opinion.  Here is a link to the post about Bill Ayers from that comment:

Return to Start

Quinella!

I’ve pointed out in earlier posts (here and here) the structural bias in our printed media: The anti-Republican stories are printed as “News” while the stories that support Republicans are printed as “Opinion.”

Today’s Denver Post (7/21/2010) illustrates the technique.

A couple of recent news stories have been about federal government officials. One relates to the head of NASA supporting Muslim outreach, while another is about an official from the USDA discussing racial preferences at a banquet for the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The newsworthy issue in both cases is whether this kind of posturing is appropriate for government administrators acting in their official capacity.

The Post helps us sort out the correct understanding. With regard to Shirley Sherrod, the Georgia state director of rural development for the United States Department of Agriculture, a Washington Post story is presented on page four. The lead paragraph begins, “A fuzzy video of an Agriculture Department official opened a new front Tuesday in the ongoing war between the left and right…” The story goes on to explain, “A video of the full, 45-minute-plus speech shows that Sherrod was trying to make a very different point than the one her critics saw…”

The Post lets us know that the issue is not whether racism is displayed in the actions of a government official, but that Republicans misunderstood the good intentions of this Democratic Party appointee.

The Morning Brew column by Mike Littwin is on page two of today’s Post. (I featured an earlier column by Mr. Littwin here.) This morning, Mr. Littwin straightens out our understanding of the interview given by Administrator Charles Bolden of theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration. He does it from the context of a line delivered by Jane Norton, a Republican candidate for Senator from Colorado. He quotes Mrs. Norton as saying in a debate, “We need a NASA budget that doesn’t cater to making Muslims feel good but that is strong on science…”

Mr. Littwin helps us understand that the issue is not whether Muslim outreach is an appropriate mission of NASA, but that Republicans are naturally anti-Muslim. He even (reflexively? predictably!!) invokes Sarah Palin to strengthen his point.

In its first section, the Post helps us understand what “News” is, and how we should think about it. Is there an opposing point of view?

Well, yes there is…

The Post places it in the Op-Ed section, where David Harsanyi points out a disconnect with President Obama’s claim that Republicans are demonstrating a “lack of faith in the American people.” Mr. Harsanyi uses his column to cite evidence of our federal government treating Americans as clueless pawns. He concludes with the contention, “Obama is probably confusing faith in people with faith in power. Because as hard as one tries, it is difficult to find any instances of choices expanding under this administration. That’s the true test of confidence in the citizenry.”

Mr. Harsanyi makes a good point. Unfortunately, his readership is limited to those who venture into that strange new world where analysis is presented as Opinion.

When a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

Return to Start

In Plain Sight

Power Line's Scott Johnson posted an article by Maimon Schwarzschild on 7/19/2010 that explores the “One-Party Media” that exists in the United States.

Mr. Schwarzschild writes, “It is extraordinary, and I think unprecedented, that a free press has voluntarily transformed itself into something not very different from the controlled press in an undemocratic country.”

Mr. Schwarzschild finds this hard to believe, and yet notes that it is backed by “innumerable examples.”

The Census Bureau map illustrates the quandary. We live in diverse geographies and come from diverse ancestry. We can’t shed our diversity.

But what if analysts are looking at the wrong data? While searching for the “holy grail” hidden within the diversity puzzle, they are missing the bigger picture?

What is NOT diverse is our CULTURE, and I think Mr. Schwarzchild is beginning to see it.

In America, the Democratic Party represents “the good guys.” This is the organization that tells us how to interpret the news, how to enjoy our entertainment, and what is acceptable and what is controversial.

If you are looking for a framework to explain what is in plain sight, don’t bother with census data or opinion polls.

Simply look at our culture.

Back to Start

Soft-Pedaling

Robert Stacy McCain is a god.

That being said, Stacy’s recent post on Media Matters is disquieting.

The masthead of his blog (The Other McCain) states, “One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up.” It is a quote from Arthur Koestler, known for his book “Darkness at Noon” and for a life that ricocheted against the edges of human torment.

Koestler’s quote comes to mind as Stacy takes on the Media Matters’ coverage of Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs. Ms. Geller is critical of Islamic extremism, and comes under fire for her viewpoints.

Stacy characterizes the Media Matters’ criticism of Ms. Geller in this fashion (emphasis mine):

--“Media Matters is trying to suppress dissent.”
--“Endeavoring to dismiss the story as insignificant…”
--“Eric Boehlert wants to rule such questions as out of bounds…”
--“Media Matters is attempting to discredit the messenger.”
--“Media Matters is attempting to exercise the power of an arbiter…

I don’t believe that Media Matters and similar voices within our culture are upstarts having a fling at influencing opinion. They do it with a calculated plan of action, using repetitive themes and a coordinated choice of language. Stacy’s wording makes Media Matters seem tentative.

It might be fun to think of our anti-Republican culture as something without substance and force, but Pamela Geller has a better approach.

She sees a threat and responds accordingly. I’ll bet Arthur Koestler would approve.

Return to Start

Courageous Restraint

Royal Marines in Afghanistan

Photograph by Jane Mingay, Courtesy of the Telegraph

In January of 1973, Time Magazine published a story about B-52 pilot Captain Michael Heck refusing to fly missions over North Vietnam. According to Time, Captain Heck’s rationale was that “the goals do not justify the mass destruction and killing."

A case of “courageous restraint?”

This term might be unfamiliar to you, as it has just burst onto the scene. Here’s an Associated Press article published in May, 2010 at military.com:

NATO Pushes ‘Courageous Restraint’ for Troops

The idea is creating some consternation in the United States military, but its genesis is in our culture. We seem interested in replacing tried-and-true rules such as “Thou Shalt Not Kill” with a more interpretive standard of “Thou Shalt Do the Right Thing.” The advantage of the updated standard is that it requires a centralized moral authority to ensure the standard is administered properly.

Are you starting to feel the influence of politics?

Here are some situations to consider:

An elderly gentleman in Wheat Ridge, Colorado was recently charged with attempted murder. On February 24, 2010, Robert Wallace, an octogenarian, allegedly fired a handgun at a couple of people who were (allegedly) stealing a flatbed trailer from his home. Mr. Wallace thought he was defending his property. The Wheat Ridge police think that Mr. Wallace lives in a safe neighborhood and he should have used “courageous restraint”.

In Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer is quite concerned about the lawlessness that comes with Mexican gangs using the Arizona border as an arena for drug trafficking and kidnapping. The head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has a different point of view. She feels that in the 18 months of her tenure, great progress has been made “addressing current challenges with our federal, state, local, tribal and Mexican partners in order to keep our communities safe from threats of border-related violence and crime.” One gets the feeling from Janet Napolitano that the Southwest border has never been safer.

While Governor Brewer sees the need for decisive action, Secretary Napolitano sees the need for courageous restraint.

And so it appears that the idea of courageous restraint is situational. By that, I don’t mean we have to look into such things as the ethnicity or gender of the people involved. Nor does it depend on the life experience of anyone; whether he or she had an abusive childhood or experienced bullying in school. Rather, it is based on the perspective of the individual thrust into the action versus the perspective of the moral authority with power over that individual. Depending on where you fit in that situation, you take one side or the other.

In the military, the troops at the “pointy end of the spear” often have a different perspective than the people in the Headquarters or Command Post facility. The operators (people in the trenches) don’t like being “used,” and particularly don’t like being pawns in a political game that treats their lives as expendable items.

Those who are removed from the battlefield are not physically at risk, and get to make their decisions from a safe and dispassionate sanctuary. These authority figures on any given day can actually render a moral judgment about a particular combat action and then later move on to the responsibilities associated with photo-ops, golf games and encounters with famous entertainers.

But back to the issue of the medal itself…

There is a hierarchy in military decorations. With the United States military, the decorations are awarded in this type of sequence:

Armed Forces Service Medal – if you are in a military unit but not subject to hostile action.
Southwest Asia Service Medal – if you are in theater and are supporting combat operations.
Presidential Unit Citation – if you are assigned to a unit in action against an armed enemy.
Purple Heart – if you are wounded or killed in combat.
Silver Star – for gallantry in combat.
Medal of Honor – for risking your life above and beyond the call of duty.

As you can tell, the more involved you are in combat operations, the higher the ranking of the medals being awarded. With this hierarchy in mind, where do you think a Courageous Restraint Medal should be placed?

While pondering that question, do you get a bad taste in your mouth; a feeling that makes you want to turn your head and spit?

A characterization of that feeling might be “disgust.”

UPDATE 7/17/2010:
Here is a Denver Post quote from a local judge making a ruling on the "Stolen Valor Act:"

"To suggest that the battlefield heroism of our servicemen and women is motivated in any way, let alone in a compelling way, by considerations of whether a medal may be awarded simply defies my comprehension."

That's U. S. District Judge Robert Blackburn declaring the 2006 Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional on free speech grounds.

Judge Blackburn says our Constitution allows people to make bogus claims of military service and decorations as protected speech.  He also feels that military decorations do not have a political component.  (I assume that Judge Blackburn would think the Courageous Restraint issue is trivial.)  The whole concern about the significance of military medals "defies [his] comprehension."

Unfortunately, people think of military decorations in different ways.  A posthumous award of a Purple Heart has greater significance to family members than the Purple Heart Senator John Kerry accepted for his injuries in Viet Nam.

An awards ceremony where a battle action is commemorated and some soldiers are awarded medals for valor while others are awarded medals for courageous restraint will cause a few people to feel uncomfortable.

The point to keep in mind is that when our leaders bring politics into a situation (especially where great physical risk and loss of life are in play) they are dealing with human emotions at their greatest intensity.

Many people would find that NOT to be trivial.

Return to Start

Return to Bottom