Get Off Our Ass

Okay, so anyone who has followed the drama that has developed since President Obama gave his multiple opinions on the mosque ‘at’ the World Trade Center knows that this has turned into a national debate and everyone under the sun has an opinion.

I even have an opinion… but I’m actually not writing to push my personal opinion, though I’ll happily tell you what it is, but rather I’m writing today to comment on what this debate really says about US, the people of these ‘United States’  and what the heck is wrong with us.

So, I’ll start by coming out with it and giving my take on it. Long story, short… a Right is quite different from being right. I believe that you ought to have the Right to do just about anything you like so long as you don’t take my blood or pick my pocket (to put it briefly). At the same time, I don’t think it’s right for anyone to do half the things they do, especially the things they do in places like San Francisco.

I think that the Klan as a Right to hate anyone they choose, but I don’t think it would be right for them to build a KKK Cultural Center across the street from MLK’s grave.

That’s my opinion.

But, what I find interesting isn’t so much which side of the debate everyone comes down on, as much as what the debate itself says about America and the state that we’re in. I’m actually surprised at how divisive this debate seems to be. Generally speaking, I’m all for raucous debate. I’m not one of these people that get offended by passionate people passionately debating their points of view. I welcome it. I don’t mind name calling. I don’t mind calling an idiot an idiot. I don’t mind calling a racist a racist. I don’t mind calling a socialist a socialist… that is sometimes just part of it and it’s been part of it since this country was founded. You want to see some vicious arguments… read American history. Read the founders. Read John Hamilton. Read Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Read what some even said about George Washington towards the end of his tenure as President of the United States.

Hell, I’m more offended by this totally non-offensive political correctness that seems to have been inserted into our discourse. Oh my… heaven forbid we offend a Muslim by saying that Islam is the enemy of liberty.

Let me say flatly… Islam is the enemy of Liberty…. Period.

Now, that said, does it mean that all Muslims are evil? No. I don’t believe that all Nazis were evil. I don’t believe that all communists were evil. I do believe that Nazism, Communism, and Islam… as ideologies and forms of government, are indeed evil. I believe that each, in their own ways are the enemy of liberty.

Now, I’m generally a pretty big fan of organizations like the Cato Institute. If you don’t know, Cato is a libertarian think tank. It’s not a partisan organization. Like me, they’re against the Democrats as much as they’re against Republicans.

Now, it seems that their take is that, as a Libertarian group, the entire mosque issue is a red-herring. Which, on one level it may be. I guarantee that there will be plenty of politicians that make the mosque the issue diseur. They will make it the biggest issue facing the future or the nation… it’s not.

So, to be clear, I don’t think that a mosque near ground zero is going to have anything to do with me living out here in Western Oklahoma, USA.

The debate that has erupted from it will.

You see, on one side you have a group of people (and I’ll give them credit, most are probably heart felt, kind, considerate people… most mind you) that call for tolerance and inclusiveness. Many of those people feel that to argue against the mosque is tantamount to arguing against the principles of freedom of religion that is at the core of the American ideal. I get it.

I see their point.

They’re wrong, but I see their point.

From John Locke’s ‘Letter Concerning Toleration’:

I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?

 Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.

So, 400 years ago, one of the men who birthed the idea of religious freedom that found its way into our First Amendment…

… made a specific exception for Islam.

To make a long story short, Locke argued that we must be careful about being tolerant towards those who would use our toleration as a means to subvert us, which history will tell us that that is what Islam does as a matter of practice.

It’s not unlike Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. One of his tactics was to use our own tolerance against us. Use our freedom of speech to allow speech that would preach tyranny.

So, while I don’t think that the mosque will harm America… the idea that we must be tolerant of Islam for the sake of toleration is. We can afford to be intolerant of ideologies that preach hatred. We can afford to be intolerant of ideologies that preach the subjugation of women. We can be intolerant of ideologies that, well produce states like Saudi Arabia and Iran that don’t give a flyin’ flip about civil rights, human rights or any rights.

Okay, so I was browsing the headlines this morning, one headline I ran across (after I flipped through the, Super Heroes: Where Are They Now? pictorial) was this one;

Terror Experts Blast Obama for Dropping References to Islamic Extremism

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s recent move to drop rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists…

Then, the following article;

Bombers Kill 64 World Cup Fans in Uganda

“Uganda is one of our enemies. Whatever makes them cry, makes us happy. May Allah’s anger be upon those who are against us,” Sheik said.

What??? Let’s not forget the story from a couple days ago

NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World

So, when wrapped up together… you just have to ask where the priorities are for these people?? Why the need for the Muslim/Islam hand job?

Don’t even get me started on the use of our military for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan while there are a bunch of perfectly good terrorists (namely the above mentioned “May allah’s anger’ asshole) to kill.