Yodeling? Offensive?

I was going to say something truly crass in response to the news that you can't yodel while mowing your grass anymore because it may offend your neighboring Muslim, but I decided against it. The ridiculousness of the story, coming on the heels of this post on the acceptability of offending Christians, does a better job than I ever could.

The Silver Lining in All the Concern about "Islamic Hate Crimes"

There's always an underlying bigotry involved any time liberals decide to defend a religion (except Christianity--Christianity is never defensible). In this case, it involves the amazing double standard concerning recent events involving Muslims and ancient events involving Christians.

How many times have you had a discussion about the radical sects of Islam and their penchant for killing bystanders when a liberal decides to discuss the Crusades? I'd say this canard comes up in most conversations where someone rationally argues against, say, mosques that recruit people for jihad. But these arguments are ridiculous for a comparison of religion. After all, the complaints against Islam aren't about events from a thousand years ago. We're typically talking about the worst event on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and it hasn't even been 10 years yet.

The same people howling about how we can't tar all Muslims with the jihadi brush constantly accuse all pro-lifers of supporting the murder of abortion doctors or all Christians of endorsing Timothy McVeigh (who wasn't even a Christian...but he was a white guy!). Don't let them get away with it, particularly when they're spinning and deceiving like crazy.

What Is the Legal Argument at Ground Zero?

I'm going to steal this from Hugh Hewitt. It's an excellent explanation of the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque and the legal side of the argument.

The trouble is that opposition to one mosque in one place does not a bigot make, though certainly there are anti-Muslim bigots in America. The various straw men put forward and beaten down by Bloomberg et al serve only to deepen the anger of those opposed to one mosque in one place because of their concern over the politicization of Ground Zero, and the other line --taken by Pelosi in the comments above-- that the mosque at Ground Zero is a "local land use decision"-- is instantly understood as not only quite obviously absurd but also political cowardice, especially after the president entered the debate.

As a lawyer who has long represented churches and religious schools in land use disputes, the basic law is this: The government may not constitutionally treat one proposed religious land use differently from similarly situated other religious land uses, and the government may not single out religious land uses for discriminatory treatment in ways that uniquely burden those uses.

By contrast, the government can and does zone land to serve the general good,and in the course of doing that, it may treat religious land uses as one category of land use that will be treated in specific ways, provided those ways are not intended to burden or discriminate against that class of land uses or a particular denomination.

Thus New York City or the state or even the federal government could chose to protect the entire area around and including Ground Zero from all uses that are intended to exploit proximity of the hallowed ground to send messages of any sort. None of these governments could single out the Muslim faith for special burdens or prefer a different faith seeking a shrine nearby.

Neutral principles fairly applied are the heart of Free Exercise Clause's protection of religious land uses.

This approach is, for the benefit of the president's speech writers, a fairly recent development. "The writ of the Founders" did not, for example, stop the attempted extermination of the LDS church in the 19th century.

With Nancy Pelosi calling for investigations of anyone opposed to the mosque, we need to stop pretending that Democrats are simply misguided or have different views from Republicans and conservatives. If the demonization of the Tea Party and talk radio wasn't enough evidence, surely wanting to use the power of the federal government against people speaking their minds should. Nazi and communist references are worn, but, honestly, is there any other way to characterize calling for investigating people for speaking their minds about a national issue? This is, frankly, revolting, and Pelosi should be condemned for it.

America the Un-Bigoted

If you disagree with building the Ground Zero mosque, you must be a bigot according to liberals. But Jonah Goldberg has a nice piece on the whole controversy today:

In any decent society, tolerance must work both ways. If the majority is expected to show respect for a minority, the minority must also show some tolerance for the values of the majority...And one of the things common sense should tell us is that it is not only unfair but terribly ill-advised to portray 7 out of 10 Americans as bigots when they are anything but.

It's time the left stopped demonizing people who have the common sense concern about building a mosque near the site where a group of Muslims attacked America.

My Argument for the Ground Zero Mosque

Since the left seems to be totally bereft of decent arguments in favor of the Ground Zero mosque, I decided to give them the only answer.

No, people who are against the building of a mosque at the site of the greatest Muslim atrocity in American history aren't bigots and they aren't subverting the First Amendment. It doesn't matter what buildings are nearby or if the people building the mosque really, really, really want to put it near Ground Zero as a celebration of tolerance.

The bottom line is that the government has no business determining whether a building goes into this spot as long as the business (or whatever) meets codes. And if enough protests prevent the building of the mosque, then that's a celebration of the First Amendment, too.

As hard as it must be, leftwingers need to stop making stupid arguments to support the mosque or the people who want to build it. Period.

The Problem with Tolerance

I've stated publicly that I don't think the government should stop the building of the Ground Zero mosque. This isn't the same thing as saying it should be built; I think building a symbol to the religion that fired up the terrorists to attack us is in poor taste. My understanding of the Constitution, however, doesn't allow for the government to tell people to have better taste. If the public pressures the owners not to build it, then that's a good thing.

What has struck me in the supporters of the mosque is some of the false equivalencies used to support building it. A friend of mine posted on Facebook that he's not afraid of "Muslim basketball players or culinary students," as though the only use of the building will be purely secular activities. This is false and he must know this. Islam has a history of building mosques on or near the sites of their victories (see the Dome of the Rock and the Hagia Sophia for examples) and of turning Jewish synagogues or Christian churches into mosques as a way of showing their superiority to other religions. To trivialize the concerns of Americans who dislike the idea of raising a monument to the religion of the hijackers is abominable.

I was particularly offended by this comment:

"It could just as easily have been christians fundamentalists, jewish zealots, hindus, sikhs, buddhists...well, maybe not buddhists, the point is, the extremist muslims were just the first ones to get the idea of using planes."

There are a lot of things one could say about "Christian extremists" (whoever those are), but equating hijacking planes and running them into buildings as an act of martyrdom isn't one of them. This sort of martyrdom isn't uncommon among Islamic extremists, but I'm sorely pressed to find a similar event from 20th Century Christianity.

A Question We'd All Like an Answer To

Don’t Mention the War

The most striking thing about all three attacks is not what we heard, but what we haven’t heard. There has been very little talk about the global war that the Obama administration sometimes acknowledges we are fighting and virtually nothing about what motivates our enemy: radical Islam.

Obama's myopic view of world events as being America's fault leaves him unable to accept radical Islam is America's true enemy.

Where Diversity Leads

Students want ‘Our Lord' phrase off diplomas

A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to drop a reference to “Our Lord” on their diplomas, arguing it does not respect the diversity of religions on campus.

“A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly display it in their offices and homes,” said Sidra Qureshi, president of Trinity Diversity Connection. “By having the phrase ‘In the Year of Our Lord,' it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and not everyone believes in Jesus Christ.”

Qureshi, who is Muslim, has led the charge to tweak the wording, winning support from student government and a campus commencement committee. Trustees are expected to consider the students' request at a May board meeting.

Trinity University was founded by the Presbyterians in 1869. Maybe "Our Lord" can come off the diplomas when the Saudis accept plurality.

Don't Talk to Me About the Crusades

Nigerian Muslims Hack 500 Christian Villagers to Death With Machetes – Babies Scalped
When you want to claim that all religions are the same, try to find an example of Christian atrocity more recent than 1200.

Stupid Quote of the Day

Comes from News Writer:

Violence of any kind, perpetrated against anyone, is terrorism.

Really? Really?

I can think of lots of "violence" that News Writer wouldn't consider terrorism. Like, say, abortion.

But there are lots of other examples of violence that would not come under any person's definition of "terrorism." Burglary which ends in the death of the burglar, for instance, would be violent but not considered terrorism. Or a robbery of a convenience store. Or even a football game (soccer games in Europe can get pretty violent, too).

News Writer is trying very hard to create some giant terrorism umbrella to cover a whole bunch of murderers she finds personally offensive, such as abortion doctor killers and crackpots, in order to diminish the distinction between jihadis and general murderers. She also wants us to believe that it's racism that causes conservatives to notice jihadis are typically Muslims who want to kill bunches of civilians for Allah.

So – Maj. Nidal Hasan? Terrorist. Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab? Terrorist. Zacarias Moussaoui? Terrorist. Khalid Sheikh Muhammed? Ramzi Binalshibh? Ramzi Yousef? Omar Khadr? Ayman al-Zawahiri? John Allen Muhammed? Terrorists, all. Jose Padilla? Er, foreign-sounding name (check), brown skin (check) – Terrorist! Barack Hussein Obama? Um, can I get back to you on that?

On the other hand — Jim David Atkisson? Crazy loner who thought liberals were the root of all evil so he opened fire on a Unitarian Church. James Von Brunn? Crazy white supremacist loner who opened fire in the Holocaust Museum. Scott Roeder? Crazy anti-abortion loner who shot Dr. George Tiller to death at his church. Michael Griffin? Crazy anti-abortion loner who killed Dr. David Gunn. Robert Poplawski? Crazy loner who was convinced President Obama was going to take his guns so he killed four police officers. Eric Robert Rudolf? Crazy loner who bombed a park during the Olympics, a gay bar and a women’s health clinic and then hid in the North Carolina mountains for years. Tim McVeigh? Crazy loner who blew up the federal building in OKC because he didn’t like the Democratic government. Warren “Gator” Taylor? Crazy loner who thought Obama was going to take his guns AND tax him to death, so he held a bunch of people hostage in a Virginia post office. Johnny Wicks? Crazy loner pissed off at the federal government about his Social Security claim so he opened fire at the Las Vegas federal courthouse. Glenn Beck? Crazy commentator who urges crazy loners to act on their crazy thoughts.

Shoot, News Writer isn't even bothering to distinguish between leftwing whackos (such as the Holocaust Museum killer) and rightwingers. Or between guys (they're always guys! Are we anti-male, too?) who kill people and radio hosts who "urge crazy loners to act on their crazy thoughts." No examples cited, notice.

I guess to News Writer, a guy putting a bomb in his undies and a radio commentator running a show are pretty much the same thing. Except, of course, that the second guy has a constitutional right to discuss whatever he wants to on his show. The first guy is a terrorist.

Wow, Even Thomas Friedman Gets It Sometimes

In his New York Times column.

Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders...

“Whenever something like Fort Hood happens you say, ‘This is not Islam.’ I believe that. But you keep telling us what Islam isn’t. You need to tell us what it is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques. If this is not Islam, then why is it that a million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim suicide bombers who blow up other Muslims, real people, created in the image of God? You need to explain that to us — and to yourselves.”

Pandagon Watch: Christians = Radical Muslims

One of the reasons I love reading Pandagon so much is because of the fringe positions discussed there and lapped up by the commenters. On Pandagon, if you are a conservative, a Republican of any stripe, a Christian and/or a pro-life supporter, you aren't merely misguided or stupid, you're evil. Then the writer cherrypicks some individual or tiny group to point out some supposed universal truth about conservatives, Republicans, Christians and pro-life supporters.

Take this post by--who else?--Amanda Marcotte titled, "We call them the cracker Taliban for a reason." The reason, in this case, is that one church burned a bunch of books on Halloween. The list of books included different versions of the Bible, music of all persuasions, and books by authors ranging from Billy Graham to Rick Warren to Benny Hinn to Mother Teresa.

The Amazing Grace Baptist Church of Canton, North Carolina is an "Independent Fundamental King James Version Baptist Church," meaning it believes the King James Version of the Bible to be the only true Bible and rejects all other translations and interpretations. It also holds some very strict interpretations of scripture, and only endorses certain kinds of music (no contemporary Christian music, no modern praise music). This church also condemns body piercing, cross dressing and surgery to alter one's sex. In other words, this is a very strict church with very narrow interpretations of scripture and many rules about behavior (a complete list can be found here).

And this church is also probably tiny. Pastor Marc Grizzard describes it as "small," although the total number of members is not listed. I'd put it at probably about 20. In any event, the beliefs of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church don't reflect the views of millions of Christians regarding faith or politics.

But that doesn't stop Amanda from tarring Christians with this group or comparing them to the Taliban.

Right wing Christians try to pretend there’s some kind of yawning gulf between Islam and Christianity, but this sort of thing just goes to show that no matter what the technical religion is, crazy ass fundamentalists are all the same.

Nowhere on the church's website did I find calls for squirting school girls with acid, beating men for beard length violations or the banning of kite flying or bird keeping. Moreover, to argue that because a tiny fringe group favors, say, dress codes, that that equals suicide bombers or jihadis is just batshit insane. But this is precisely the argument Amanda makes, and has made many times before.

The Cracker Taliban would happily ban art and music to prove their bona fides. The mentality that drives this sort of thing is inherently competitive and misanthropic. Misanthropic, because of the deep-seated hostility to pleasure (at least experienced by other people), and competitive, because religious nuts love to show that they’re tougher than their competitors in the art of making people’s short stays on earth as miserable as possible. No music, no entertaining reading, no diversion from sitting around hating life and wishing it could be over already. Meanwhile, the sadists get lots of pleasure out of hurting others.

Amanda doesn't bother giving any examples of how members of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church are "making people miserable" or "hurting others," but, nonetheless, she thinks it's a scary, scary place when 20 people believe in a non-government approved way.

Amusingly, Amanda finds a way to transition from "The Cracker Taliban is gonna throw acid on your wimmins" to "Not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions is genocide!!1!" This isn't the first time that every diatribe against some tiny church leads back to "don't stop Planned Parenthood!" or some such nonsense.

Part of what makes this comparison so bizarre is that nowhere in this post or others, can Amanda find even one case of the "Cracker Taliban" mowing down a lot of innocent civilians while yelling, "God is great" or something similar. Instead, her complaint is that *one* church has a book burning, which includes a wide variety of tomes. She complains that these Christians want everyone to be miserable (there's no evidence of that), which, I guess is supposed to equate with Sharia law, in which stealing is punishable by chopping off your hand.

Of course, the comparison is meant to be offensive; Amanda is probably another of those Hasan enablers/apologists who believe the real reason Nidal Hasan gunned down a bunch of his fellow soldiers while yelling "Allahu Akbar" was because of George Bush and pro-lifers. Sure, there's no evidence connecting those groups and Hasan, but then, there's no connection between fundamentalist Christians and the Taliban, either.

Fort Hood Shootings GWB's Fault

Of course!

On Tuesday, Stephanie Miller suggested it could be because "George Bush made many people around the world feel like this was a war against Islam by using words like crusade."

It sucks when they have no boogeymen to blame things on anymore.

I Liked President Obama's Speech

Apparently, I'm not the only one.

Obama had to lead a nation's grieving; he had to try and address the thorny issues of Islam and terrorism; to be firm; to express the spirit of America, using familiar, comforting tropes in a way that didn't sound trite.

I was very impressed with the speech because President Obama didn't attempt to gloss over the impact of Hasan's radical religious views on his actions. From the speech:

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

I thought the speech was powerful, well-delivered, with the right balance of sentimentality and logic, emotion and analysis. It approached the gorilla in the room (Hasan's Islamism) and didn't flinch. And unlike idiots on the left who think a lone gunman killing an abortion doctor equals a radical killing 13 of his fellow soldiers, Obama didn't apologize for calling this evil evil.

It was excellent.

The Fort Hood Shooting and Radical Islam

We now know that Major Nidal Hasan was a member of a radical mosque in Silver Spring, Maryland. He was an American citizen, yet, apparently, couldn't bring himself to do simple things like be photographed with women. He sympathized with Muslims fighting his fellow soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he yelled, "Allahu Akbar" while mowing down American citizens.

Yet the MSM has tried very hard to downplay the influence his Muslim faith had on Hasan's murderous behavior. For example, on NPR's Way With Words yesterday, host Michel Martin led a roundtable discussion of Hasan which was long on PSTD speculation and very, very short on any discussion of Hasan's radical Islamic views. There were plenty of comparisons with Timothy McVeigh, as if McVeigh's actions were based on his Christian faith (McVeigh was not a Christian, but still, as a white guy, he must've been a radical Christian, right? They're so violent in this country!). But the roundtable just couldn't bring themselves to discuss how Wahhabism influenced Hasan's behavior.

I'm not advocating that we fingerprint all Muslims or round them up and put them in concentration camps, but it seems like Hasan's weird and creepy behavior was noted repeatedly by colleagues and supervisors, yet no one did anything to stop him. Was there simply no way to do more than "watch" Hasan before he decided to kill other soldiers?