Is there anybody out there?

The Koran Burning on 9/11

2010-09-08T23:17:00.000-07:00

I think we can all agree that this weekend's planned burning of Korans by a Florida pastor is a bad idea. It sends the wrong signal to our Muslim allies, it could put our troops in danger, and it violates the idea of religious freedom in this country. This freedom of expression falls into the same category of yelling fire in a crowded theater; you can do it, but you shouldn't do it. I don't think you will find any disagreement on this point. What I would like to discuss are the parallels drawn between the Islamic Cultural Center and this Koran burning plan, and some questionable interpretations of the first amendment.

The common argument against the Islamic Cultural Center is this Imam does have the right to build anywhere he wants, but he should not do it. This is the same argument against burning the Korans. There is a key difference here that I hope will not be missed in all the media coverage: the Koran burning is blatantly offensive to Muslims and it violates the idea of religious freedom in the first amendment, and the Islamic cultural center is not offensive and embraces the ideas of the first amendment. I do believe that we need to temper our exercise of our constitutional rights, but I also believe that the government should not interfere to prohibit this demonstration. (As a side note, I do believe that they are going to break some laws by doing this, and in that case, the government does have the right to step in). I also believe we must temper for a reason because speech is very sacred in this country. There are multiple reasons for tempering a Koran burning, but very few, if any, reasons to temper the building of an Islamic Cultural center near Ground Zero. (I have already outlined my reasons for supporting the Islamic Cultural center in a previous post).

In addition, I think we need to look carefully at the first amendment. Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key words are "Congress shall make no law." This means that it is not against the constitution to burn a Koran It is against the idea of the amendment and America's ideals, but not the constitution. It does say; however, that the government cannot stop you from saying or doing those things. I think we need to remember that this amendment was designed to keep the government from interfering, not individual citizens from interfering. And when individuals say, it is my right to say whatever I want, that is not entirely true. It is your right to have the government not interfere in what you say, but there may be other factors, social, political, international, that exert pressure on what you can and cannot say. Once again, we must not flaunt the constitution, and temper our rights when there is good reason to do so.

The Islamic Cultural Center Near Ground Zero

2010-08-30T21:48:00.000-07:00

After an extended break from blogging, I feel I must wade into the debate over the proposed Islamic Cultural center near Ground Zero. First and foremost, I believe this debate is a byproduct of our nation's destructive media cycle. Notice my language when describing this controversy: I do not refer to the Islamic cultural center as a "Mosque" and I do not describe its location as "Ground Zero." This is an important distinction that individual media outlets can exploit, and have exploited, for the sole purpose of inflaming tensions and stirring up hate. The Islamic Cultural center is not a Mosque. It is a multifunctional center designed to mimic the current YMCA concept. Its purpose is to promote interfaith dialog, and provide a worship space for local Muslims. It is also not on the site of Ground Zero, which is what the term "Ground Zero Mosque" infers. It is two blocks away. It is important that we ignore the incorrect and uniformed rhetoric when embarking on a debate with such sensitivities.

This debate seems to be centered around the proposed location of the cultural center. The common argument is that building an Islamic symbol so close to the site of a horrendous attack carried out by extremist Muslims is an insult to the families of those lost on 9/11. This argument is flawed for a number of reasons. First, the opponents of this project have the right to speak out in protest and ask the project be moved to an alternate location; no matter what the reason. But these opponents must realize that interference by the government is not possible and will not happen because of the right to practice religion guaranteed by the constitution. The Imam that proposed this project could exercise his right to move the project, but it can and should only be a voluntary decision, not one force upon him by the government.

The second flaw in this argument is the false parallel drawn between Islam and Islamic terrorists. We were attacked on 9/11 by a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization know as Al-Queda. This organization claims to be the true and pure form of Islam, and has declared a holy war against the United States and its allies. This group is not a pure form of Islam, and does not reflect the accurate views of the Islamic faith. Fundamental Islamists represent a 1/10th of 1% of the over 1 billion Muslims worldwide. The argument that a mosque is somehow an insult to 9/11 victims is false for this reason: Muslims did not carry out the attacks on 9/11; terrorists carried out these attacks claiming to represent Islam.

The funding source for this Imam who is planning this Islamic center is another angle of attack for critics. This concern is based on the false premise that your funding source, no matter how small or indirect, will contribute to how your project functions. For instance, Fox News' second largest shareholder is a Saudi Prince who, allegedly, supports radical madrasas all across the Middle East. It is absurd to think that Fox News is now a terrorist organization because of one individual's funding. It is logical to follow the money in some cases, but common sense must be applied. If the money source is very small or non-existent--in the case of the Islamic Center they have very little funds at this point--and the connections from that money source to terrorism is remote, then it is not logical to assume the Islamic center will have terrorist connections.

Overall, the reasons to not support this Islamic cultural center are illogical and based on false assumptions, but there are a few logical reasons to support this project. We are fighting a war of ideas. The idea of America versus the idea of fundamental Islam. We have to be able to make a convincing argument that our ideals are better and desirable, and, if that wasn't enough, we have to be perfect when enforcing those ideals. We have to be perfect in our actions and words to the Islamic community. We have to be perfect in our enforcement of fundamental human rights. We have to be perfect in our enshrinement of the constitution. This Islamic center is the perfect example of how we can rise above our passions and enforce the great ideals of America. We can do this, but we must remember to take the moral high ground, and we must remember that the idea of America demands nothing less than perfection.

The War on Fox News

2009-10-25T18:07:00.000-07:00

Recently the White House launched what some have coined a War on Fox News. Spokespeople from the administration went on every Sunday morning talk show except Fox's, and declared Fox News to not be a legitimate news station that pushes a point of view rather than news. Now, I do not entirely disagree with that statement, but the White House must realize that this attack just consolidates the base around the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Fox News does have the right to publish whatever content they desire, and any attempt to muzzle Fox News plays right into the idea that the White House is turning this country into a social dictatorship and our very freedoms are at stake.

Now, having said that, Fox News is an irresponsible and, in my opinion, dangerous organization that prays on the fears of its viewers and expands the ignorant views of a narrow minority. Yes, speech is a right; opposing speech is especially important to a free society. But with our freedoms and rights comes responsibilities. It is essential that news organizations hold themselves to a high standard of integrity and only report the facts and not opinion based journalism. Opposing view points have their place, but not as a platform or a prism from which you report what your station claims to be "fair and balanced" news. News does not have a point of view. Facts do not have emotions. And journalists have a responsibility to the truth.

And that is why I think that Fox News, and other individual shows on MSNBC and CNN, are dangerous. Each claims they have cornered the marked on the truth. They report on a narrow set of facts with a narrow politicized interpretation. What makes matters worse is they use words like communist, socialist, maoist, nazi, and, most offensive of all, Anti-American. First, holding an opposing view is not Anti-American, as Fox News argues against the White House's attempted black listing. Second, and perhaps most important, who determines what "American" is? Isn't America supposed to be the giant mixing pot of all nations? Where all religions, all ethnic backgrounds, all points of view are not only permissible, but welcome? Labeling the opposition with slanderous adjectives to scare up more viewers is irresponsible, dangerous, and an abuse of the first amendment.

But it is not all Fox News and MSNBC's fault. The American public needs to take responsibility for its knowledge on world/political issues. The internet makes it possible to view multiple, in fact thousands, of different news sources. When an issue is important to you, a well informed citizen will educate himself on all aspects of an issue from multiple sources. This is also an inherent responsibility of free expression.

In the end, organizations and shows that promote extreme views as the truth and label anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow point of view as "Anti-American" do not help solve the political problems we face as a nation. I am convinced that we all share a common set of values that do not drastically conflict. The argument is how we implement these common values as laws, and realizing we do share a common point of view is the first step in moving ahead as a nation.

Mission Statement

2009-10-21T10:38:00.000-07:00

My first post on my new blog will be a general statement about what I hope to accomplish through this blog. First, I am seeking individuals who share my political point of view. Every day I grow increasingly frustrated with the political situation in this country, and I am now almost convinced that nobody shares my political views. This blog is an attempt to find those individuals, and allow a place where common sense and compassionate thought from the right and the left can be shared and discussed.

Throughout the lifespan of this blog, I will comment on the hot political topic of the day. I will never spout hateful, ignorant, racist, or otherwise demeaning comments on this blog. I will try to present my point of view, and I hope to find others who agree and spark civil debate with those who do not. In order to do that let me tell you all a little bit about my political stance.

I consider myself a republican/libertarian, but I do not agree with the "neocon" version of conservatism that is now propagating throughout the Republican party. I am also not a "Regan Republican." For one, I am too young to remember who Regan was, and that brand of politics doesn't work anymore and there is no hope of it ever returning. If the Republican party ever wants to regain any form of respectability again, it must move forward with a different vision. I do believe in small government, but government must be there for certain things: Military, Law Enforcement, and, yes I know it is blasphemous to say this as a republican, health care. How is it okay to have a federal law enforcement agency to protect us, but it is not okay to have a government that provides for its people?

This is where I feel my views are different from the platform of the republican party and cannot be defined by conventional labels. Too often we narrow our scope to democrat or republican and forget that the world is not that black or white. Health care is a perfect example of my, and I believe this nation's, internal conflict. I believe the government is bad at running things. They can operate at a loss on the backs of taxpayer's money while maintaining inefficient practices. BUT as a Catholic, I believe that we must help our fellow man, we must cloth the naked, care for the sick, feed the hungry. And right now our country falls short. We do not care for our people like a first world nation should. But how do we fix that?? Ultimately, I believe it comes down to responsibility. I believe that government's function is to take responsibility for essential human needs when no one else will take proper responsibility for them. That is exactly why we have a federal law enforcement agency and a military. Local militia/law enforcement cannot adequately protect the nation like a federal military/law enforcement can. Right now, health insurance companies do not adequately cover those who need it; therefore, government is the one responsible to provide this essential common good for its citizens.

I feel this internal conflict on a number of other issues. I am strongly anti-abortion, but I cannot condemn those who feel that abortion is their only option. I also am against gay marriage on moral grounds, but as citizens they deserve equal rights under the law like everyone else. I believe the Iraq war was a mistake and did not fit the definition of a "just" war, but we can't change the past and their is no way we can leave the country in the state it is now. Income tax should be abolished and replaced with a national sales tax, but this tax cannot hurt the poor by taxing everyday food stuffs and items needed to sustain a family such as diapers. These views are just a few of the reasons why I feel ostracized from the mainstream political parties, and why I hope to find other like minded individuals.