Yes, seems that those who want to defend the GZ mosque insist on doing so in terms of the builders having a constitutional right to do so, which is entirely evasive - as if a bishop on hearing complaints that one of his priests is reciting pornography from the pulpit were to answer "well, you know, he has a constitutional right to do so" - or, since that tack ends in a doldrum, by extolling the lofty piety of the chief sponsor of the mosque, in other words, boiling all issues raised by this mosque down opaque rhetoric about religious principles as if the establishment and free exercise clauses were a victory for religion, were all about heralding the glory of God - but of course those clauses were a victory for secularism - our government and civic institutions and laws are secular and this secularism is the culmination of a western tradition that since the days of Athens had a view of personal identity and individual rights and the role and nature of absolutes and of abstract concepts and critical thought and governance and laws that was, although hardly an unbroken cloth stretching from Socrates to Jefferson - the weave was often uncertain and never far from troubles - but still, a tradition that signified at the very least a civilization and culture decidedly different from others that have come and gone and may still linger - especially the culture of Islam, which of course has no interest at all in keeping church and state separate or of allowing citizens the right to keep their beliefs or lack thereof private and free from censure by an absolutist authority.
Now certainly an elemental virtue of the Western tradition is the idea of tolerance - but of course tolerance has a limit - anything secular must be limited, must have boundaries in order to make any practical sense - there have to be lines you cannot cross, or rather, you can cross but things increasingly become unmanageable once you do - and building a mosque at a site that represents a great victory for Islam over the unclean West for those inclined to see the world in those terms is to have very definitely crossed a rather significant line.
And I don't buy this argument that to be against the mosque is to punish a whole culture for the radicalism of a few - extremism is always carried forward by a small influential group that manages to co-opt the sympathies of a larger group by exploiting favourable conditions within a specific population or culture - how many Germans followed Hitler to the bitter end despite not especially seeing themselves as true Nazis or sharing in the mad extremes of his racialism? When Philip sent the Armada against heretical England would it have mattered much if the average Spanish peasant saw little of themselves in his self aggrandizing religious zeal? When Lenin emerged victorious from the civil war not all Russians were suddenly Leninists, not even a majority would have called or seen themselves as such or actually have know what it meant if they did - nor would they have found themselves caring much what some obscure Jewish philosopher living a poor life in London a generation before had to say about capitalism and the historicism of Hegel.
I repeat, the inability for liberals to understand this very simple reality is astounding to me - and more astounding still I'm literally shocked that I have yet to read one liberal commentary on this insidious mosque that takes or seeks to make or even acknowledge the secularist argument - all you get from the left is obscurantist constitutional posturing and near puerile effusing over the inclusive, new agey ecumenism of the Imam at the heart of the controversy - oh, and of course their go to accusation, that anyone opposing the mosque must be a bigot. It's nothing short of an affront to the classical liberal secular scepticism of Hume et al.
A perfect example of this failing of liberalism in its modern incarnation - for I see it as nothing less than a failing - is that insufferable gadfly who founded the highly influential Daily Kos blog who has written a book called American Taliban where I take it he compares extremists on the religious right in America with the religious fanaticism of the Islamists - this is both obvious and meaningless to the point of being silly and will achieve nothing aside from causing many an earnest young liberal to nod head fervently in agreement as if they've been given the keys to everything that's wrong with America - as I've already said extremists, whether hatched on the left or right, tend to share commonalities when it comes to personality disorders, social traits, historical tunnel vision, cultural distortions and ideological intemperance - but my point is if you're a liberal and you're troubled by this aspect of American culture then why on earth would you not use the mosque controversy to extol and celebrate the secular nature of our civic life? Instead liberals try and sell an argument that may sound good in the staff lounge at the academy but does nothing but alienate a majority of Americans and entirely fails to address the fears most Americans feel, to some degree at least, when it comes to the nation's enemies in general and Islam in particular - not to mention does nothing to assuage fears middle America has when it comes liberals and foreign policy concerns - or to put it in more colloquial terms: completely missing the point on why the mosque disturbs causes many to wonder if liberals have what it takes to keep the nation strong - hell, makes many wonder if they even want the nation kept strong
Sadly, disturbingly, by failing to make the savvy non-idealogical argument liberals end up empowering disgusting populist charlatans like Glenn Beck who at his large Lincoln Memorial rally yesterday announced that the only way to solve America's ills, the only way mind you, is through appeal to the grace of God - and with the right wing base awash in this kind of messianic end of days bilge how does a moderate possibly win the nomination in 2012? Mitch Daniels looks like a very attractive option right now but how can a moderate like him possibly hold out if the base has decided only god can save the country now? This was always my worst fear concerning the nasty consequences of an Obama presidency [well, I had a lot of worst fears when it came to that - but this was certainly one of them] that his liberal agenda and the extreme liberal agenda embraced by the Daily Kos ilk that he drags in his wake would so piss off middle America that the country in over reaction lurches violently to the right. There are even some suggestions wafting from the sewers of that fringe that wonder if a Palin/Beck ticket in 2012 would be a good idea - I mean, how bad are things that one even has to worry about such a thing as being possible? I begin to despair that the only hope becomes that my outlandish [but there's a logic to it] prediction that Obama won't run in 2012 actually comes true and Hillary wins the nomination and then becomes the competent, reasonable, moderate leader I tend to imagine her being [although there's scant evidence to suggest her being that - but for some reason I just get that vibe from her - hardly a sophisticated endorsement, but what the fuck - we're living in a time where someone actually thinks Glenn Beck as VP is a good idea - the line between absolutely nuts and not as crazy as you think is entirely blurred].
