Ground Zero liberalism

The so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" seems to be the topic du jour in the culture wars. As G. K. Chesterton advises, it is good to put forth the points on which there is agreement before taking the contrary position. I agree that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, both as I read it personally and as a matter of law, permits Muslims to erect mosques on the private property of their choosing, subject to zoning and other "reasonable" restrictions (that apply to everyone.) If you consider yourself a liberal (small L) and your "support" of the Ground Zero Mosque is on First Amendment Grounds alone, I think we find ourselves in agreement and there is nothing further to discuss. The mosque must be permitted.

But, what I observe amongst liberals -- and it's not just with this particular issue, but has been repeated many times post 9-11 -- is some sort of support of Islam on what I think could only be broadly labeled as "tolerance." It's the typical liberal viewpoint that "I'm OK, you're OK (unless you're a white, Christian, male Republican.)" Except that I never get the impression genuine tolerance is being expressed. Rather, leftist support for Islam seems like a "stickin' it to the Man" attitude. It's a case of, "Let's see, Christians don't like Islam and I don't like Christians so I'll say Islam is OK." I know there are people that so hate what they believe to be Christianity that they support anything that could not be possibly mistaken as Christian.

I'll put it plainly. If you are a Liberal, in the post-modern western sense, and you do anything but vehemently oppose Islam, you are a fool and a hypocrite. Those things you say that you dislike about Christian fundamentalism are the foundations for Islamic morality, but are heaped on by the gallon. Islamic morality is also enforced by violence and terror. Islam's followers don't believe religion is a "private matter." You might want to read up on Sharia law or just take a gander at how things run in Iran to see this is the case.

You think conservative Christians are "hateful" for opposing gay marriage? How does it sit with you that (supposedly) 4,000 people have been executed in Iran since the revolution for being homosexual? You don't like that fundamentalist Christians believe that the man should be the "head of the house" -- you probably don't understand what this even requires of the man? How do you feel about women being stoned in Muslim countries for allegedly being adulteresses?

Do you like the idea that fathers and brothers (in diverse places across the Muslim Middle East) will murder girls in their own family if a husband reports back that the young lady was not a virgin (meaning he could not tell that she was)? There should be nothing more abhorrent to you than "honor killings."

Islam is not progressive. Islam is not "inclusive." Islam is not "tolerant." Muslims are not "pro-gay." Islam's followers are not anything that you think that the rest of us should be. So why aren't you speaking out against them? Other than the old worn out line that "Islam is a religion of peace," Muslim don't even pretend to share post-modern western liberal values. So why do you support them streaming into our country, building their places of worship wherever they like?

You will rue the day, and it may be in our lifetime, when they are of sufficient numbers to, within a democratic system, influence government policy. You'll wish the mean-spirited Euro-American conservatives were in power, suggesting you home-school your kids and honor your husbands.

The great setup

Trash culture. I hate it! I do my level best to ignore it. We don't have cable and I don't look at tabloid internet sites. But you'd have to live up in the mountains in Tibet to avoid the Tiger Woods story. I don't know the details about his affairs and I certainly don't care to know them. If it were up to me, I wouldn't know anything at all about his personally life.

The world we live in, though, is not my ideal society. We feast on the misery of others. We build them up to great heights by paying attention to the details of what they wear on the red carpet and what their babies look like. We load their bank vaults by going to see their movies and watch them play their games. We make them American royalty but commit regicide as soon as they make a mistake.

This is exactly what we are seeing with Tiger Woods. Before he was even eligible to turn pro, we anointed him the next Jack Nicklaus. Corporations, with money from us consumers, made him a millionaire many times over with endorsement and advertisement money. Would they have paid him if you didn't buy their products? No. All that wealth is really a gift from you to him.

But now he has sinned -- multiple times. And the finger-wagging, name-calling, and judgment has begun. A man who was two weeks ago a hero -- practically a national treasure -- is now a pariah. Women especially seem to be tearing him to shreds over his (inexcusable) infidelity. It's interesting that JFK, RFK and Bill Clinton are still seen as heroes despite their identical moral failings, but that's another story for another time.

The moral outrage over Tiger's philandering is particularly galling to me. Is that because I don't think he was wrong? No. Am I galled because I don't think affairs with multiple women isn't serious? No. I'm peeved because: a) the moral outrage seems disproportionately high; b) the people most loudly calling for his head fail to recognize Tiger has done really what our society has, in many ways, said is acceptable. People scoff at the notion of traditional values. Marital fidelity is one of those cornerstone moral principles that is fluid and situational. We crucify Tiger woods for cheating but say nothing about the 50% or so married average Joes and Janes that do exactly this. Worse yet, we encourage divorce for those that are "unhappy," whatever that might mean.

Even more to the root of the matter, we have created an amoral sexually charged culture that encourages sexual behavior outside of marriage. If it doesn't matter if are married before you have sex with each other, why should it matter if you have sex with someone while married to another? What's really the difference? It's just a pleasure activity, after all, right?

Men are taught to be hyper-sexual, less so by their male peers, than advertisers and corporations who stand to make fortunes by selling us beer by showing us guys partying with young, beautiful bikini-clad girls. Why do we expect men to behave in dignified ways when we promise them all the sex they can get if they wear the right aftershave?

Our society is sex, sex, sex. Porn is now "mainstream" and "normalized." But if you have sex when we tell you not to, you deserve our wrath. We dangle it in front of our young mens' faces and tell them not to have it.

If I could wave a magic wand, I would de-sexualize as much of the media as possible and give people books to read instead of TV to watch. Perhaps that would break the cycle of making kings for the purpose of later pulling down their kingdoms.

"Support Your Local EVERYTHING!"

So read a bumper sticker on a vehicle I was behind yesterday. Next to that sticker was one for the local university-affiliated public radio station. The car, not surprisingly, was headed toward that university, which is Ypsilanti, Michigan.

What immediately jumped out at me was that the car was a Honda Accord. Anyone familiar with Ypsilanti knows that in it or around it, GM and Ford both manufacture vehicles (or major parts of vehicles, like transmissions and such.) Ypsilanti is a short drive from the Motor City.

I'm not one to get to preachy. I don't admonish others to "buy American"; it's not my place to make that decision for people. Lots of true patriots buy cars with foreign name plates.

What I does get me, though, is that people that do not practice what they preach. In this case, this person's "local EVERYTHING" includes American manufactured domestic vehicles. Literally, there are vehicles that are "local," but she chose a car made in Tennessee or perhaps even Japan. Perhaps the bumper sticker should've said "Support Your Local (Almost) EVERYTHING" or "Support Your Local EVERYTHING (Except Major Purchase Items Like Vehicles").

I'm not sure what's more inconsistent, that bumper sticker on that car or the one I saw last year with a drawing of a cell phone that said "Hang Up and Drive." When I passed the driver of that car he was, you guessed it, talking on his cell phone.