Sensitivity and the Ground Zero Mosque

After the initial criticism of plans to build an Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero raised questions of bigotry and hypocrisy, opponents have taken a new tack. Yes, Muslims have freedom of religion and the right to private property. However, it just wouldn't be sensitive to build a mosque so close to Ground Zero.

Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said:

At its essence, our position is about sensitivity. Everyone -- victims,opponents and proponents alike -- must pay attention to the sensitivities involved without giving in to appeals to, or accusations of, bigotry. Ultimately, this was not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center would un-necessarily cause some victims more pain. And that wasn't right.

When you frame the debate in terms of sensitivity, it all seems so reasonable, but is it? Sensitivity is such a subjective standard that it can used to disguise almost any motivation, whether noble or crass.

A few examples.

In the 1950s, the University of Texas fought a rear guard action to limit entry of African Americans into the school. One of the ways they did this was to only allow black students into classes which were predominately male, such as engineering. That way, white girls would be spared the insensitivity of having to attend classes with the "coloreds." What passed for sensitivity in the 1950s appears as plain old bigotry today.

Much of the international community (by which I mean Europe) considers Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to be insensitive. Should Israel forsake its security because some Belgians have had their sensitivities offended?

I have a real problem with someone saying yes you have the legal right to do something, but we think you shouldn't because it is insensitive. In this case, the proposed Islamic center is intended to replace a Manhattan mosque which has outgrown its space. The existing mosque has been there for 30 years and is twelve blocks from Ground Zero. There is no indication that the existing mosque has any ties to radicals.

If it is insensitive to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, would it have been insensitive to build one on the existing site, which is twelve blocks away? If it would be insensitive to allow a new mosque to be built within twelve blocks of Ground Zero, would it be insensitive to allow an existing one to remain in place? If the families of the victims of 9/11 said that it would be insensitive to allow mosques in the home towns of any of the victims, would we be required to honor their wishes? Where does it end?

Fareed Zakharia has an excellent piece in Newsweek. He points out that after 9/11, it became the policy of the United States government to provide support to the non-radical elements of the Muslim community. He points out that if this mosque were in a foreign country, the U.S. would probably be paying for it. This brings up two points. First, isn't it insensitive to tell Muslims who have had a mosque in Manhattan for 30 years that they are not welcome in their own country? Second, if we drive out the non-radical elements of the Muslim community, who will be left? Would our insensitivity give rise to the very thing we fear?

To me, it comes down to rights, not sensitivities. This is about freedom of religion and freedom of private property. Denying those fundamental American rights would be insensitive.

Post-script: When I went off to college, I noticed that there were some people who were always getting upset and demanding apologies. In time, I came to believe that some people just enjoy being upset. There wasn't much of a point in placating them, because they would find something else to be offended by. I think there is a parallel here. If you cave in to the most easily offended, you will be doing a lot of caving in.

Why I Will Not Be Voting for Rick Perry

Rick Perry will probably elected to yet another term this November. However, he will have to do so without my vote. At one time, I respected Perry as a conservative leader. No more. Here is why.

1. Rick Perry has become a professional politician. He has served as Agriculture Commissioner, Lieutenant Governor and Governor for the past twenty years. He has spent more time in the Governor's office than anyone else. One reason that many conservatives favor term limits is that life-tenure politicians tend to forget what it is like to have to make a living in the private sector. The longer the time in office, the greater the temptation toward corruption and arrogance. That seems to be the case with Rick Perry. During his tenure, he has grown wealthy on sweetheart land deals. After the Governor's mansion burned down, he rented a $10,000 a month home at the taxpayer's expense. Governor Rick is living high off the hog while I am struggling to pay my bills.

2. Rick Perry never saw an execution he didn't like. As a Christian, I have qualms about the death penalty. I am realistic enough to believe that death penalty and guilt don't always go together. Rick Perry had a rare chance to commute a death sentence recently. Under the law of parties, an accomplice to a murderer is treated the same as if he had pulled the trigger himself. In one case, the accomplice received the death penalty while the actual murderer received life in prison. The Board of Pardons and Paroles, which is usually a rubber stamp for prosecutors, recommended that the death sentence be commuted. Rick Perry said no. In another case, it appears that the State wrongfully executed an innocent man based on junk forensic science. Rick Perry still insists on the dead man's guilt and shuffled the Forensic Science Commission just as it was about to release a report on the case.

3. Rick Perry is not a very truthful person. PolitiFact Texas tracks statements by and about public figures. Rick Perry has had eight statements rated true or mostly true and twelve statements rated false or pants on fire, a category for ridiculous lies. He accused Bill White of profiteering from Hurricane Rita but couldn't back up the statement. Perry accused Bill White of race-baiting when White said that he wanted to be a servant rather than a master. Of course, Bill White, the former Sunday School teacher, was merely using Christian imagery. Finally, he accused White of presiding over the construction of a large abortion clinic, when the truth was that White did nothing other than be mayor at the time that Planned Parenthood was building its clinic. I realize that politics is a contact sport. However, someone who claims to be a Christian could run a more positive campaign and try to get his facts right. To me, this goes back to point number one. Once you are addicted to government power, you will say or do anything to hang onto it.

I don't think I'll be running out to join the Democrat Party anytime soon. There are too many issues that we don't see eye to eye on. However, Rick Perry is one Republican that I will not be voting for again, whether it is in the 2010 election or the 2022 election when he is running for Governor for Life.

Enjoying Warehouse 13

I know that it makes me a hopeless nerd, but one of the highlights of my week is watching Warehouse 13 on Tuesday nights and then re-watching the episodes over the course of the week to see what I missed the first go-round.

Warehouse 13 is a show that airs on the SyFy channel during the summer. It is about government agents whose job is to track down artifacts with unusual powers and bring them back to the warehouse for safekeeping. While the artifacts can be used for good or evil, they all have unintended side effects. For example, in one episode, a mild-mannered coffee shop clerk picks up a pair of trunks at a yard sale which turn him into a superhero. The problem is that they work by altering the density of his body and will eventually cause him to become so dense that he collapses in upon himself and becomes a black hole. Oops.

I enjoy the show because of the cast and the stories.

The ensemble cast has six main characters. Myka Bering (Joanne Kelly) and Pete Lattimer (Eddie McClintock) are Secret Service agents recruited to work for the warehouse. Pete is a carefree go with your gut kind of guy who enjoys comic books and B-movies. Myka is more of an uptight read the manual type whose tastes run to Shakespeare. The chemistry between the two of them is great. They bicker constantly but have a fierce loyalty to each other as partners. Their contrasting attributes help them to solve problems. In Season Two, Pete's knowledge of B-movies helps him figure out that their town is being overrun by scenes from a Raymond St. James movie marathon, while Myka's photographic memory of a manual she read allows them to fix a camera which allows them to change the programming and avert destruction.

Artie Nielsen (Saul Rubinek) is the keeper of the warehouse. He sends Pete and Myka on their missions and tries to keep them from destroying the warehouse. He is a fussy type who is constantly telling his young charges "don't touch that" but gets in trouble with his superiors for bending the rules. Artie's character is haunted by a former partner turned rogue agent.

Claudia Donovan (Allison Scagliotti)is a teenage computer geek who hacked into the warehouse computer system in order to kidnap Artie and force him to rescue her brother who was trapped in another dimension by an artifact. Because she knows too much, she is willingly banished to the warehouse as a junior agent. She says dude a lot and the streak in her hair changes color every episode. She is a foil to Artie just as Pete is to Myka. She is constantly trying to improve the warehouse's gadgets without permission.

Mrs. Frederic (CCH Pounder) is the link between the warehouse and the shadowy regents who oversee it. Played with stone-faced gravitas (think of a female James Earl Jones), she is the responsible adult who chastises the warehouse agents, particularly Artie, and protects them as well.

Leena (Genelle Williams) is the new age-y proprietor of the bed and breakfast where the agents live. She also helps out at the warehouse.

The cast is an interesting mix of young (Pete, Myka and Leena), younger (Claudia) and older (Artie and Mrs. Frederic) characters. It is interesting that four out of six of the main characters are female and two are black. However, the show does not pander to political correctness. While a black authority figure could be seen as a nod to Barack Obama, there is no mistaking the tightlipped Mrs. Frederic for the wordy president.

The stories are a mixture of whimsy and seriousness. The most recent show was a cross between Miss Congeniality and the Portrait of Dorian Gray. Myka must go undercover in a fashion show to find out why teenage supermodels are dying of old age. Despite her trim, athletic figure, Myka is ridiculed as "the fat girl" and is offered diet pills to "lose that last five pounds." The pants-wearing jockette must parade down the catwalk in six inch stiletto heals and not much of a dress. These parts are humorous. However, the story becomes deadly grim when Myka collapses in Pete's arms and rapidly ages 60 years. Fortunately, the artifact (a sinister camera) is found and Myka is saved. Other episodes are more tongue in cheek. When the agents are called to Detroit to investigate a vigilante, Pete instantly recognizes the do-gooder as The Iron Shadow, a cartoon character. Myka must don a form-fitting suit which looks suspiciously like leather to battle the superhero. (Pete wanted to wear the mysterious material until he learned that it induced sterility in men). Myka defeats the superhero by pulling down his superpowerful trunks.

While most of the episodes are self-contained, there is usually an over-arching story line. During season one, it was James McPherson, Artie's former partner turned rogue agent who wants to sell warehouse artifacts for profit. He nearly destroys the warehouse and Artie in the cliff-hanger ending to season one. In season two, the new super-villain is Helena G. Welles (who knew that H.G. Welles was an attractive woman who was bronzed and stored in the warehouse). In the first episode of season two, she offs her one-time partner McPherson and escapes with something taken from a super-secret section of the warehouse.

I have to admit that I love this stuff. It probably doesn't count as serious science fiction. However, it is fun to watch.

Same Song, Second and Third Verses

Earlier today, I wrote about a Christian lawyer who wanted to prevent Muslims from exercising their freedom of religion on property they own in Manhattan. However, the attraction of trying to stifle people we disagree with is hardly limited to Christians or right wingers. If there is an idea or a person who we can dislike, there will be someone trying to silence them. Verses two and three of this song concern a Catholic teacher fired for teaching Catholic doctrine in a class on Catholic doctrine and an outrageous preacher hit with a monumental judgment for offensive protests at military funerals.

Dr. Ken and the Catholic Class

Dr. Kenneth Howell was an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. One of the classes that he taught was Introduction to Catholicism. In that class, he discussed the Catholic Church's teachings on moral issues, specifically on homosexuality. In his words:

Every semester in that “Introduction” class, I gave two lectures dealing with Catholic Moral positions. One was an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church. The second was designed as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed issue in our society. Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts. I would happy to explain more fully the Catholic Church’s position on this matter but, for the sake of brevity, I can summarize it as follows. A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong. This is what I taught in my class.

To try to help his students understand the difference between utilitarianism and natural law, he sent them an email. This caused problems. Again in his own words:

To help students understand better how this issue might be decided within competing moral systems, I sent them an email contrasting utilitarianism (in the populist sense) and natural moral law. If we take utilitarianism to be a kind of cost-benefit analysis, I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would. This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.

After the email was forwarded to the University's Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Concerns, his Department head told him that he would no longer be allowed to teach at the University. In response to the backlash, the President of the University has stated that the matter is under review. In his words:

I think it important to reserve judgment until all facts are in and the review is complete and I hope you agree. I also believe it is important to correct misinformation being reported by many media outlets and Internet web sites. Prof. Howell has not been dismissed from the University, as misreported on the Internet and by several media outlets. He continues to hold his appointment as an adjunct professor. No decision has been made regarding the appointment of an instructor for the course Prof. Howell previously taught in the Fall semester; and no decision will be made until the review is complete.

Thus, he was told that he could not teach any more, but has not been dismissed and no decision has been made about who will teach his class in the fall. It may be that the University will back down and give him his position back or perhaps he will just remain in a state of limbo where the review remains under review indefinitely. However, it seems pretty clear that the controversy arose because someone didn't like the fact that he discussed Catholic moral teachings in an Introduction to Catholicism class.

You can read more about it on the Save Dr. Ken Facebook page.

The Protesting Preacher and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

I have to admit that I am much less sympathetic about this next case. Fred Phelps is the Pastor of Wesboro Baptist Church, a church consisting mostly of his family members. Rev. Phelps believes that God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality. To express that view, his church protests at military funerals. In the case of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, the Phelpsians:

carried signs which expressed general messages such as "God Hates the USA," "America is doomed," "Pope in hell," and "Fag troops." The signs also carried more specific messages, to wit: "You’re going to hell," "God hates you," "Semper fi fags," and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Snyder v. Phelps, No. 08-1026, (4th Cir. 9/24/09), slip op., p. 5. The protest was held in compliance with local ordinances and was not seen by the parents until they saw news coverage of it.

They then ran an "epic" on their website www.godhatesfags.com in which they claimed that Lance Cpl. Snyder's parents "'taught Matthew to defy his creator,''raised him for the devil,' and 'taught him that God was a liar.'" The Phelpsians had never met Lance Cpl. Snyder or his parents.

The Snyders sued. The jury returned a damage award of $10.1 million (which the judge reduced to $5 million). In its charge to the jury, the court told the jurors that:

Speech that is vulgar, offensive, and shocking . . . is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection under all circumstances.

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the First Amendment does not allow persons to be sued for speech, even if it is "vulgar, offensive and shocking."

The case is now pending before the Supreme Court.

It is hard not to sympathize with parents who fought back after some strange people claimed that we should "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and claimed that they raised their son to defy God. The problem here is that once you allow people to sue for speech that is "vulgar, offensive and shocking," where do you stop? A law professor whose blog I follow has filed a friend of the court brief in which he suggests that allowing suits based on speech which is "vulgar, offensive and shocking" would encourage college speech codes. You can read the brief here. This leads right back to Dr. Ken's non-firing. If the First Amendment allows free speech unless the speech is vulgar, offensive or shocking, then any controversial speech can be censored and punished, since if it's controversial, someone will find it vulgar, offensive or shocking. At that point, free speech is gone.

What does it all mean? If you believe in the First Amendment, you have to go for it all the way. That means allowing Muslims to build mosques in Manhattan and allowing crazy preachers to picket funerals. We may not like it, but if we protect freedom at the margins, we protect it at the core as well.

More Crazy Talk On The Radio,

The other day I was surfing across the radio dial while driving back from Waco when I came across a ranting preacher talking about the Ground Zero mosque. Then I realized it was Jay Sekulow, someone I used to respect. A little explanation. Jay Sekulow is a constitutional lawyer who specializes in representing Christians in freedom of religion cases. His American Center for Law and Justice is a Christian version of the ACLU.

However, on the day that I tuned in, Jay was not advocating freedom of religion and he was not demonstrating the logic that I would expect from a constitutional scholar. Instead, he was ranting about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. He claimed that the muslims wanted to build a mosque overlooking Ground Zero to celebrate their victory over America, just as the Dome of the Rock was built over the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. He compared it to removing the USS Arizona from Pearl Harbor and building a monument to the Japanese Kamikazis who died in the attack.

I had already begun to sour on Sekulow and the ACLJ based on their persistent phone calls asking for money. However, this rant caused me to lose all respect. Here's why:

1. He got his facts wrong. By stating that the mosque was being built on Ground Zero and that it would overlook Ground Zero, he made it seem that the government was incorporating a mosque into its plans for developing the site. You could understand why people would find that insensitive. However, the fact is that a muslim group bought a building two blocks away from Ground Zero. As another blogger pointed out, the mosque would not overlook Ground Zero because there is another building in the way. The mosque would actually overlook an Amish Market. You can read about it here.

2. He was using demagoguery rather than logic. In his call to action, he equated the group proposing to build the mosque with the 9/11 terrorists. However, you can't say that all muslims are terrorists. Most muslims in the United States reject extremism and embrace American values. Both the victims and the first responders at Ground Zero included muslims.

3. Finally, and most importantly, he rejected fundamental America values. What two values do American conservatives hold most valuable? Most would say freedom of religion and freedom of property. However, Mr. Sekulow, who made a career out of defending Christians' right of freedom of religion would deny that same freedom to another religion. That is hypocrisy and it is un-American. Our freedoms mean nothing unless we grant them to people we don't like.

4. I know that some people will say that Muslims can build a mosque in Manhattan when Christians can build a church in Saudi Arabia. It's true that muslim countries are radically intolerant of other faiths. However, that's what makes America a better country. Our founders believed that we had certain inalienable rights. Some of those rights are included in the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of petitiion, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom from a state-sponsored church. We allow those freedoms because we believe that they are inherent rights. We also allow them because not afraid of what people will do with them. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez recently demanded to know why the owner of the largest opposition media outlet was not in jail so he had to flee the country. In Tehran, thousands were arrested for protesting a stolen election. Weak countries suppress freedom, while strong ones allow it.

5. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

"46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"

Matthew 5:46-47.

I think the same principle applies here. If we grant rights only to those who agree with us, how are we better than any tinpot dictatorship? I would like to see the US of A held to a higher standard than Cuba or Iran. It's a shame that Jay Sekulow doesn't.

New Online Scam

Lately I have been getting a lot of offers to receive a free gift card if I would just fill out a survey. I counted fourteen of these emails in the past two days. However, if you look carefully they all say "Participation Required." After you take the survey, you find out that you have to purchase a certain number of gold and silver offers before you become eligible to receive the gift card. The email addresses are also suspect. Why would an offer for a Kohl's giftcard come from the email address info@captainbivalve.com? If you receive an offer for a free gift card that says "Participation Required" just hit delete.

Finally Getting Lost

Guys usually get lost because they won't ask for directions. However, now I am finding out that I really get Lost because I did listen to someone's directions. I don't watch much network television. As a result, I totally missed the TV series Lost, which recently wrapped up. A friend suggested that I watch it from the beginning and I have to admit that I am blown away.

The first shot of the pilot episode really sets the scene. There is an eye without any context, then there is an eye in a face lying in the jungle without any explanation. A man in a suit wakes up and walks out of the jungle to the scene of a plane crash. Linear story telling would have started with the crash or even the back stories of the characters. However, Lost starts with an eye attached to a person in the jungle, leaving the viewer wondering what could possibly be going on.

Having watched the entire first season, I find myself thoroughly addicted. The things that I like are the characters, the combination of survival and alternate reality and the use of flashbacks to build the story.

The characters are just incredible. So far, my favorites are John Locke and Hurley. I like them because they are filled with contradictions. Locke is introduced as the take charge hunter figure. He can hunt boar and track with the best of them. However, we learn that he arrived on the island in a wheelchair and remarkably had his legs restored because of the crash. He is always the voice of common sense and reason, but becomes obsessed with the belief that the island is testing him. Hurley is an obese, happy go lucky dude who is always ready to help out. However, his backstory is that after he won the lottery, he became a jinx bringing bad luck to all around him. His cheerful good nature is balanced by a frightening fatalism.

The story maintains a good balance between Robinson Carusoe and the Twilight Zone. Stranded on a tropical island, the characters must organize their survival and avoid a Lord of the Flies scenario. However, weird things keep happening. A polar bear appears on a tropical island. The pilot of the plane is snatched by a mysterious something. There are "others" on the island. The story dishes out its weirdness in a measured way. You can tell that it's going to get weirder as it goes. However, the weirdness unfolds in an almost rational way.

In the first season at least, the story alternates between present and past. Each episode reveals a little bit more about the unusual, or perhaps damned, survivors of the plane crash. Everyone has a story. There is the pregnant girl who scared the living daylights out of a psychic. There is the sweet, beautiful girl who was brought onto the flight in handcuffs by a U.S. Marshall. There is the son sent to retrieve the body of his father. There is the Iraqi who betrayed a friend to try to re-establish contact with a woman. It goes on and on. Every character who gets the benefit of a flashback has a story. It is an unusual group that winds up on the island.

I have finished season one. I look forward to continuing to watch the series unfold over the summer.