[lit-ideas] Re: Opposing the Cordoba Mosque, Intolerance or Prudence?

  • From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:44:29 -0500

Lawrence:

I oppose the Cordoba Mosque, but those who accuse me of intolerance have it
exactly backward. I oppose the Cordoba Mosque because Islamism is
intolerant, violently so, and they are running roughshod over Muslims who
don't agree with them. And they represent a danger to any Liberal Democratic
nation that tolerates them.

MOI:

On the old Johnny Carr show, Buddy Hacket who is Jewish, told a joke about
Jews.  Johnny asked Buddy why it was OK for Jewish people to use the world
"Jew", but Gentiles felt uncomfortable using it.  Buddy replied: "Because
Jews don't think it's a dirty word."  I had something like that in mind when
I decided to use the world "Islamist" in my last post.  Islam is not a dirty
word, someone who professes Islamism is an Islamist.  Of late the word has
come to be used in common parlance to mean a radical, militaristic and
politicized form of Islamism.  But I hate to see a good word dragged through
the mud of bigotry and prejudice.  So I chose to clean it up a bit.  What
Lawrence and many others call Islamism, I would call naked, virulent
fascism.  State supported intolerance.  I am largely ignorant of Islamic
beliefs.  I am sure that Lawrence will be offended -- though that is not my
intention -- when I say that I suspect he knows very little about Islam as
well.  How many Islamists (there I go again -- 'believers in Islam', I
should say) does Lawrence know personally and discuss these issues with?  I
could be wrong, but I suspect that I probably know about as many believers
in Islam as he does.  I tip my hat to Lawrence in his dogged reading of Qutb
and others, but those souls are Nazi, fascist fucks, they do not represent
the billion Muslims in the world -- they in fact seem more in tune with
Western Christianity, circa AD 900 -- 1800.

Lawrence:

Do you want me to feel good about the building of Mosques? Then let these
Mosque builders establish "statements of faith" like the Protestant Churches
have. Let these statements repudiate Islamism and its violent teachings. Let
it repudiate the killing of infidels. Let it permit the peaceful transition
of Muslims to other religions; just as those other religions permit the
transition of their members to Islam. Neither side may like it, but that's
okay as long as they don't do anything violent to prevent it.


MOI:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but are you saying that the Muslim religion
should be required to receive state sanction in the US before it can be
allowed to build Mosques?  Welcome to China and the Falun Gong.


Lawrence:

"So, no, Robert, I don't think it's a big deal whether I call the Cordoba
Mosque Islamist or Islamic or some other term less offensive to the
Islamists. A pox upon the Islamists and upon the "traditional" Muslims who
tolerate them."

MOI:

And a pox upon all who would disagree with you in standing up for the very
meaning of America -- the Constitutional rights.


Lawrence:

I am speaking in this note to Liberals and not Leftists. Leftists would like
to see the overthrow of Liberal Democracy and they aren't too squeamish
about whether the means turn out to be violent.


MOI:

I would describe myself as a Welfare State Limited-Libertarian.  Where does
that fit into your scheme of things political?


Lawrence:

I am speaking here about Liberals who believe in Liberal Democracy but may
also believe in the ACLU and don't want to do anything "unconstitutional."


MOI:

That would be me.


Lawrence:

I'm usually impatient with those people as well, because they are not very
quick about sensing danger to our nation. In an earlier era they didn't
believe there was a "Communist Menace." Along with Truman they thought the
concern about a "fifth-column" Communist activity in the U.S. was a "red
Herring." Now that the Cold War is over and the KGB has opened its archives
to scholars we know that there was indeed a secret Communist activity in the
U.S. They were busily at work passing military and scientific secrets back
to Moscow. There really was a Communist menace.


MOI:

There's a possibility that you might disagree with me here, but I think that
McCarthy and HUAC were a great deal more of a danger to the US  than the
Communist Party could have ever have hoped to be.  There are those who need
an ever present danger.  Something uncomplicated to stand up for. Joining
the battle against an implacable foe is just such a mission,  an ersatz one,
to be sure, but it gives meaning to an otherwise dull, stale, flat and
unprofitable life, as that old ham Hamlet deemed his existence -- until he
started hearing voices demanding vengeance.  And suddenly he knew why he had
be born.


Lawrence:

 Our Liberal ideology didn't save us. Blind luck did.


MOI:

Well, thank God you didn't say Reagan did.


Lawrence:

We were at the "brink" as John Foster Dulles said.


MOI:

Ah, good old Dulles -- the Domino Theory man.  10 years of war in Vietnam.
50,000 + Americans killed,   Lyndon Johnson knew it was a stupid, hopeless
war, but lacked the courage to be a true man and stand against the silly
gunslinger manliness of American culture at that time.  Richard Nixon, with
his "secret plan to end the war", oversaw the death of half those 50,000
Americans.  And don't forget the  1? 2? 3? million Vietnamese killed until
Gerald Ford -- probably the bravest president we've ever had -- declared the
war over and sent helicopters in to get us out.


Lawrence:

And the reason we were at the Brink and the reason we "played chicken with
nuclear war" was that Americans-turned-Soviet spies gave the Soviets our
military and scientific secrets. I don't believe we should poo-poo that
earlier danger. We should learn from it.

MOI:

Germany was working on the bomb before we were.  The science is not a
mystery, the engineering and technology and the resources seem to have been
and still are the major obstacles for most nations. I find it naive to
believe that most industrialized nations of the world will not acquire
nuclear weapons in the near future.  And as scary as that thought is,
perhaps it's best.  MAD has work for the larger nations of the world.  But
what of countries like Somalia?  They too will have nuclear weapons some
day. What of miniaturization and terrorism?  I have no answer.  Lawrence H.
seems to think that jack-booted Americans marching over the earth can stop
all this.  I have my doubts.  Why are some Muslims Islamist militants?  Why
are some Americans gung-ho militarists?  I don't know.  Injured
psychologies?  Ignorance? Feelings of hopelessness?  It's a large catalog.
So far civilization has always won these battles.  I don't believe that
becoming uncivilized in defense of Civilization will further our goals.
Some seem to disagree with me.


Mike Geary

Other related posts: