Which Do You Favor More—The Ground Zero Mosque or Obamacare?
That’s how we occupy our time during the August recess—pure political agitation! And oh are we agitated lately!
It’s not that the “Ground Zero Mosque” debate and the fallout from Obamacare’s passage don’t matter. They do. But what are you missing when you focus on these hot political topics? The answer is below.
Should an Islamic group build their community center, including a mosque, at the location of a former Burlington Coat Factory near where the twin towers fell on September 11, 2001? The debate has too many facets to list. Most everyone agrees that it is their legal right. It’s good to hear affirmation of First and Fifth Amendment rights to freedom of religion, assembly, speech and property widely affirmed.
But maybe it’s insensitive to have such an edifice within range of a site as important as Ground Zero. Or maybe political leaders are stirring up the controversy for political gain. Or maybe both!
Facts and rumors—and lots of assumptions—are flying fast and furious in this hot debate. Your humble blog author has studied counterterrorism pretty closely for a few years now, and he says that it is important to extend a hand of grace to the planners of this community center and mosque.
Yes, its leader has criticized U.S. foreign policy—it’s not beyond criticism, y’know—but he and his Sufi sect of Islam are peaceful opponents of terrorists and al Qaeda. This is an opportunity to show the world that we are still a strong and brave society that stands by our constitutional values, and that we do not lump the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world together with the small, dirty band of warped thugs who engage in terrorism.
Don’t like that conclusion? Put it in the comments, and we’ll talk it all the way through.
So let’s move to another hot one: Obamacare!
News last week was that it is not gaining in popularity as the president predicted it would.
The Politico report is very interesting, I think, because it reveals how Washington, D.C. interest groups and politicians work over public policy issues.
People study public opinion very closely, they test different ways of framing debates, and they test different ways of talking about public policy. Then they report to their allies in and out of elected office about how to spin the issues—”guide the discussion” if you like.
Read up on this, and you can listen carefully to see if your representatives in Congress, your newspaper, or your favorite radio commentator are working from the Obamacare script. Or if they’re working from another script!
You’re not going to find someone in professional politics who isn’t doing everything they can to win. You won’t find one “honest broker,” with all the rest dishonest. You just have to pick which spinmeister spins the tune you like.
Did we get you distracted with the “Ground Zero Mosque”? Obamacare? Because we’ve been playing a little game. It’s called “misdirection.”
As important as these discussions are, what you’re not paying attention to are the issues that might affect you far more.
Each year the federal government spends tens of thousands of dollars per family on its various operations. When Congress returns in September, it will have less than a month to decide how those tens of thousands of dollars are spent. The chart below lists the current bills—many haven’t even gotten moving yet.
You’re not reading about it in the paper. You’re not hearing about it on radio. You’re not seeing it on the Sunday morning political shows. This is enough money to buy you and your family a new car every year—and you haven’t been paying any attention to it. (Well, you have if you’ve been reading this blog…)
Congress must pass the spending bills below by October first, if it’s doing its job. The good citizen, unwilling to be distracted by all the “hot” debates, might consider contacting his or her member of Congress or senator and saying what kind of spending policies the government should have in the coming year.
Are you for or against these bills at their current levels? Make a note of what you tell your representative, then follow along to see how the fiscal year 2011 process unfolds.
It might do you a lot more good than getting all fired up about the “Ground Zero Mosque” or the political fallout from Obamacare…
|
Spending Bill
|
House Bill
|
Senate Bill
|
Final Votes
|
Public Law
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bill
|
Cost*
|
Vote (Y-N)
|
Bill
|
Cost*
|
Vote (Y-N)
|
House (Y-N)
|
Senate (Y-N)
|
||
| Budget Resolution |
|
$30,800
|
President does not sign
|
||||||
| Agriculture |
|
$1,210
|
|
||||||
| Commerce/Justice/Science | S. 3636 |
$670
|
|||||||
| Defense |
|
|
|||||||
| Energy & Water |
|
|
$440
|
||||||
| Financial Services |
|
$460
|
|||||||
| Homeland Security |
$460
|
||||||||
| Interior and Environment |
|
||||||||
| Labor/HHS/Education | |||||||||
| Legislative Branch |
|
|
|
||||||
| Military/Veterans |
$1,740
|
|
$1,450
|
||||||
| State/Foreign Operations | S. 3676 | $500 | |||||||
| Transportation/HUD | H.R. 5850 | $1,320 | S.3644 | $1,310 | |||||
* Cost per average-sized U.S. family; amounts are approximate; changes in interest rates alter net present value calculation
WashingtonWatch.com Digest – August 23, 2010 – The WashingtonWatch.com Blog
[...] Which Do You Favor More—The Ground Zero Mosque or Obamacare? [...]
Tom Mullen
The Ground Zero Mosque “controversy” can only be caused by an unbelievable amount of ignorance on the part of some American citizens combined with racism.
Imagine the the 9/11 tragedy was caused not by Muslim extremists, but rather by Christian Militia extremists. Would anybody think of criticizing the building of a church or cathedral 2 blocks from Ground Zero? No, there would be no issue raised. Why? Because we know instinctively that extremist fringe Christian militant groups are not connected in any way with the rest of Christianity.
However, because the vast majority of us do not know the Muslim faith, it is very easy for corrupt politicians and (sadly) the media to whip up fear and hatred for a Muslim place of worship at that same place.
It is a very sad commentary on the state of American tolerance and education that those who wish to deceive us find it so easy to do.
Mosques, Bad Nannies, Freedom – and Distractions « Under the Sun(s)
[...] And, by the way: do you often find yourself caught up in issues like this, or like gay marriage, or whether this or that politician had an affair, etc.? What about issues like budgeting, trade agreements, and the intricacies of peace in the Middle East? Those on the first list are so seductive, so easy to pass judgement on (regardless of which side you come down on); understanding those on the second list requires significant effort – education, consideration, discussion. Those on the first list are largely distractions, designed to hook our inner drama kings and queens emotionally. Unfortunately, they work. For another perspective on this, see Which Do You Favor More – The Ground Zero Mosque or Obamacare? [...]
RPUSA Chairman David Collison
As you say, as long as we allow establishment politics and media to distract us with “sexy” controversy, Congress will continue to quietly pass legislation that goes directly against the long-term general public interest and will continue to ignore long-standing problems that are difficult to resolve.
Marjorie Pugliese
It is true that ignorance is at the heart of the mosque issue. I am absolutely in favor of the cultural center being built. In New York, we stand for respect of all peoples; in this case, freedom of religion. Since ignorance presently is eating away at the very fabric of our heritage, we could,in the cause of enlightenment, speak of a compromise act; that of building an interfaith cultural center, part of which would be for the Moslem people. This would forge a path for all of us to become more educated about each other’s religion and hopefully result in union of all religions which claim oneness as their goal.
ChuckL
What a biased and sneaky way to hide the fact that both are designed only to destroy this country.
Islam is not a religion. It is a THEOCRACY designed to control the world, by overcoming and replacing all existing governments and eliminating all personal liberty.
Obamacare is NOT about healthcare. It is an underhanded way to control who is allowed to obtain healthcare. Sarah Palin had it right. There are “Death Squads” in Obamacare. They are called “Quality of Life Assurance Panels”. If these panels deem that your life would cost more than it is worth to the government, you die from lack of care.
I had thought that Washington Watch was above this kind of “below the belt” ?reporting?
You should have led into this article with a statement to the fact that this is how you are being misled by the “so-called Main Stream Media”.
Jim Harper
Of course it was not my intent to be biased and sneaky. My intent was to show how these issues distract from some that might be more important.
I did offer to debate the mosque question, so I will do that: Your assertion that Islam is a “theocracy” is incoherent. A “theocracy” is “a country in which government is controlled by a deity or by a priesthood.” Islam is not a country.
Now, you probably mean to say that Islam is an ideology that seeks theocratic rule over all the countries of the world. This is a coherent statement, if wildly wrong.
Like all major religions, Islam has many different strains, which vary in many different respects. *Some* strains of Islam seek unity between government and religion, in which religious doctrine would be identical to law (just as other religions do, including strains of Christianity in the United States).
Careless blanket statements like yours are what drive divisions among peoples of the world, creating danger and tension where there need not be.
If you’d like to refine what you say, do so. Otherwise, it suffices to say that your flat statement about Islam is flat wrong.
Judy Brandon
Neither one is a good idea. I vote NO to both.
Rudy Urban
We are so sensitive to others while critical of our own. In Viet Nam outside our base was a small village. A Buddhist looking temple was there. It had Buddhist Monks in dress. The enemy would use the temple as shelter. Any attack on it would bring worldwide disgrace to America their enemy. Our Navy Guard Post was moved a considerable distance from it as they took incoming rounds. Coupled with blinding lights at night and a more cautious approach brought safety. Of course this was a warlike situation where you couldn’t trust anything. But if someone hates you that can be grounds for a warlike situation. It’s important that our friends all understand this. I don’t think the Constitution addresses all situations in specific.
Aside from this thank you for the spending overview. Washington is a theme park and the theme is money..
Jim Harper
Great line, Rudy. “Washington is a theme park and the theme is money.” Thanks for all your thoughts.
Elaine Biggerstaff
Imagine if the Japanese had wanted to erect a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor less than a decade after their attack on us. Would there be any doubt the majority of Americans would object?
In a way, the September 11, 2001 destruction of the Twin Towers was a new Pearl Harbor. The reality of the destruction is still burning in our minds. The images are forever scorched into our souls.
Do we remember that 80,000,000 Muslims cheered with joy after the towers collapsed? That isn’t an insignificant number.
Americans sense the reach, ability, cruelty and hatred of this new enemy. Their instinctive awareness of danger is not bias or bigotry but rather an expression of love of country, faith, and self-preservation.
More than that Ground Zero has become a symbol helping Americans grasp better the essence of what happened on 9/11 and the new reality confronting the nation. A symbol that steels the nations resolve to defeat the Islamist threat to freedom worldwide. They see that the building of a mosque close to Ground Zero will be their symbol over ours, a symbol of their defeat over us.
Concerned Americans sense this clash of symbols and that is why they object to the building of this mosque.
Jim Harper
Thanks for these thoughts, Elaine. I recognize the care you’ve put into them, though I disagree in important respects.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack by the Japanese government, so the proper analogy would be to imagine if the Japanese government sought to place an embassy or consular office at Pearl Harbor. The terrain at Pearl Harbor and Manhattan are very different, of course. In terms of population density and activity, two blocks in Manhattan might be equivalent to two miles — or ten — at Pearl Harbor. As you probably know, the proposed cultural center and mosque would not be visible from Ground Zero, nor would it oversee Ground Zero.
I’d be interested to know where you get the number 80,000,000. I suspect it’s plucked from the air. Even if it’s true — which it’s not — that would be less than 20% of the Muslims in the world.
Are we the kind of nation that punishes everyone in a group because some members of that group did something wrong? Al Qaeda maintains at best a bastardized version of Islam, of course. It’s hardly fair to blame all Muslims for what those idiots have done. Al Qaeda killed Muslims on 9/11, and “Islamist” terrorists kill Muslims all the time.
Like Christianity, there are many different strains of Islam. The people proposing to build the center are Sufis, one of the most peace-loving Muslim sects. This makes them an enemy of Al Qaeda. These are the enemies of our enemy, if you need that reason to treat them as friends.
The symbolism is important. And I would rather see the project go forward as a symbol of our indomitable values: property rights; freedom of speech, assembly, and religion; individual rights; and pluralism. These are the values of winners!
Thanks again, Elaine.
Brent
9/11, the day when radical islamists killed 2,977 innocent people. If you multiply that number by twelve, accounting for two parents, two parents-in-law, one spouse, one child, and two siblings, two siblings-in-law, and two friends, you have a direct impact of the 9/11 attacks that totals up to 35,724 people. This does not count the impact on the 8 million people living in New York City who watched as their city was attacked. Now, two blocks from the site where the towers fell, you propose building a mosque. That is a slap to the face of all 8 million of those people, and a direct and stinging impact to those 35,724 people who lost someone they knew on the days of the attack, one that would happen every single day that the mosque is up and open. I’ve done my research on this mosque. It’s in an area dominated by businesses, not houses, so no muslims live there. The building was also damaged by debries from the attack. If it’s close enough to have been hit by flying rubble when the buildings fell, it’s too close.
Enough with my personal views, here’s some views from prominent muslims:
Zuhdi Jasser, who is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona, strongly opposed the mosque, saying:
For us, a mosque was always a place to pray…—not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn’t be about promoting Islam. It’s the place where war was declared on us as Americans.
Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: “I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world.”
Authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshipers. We Muslims know the … mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, … as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran…. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.
Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, while noting that blaming all Muslims for 9/11 was “ridiculous”, said:
I don’t think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open [...] and when wounds are raw, an episode like constructing a house of worship—even one protected by the Constitution, protected by law—becomes like salt in the wounds.
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat, saying:
Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery…the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!
Rima Fakih, the first Muslim-American crowned Miss USA as Miss USA 2010, opposed the mosque on the grounds of it being insensitive to families of 9/11 victims, telling Inside Edition:
I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on the constitutional rights of freedom of religion. [But] it shouldn’t be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion.
So, the fact that this proposed mosque is a bad idea that shouldn’t be allowed is universally known, except to the president, to several politicians, and to these people who are trying to build it. It’s only a matter of time before this whole thing comes to a head. These people are agitating people across the entire country. There’s already been one arson event at a construction site for a mosque in the country, and I have a very sinking feeling that if construction begins at this ground zero mosque, there will be more, including attacks at the site itself. If they have any sense in their skulls they’ll stop now, before it goes too far.
Jim Harper
Thank you, Brent.
I appreciate hearing the sentiments of these Muslims, but they are not persuasive to me, because this is a question of what American traditions and practice will be. We do not blame all members of a group for the act of a few remotely associated with that group. Our tolerant and pluralist tradition is much stronger than it is in many Muslim societies, where grudges may be held for generations and tiny slights can be perceived as “salt in the wounds.”
Your last paragraph seems to endorse what is called in constitutional law the “heckler’s veto.” That is the idea that someone saying things that bother listeners should stop so that the listeners don’t do violence. The heckler’s veto would give the angriest mob power over who can speak or, in this case, exercise their property rights and practice their religion.
Thank you, again, of course, for your thoughts, Brent. This is an issue about which people feel strongly, and there should be continuing careful discussion of it.