Bugs Bunny "What A Maroon!" Award VI

This time around the high coveted and hotly contested "What A Maroon!" award goes, not to pastor Terry Jones, who has proved himself too brilliant a captor of the media and world "leaders" beyond count to even enter the running, but to the President of the United States, Barack Obama. The Clueless Smiley Nice Young Man From Chicago has outdone his previous performances as Global Apologist In Chief with his cringing adoption of what might be kindly called, "a passive prevent-defense."

Handed a perfect opportunity to go on the offensive against the advocates of political Islam and their snivelling co-religionists currently holding purportedly responsible positions in governments from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan, Pakistan to Indonesia, Mr Obama instead went on the pure defensive. Instead of holding the banner of American "exceptionalism" high for the world to see, rather than proclaim the existence of the First Amendment for all ears to hear, Mr Obama retreated behind the cordon of fear.

He (correctly) stated that torching a pile of Korans would put American lives at risk. He (incorrectly) restricted the heightened risk to American military personnel in Afghanistan. It was alright when General Petraeus singled out the enhanced risks attending American troops in Afghanistan, for the POTUS to do the same was disingenuous at best, a means of framing the narrative in a way which attempted to invoke patriotism and evade the reality that most risks would pass on to the unarmed, the unprepared, the unsuspecting, the tourists, the business wallahs, the humanitarian workers.

By focusing on the presumed threat to troops, Mr Obama tried to place himself above the fray, above the most critical issue involved in the Great Jones Fire Threat. The real issue sits at the heart of the vast difference which separates the United States from the bastions of Islam, from the repressive Islamic states as well as the proponents of violent political Islam.

The issue is simply freedom versus submission. Had the current American president the backbone of a banana split, he would have pointed out that in the US unlike the feudal states of Islam (including those with a transparently thin veneer of democracy) a citizen is free to say what he thinks free of any governmental let or hindrance. In the US the basic law of the land protects even the most obnoxious among us to speak--either literally or symbolically--and there is absolutely nothing the federal or state governments can do about it.

The meaning of Islam is "submission." In states having a Muslim majority, the idea of submission goes far beyond that of the believer submitting to the perceived will of Allah. It embraces the notion that the government has the right to control the speech (and presumably the thoughts) of all those living under its sway. The proof of this contention is found in the numerous quotes from Muslim clerics to the effect that pastor Jones could not be contemplating this incendiary exercise absent the approval of Mr Obama's administration and the demand that pastor Jones be arrested and his church be permanently shut down.

Mr Obama ought to have had the moral and intellectual courage to state clearly that the First Amendment was one of the features which marked the exceptional nature of the US as well as the even more exceptional freedom of its citizens. He ought to have challenged the Muslim majority countries as well as the proponents of violent political Islam to demonstrate even one percent of the faith in citizens and their institutions which our First Amendment requires.

At the same time Mr Obama could have made a strong reference to the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. In this affair as in the pastor Jones contretemps, the basic law of the US prohibits any governmental action beyond the requirements of local land use authorities to block the construction of a building, even one whose location is disapproved of by some three quarters of We the People. American freedoms, the freedoms still available under the Constitution, are an ax which cuts in all directions with remarkable equality. Mr Jones has his rights and the folks behind the mosque and community center have theirs. Neither must nor can be forced to submit to governmental dictate.

In his moronic use of the defense, Mr Obama threw away a fine chance to show the world--including Muslims--just what the US stood for. He tossed aside a way by which people around the globe, again including Muslims, could decide which side they supported or at least the side toward which they inclined.

Instead, by his example Mr Obama gave Americans and the world generally tacit permission to surrender to fear. To submit to the coercive effect of fearing what those Mad Muslims might do if they felt insulted, or if they did not get the fullest of their demands. His invocation of the defense and eschewing of the offense have served to make more potent the panic producing potential of even implicit Muslim threats.

The bully has won. Mr Obama may not have appeased as he has so many times before but he did the equivalent by going on the defense. A defense which admitted fear is not even one full step removed from fear induced appeasement. In either case the bully is emboldened. In either case the bully will be back ready to extort more, able to gin up fear--and capitalize on the fear he engenders.

There is a grain of truth in the hoary military maxim: "The best defense is a good offense." In this case Mr Obama chose to ignore the fine offensive platform provided by the First Amendment. He hid our freedoms behind the troops who have pledged their lives to protect those freedoms. By doing so he not only weakened us and our freedoms, he made mockery of the oath sworn by all military personnel, and, come to think of it, himself.

The Geek Goes Off Topic--Sort Of

Because religion, or more accurately, sensitivities and sensibilities purportedly predicated upon a specific religious conviction, have become a predominant feature of both domestic and international politics, a decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has at least tangential relevance to the Geek's appraisals of foreign affairs and national security. The decision should be taken as part of the context surrounding the controversy over the "Ground Zero" mosque and community center.

In the instant case the Tenth Circuit ruled that fourteen crosses erected and maintained by a private group, the Utah Highway Patrol Association (UHPA), on state land constituting the verge of highways violate the Establishment Clause. While not marking graves as is the case with crosses or Stars of David on the final resting place of American service members, the intent of the UHPA was identical--the commemoration and honoring of individuals who were killed in the line of duty.

Five years ago a Texas based group, American Atheists, won their case in the district court. The crosses were found to be an explicit statement of support for Christianity on the part of the State of Utah. The crosses remained in place pending appeal. Now the crosses must go unless an appeal is made to the SCOTUS and the order of removal stayed.

In its ruling the Tenth Circuit held that there was a critical difference between crosses or other religious symbols on military graves in national cemeteries and those on the Utah highways. In the case of national cemeteries viewing crosses or other religious symbols is voluntary; you have got to go there to see them, while the highway bordering crosses are perforce inflicted upon all who pass. Thus, their existence was construed to place an official stamp of approval on both cross and the religion for which it is iconic.

This conclusion is a piece of blithering judicial idiocy. For generations, centuries, in American history and culture, the cross has been generally accepted as a sign of honored death--or even of death itself as witnessed by the use of the cross symbol to indicate date of death in both historical and genealogical writing. The use of the cross in this role for so long has served in a very real sense to denature it of purely religious significance.

The cross, in short, has profound cultural significance entirely apart of its more specialized application to a specific confession of faith. As such, no person, no matter how hostile to the idea of a deity, should take offense. No person, again without regard to the depth of that person's distaste for and disgust with any particular or all religions, can take genuine offense--unless, of course, that person is willing to admit of abysmal ignorance of American cultural symbols and their evolution.

In this decision the Tenth Circuit has continued the long and far from laudable judicial tradition of needlessly sticking a black robed finger in the eyes of Christians. Crosses to commemorate death, creches, or carols at Christmas or any number of other predominantly cultural--dare one write "secular"--symbols which served for decades as definers of the shared American experience have been heedlessly and baselessly heaved out of the public square. While it is completely justifiable and Constitutionally proper to preclude forcing the taxpayer to fund religious entities and activities, the same cannot be maintained regarding symbols which might have arisen from a specific religious context but have gained the amorphous status of cultural definer, part of the context which defines We the People as a specific nation, an identifiable "us."

The Tenth Circuit should have adopted a leave it alone stance in this case. Insofar as there can be any genuine controversy it exists in the political sphere--not the judicial one. The same is true of the "Ground Zero" mosque and community center.

The unwise, ill-advised, insensitive, rather arrogant action of the people behind the Cordoba House (to use the original and accurately supremest name) is not one which can be nor should be challenged in court. It is not even one which is amenable to settlement through electoral politics.

Rather the Cordoba House initiative demands address through politics of the largest sort--the politics, the power of public opinion. As the Geek has posted previously, any blocking of the "Ground Zero" mosque through judicial or formal political process would serve to benefit the aspirations of adherents of political Islam. That is an outcome which must be avoided.

However, the collective, negative view of the vast majority of Americans constitutes politics at the ultimate level. Public opinion can and should express outrage at the very idea of placing a swimming pool, auditorium, various other non-religious venues as well as a mosque in the metaphorical shadow of the Twin Towers. A very firm, collective, "NO," is not "Islamophobic," rather it is, like the crosses on Utah highways, a definer of that messy aggregation called "We the People."

The rejection of Cordoba House by Americans generally is not prejudice, nor is it an attempt to inhibit free exercise of anyone's faith. It is an effort, hopefully a successful one, to insist upon respect for American sensibilities, American grief, American loss, American humiliation and recovery. Symbols matter--so does their absence.