Thoughts on the NYC Mosque Debate

The following is a comment I left on Amy Peikoff's excellent counterpoint to Paul Hsieh's outstanding post.  If you haven't already, please read those posts.

I echo the other commenters in saying that this, along with Paul Hsieh’s (and others’) work greatly contributes to turning this into a valuable and reasonable discussion.

Now, I’d like focus on the boiled down argument for sake of simplicity. Let’s presume that you and I both agree about the nature of Islam — we believe the worst. (In fact, I do… no presumption here.) The issue, as you stated, in this lose-lose situation is “there’s a judgment call to be made here, but if the choice is secular statism vs. Sharia law, I will pick the former.”

You mentioned the active, immediate violence of Islam. Is it possible that you may be discounting the active violence (and passive violence) done by our government on us, every moment of every day? We’ve got the obvious but somewhat less frequent examples of abuse of power, arbitrary imprisonment and death by police, drug laws, etc… Then there are the less obvious, “death by a million pin pricks” attacks of regulations, taxes, etc., killing us slowly.

What I’m getting at is that we’re staring two evil enemies right in the face, and wondering which one we should give a little appeasement to in order to throttle the other one? Cost-benefit, risk-reward, which one can we least afford to appease in this lose-lose situation?

Again, fully recognizing the virulent evil of Sharia and Islam, I come down on the side of stopping the growth of our government’s rights-violating practices at all costs. If I were to guess which will be a greater threat to my kids’ lives in 20 years, I would unquestionably pick the arbitrary force of our own government.

Now, you brought up an important point, namely that “secular statism has less staying power than does theocratic statism” and I agree completely. That has me pondering my position, but I still think it is more important, right now, to check the power of our government.

My reason is summed up in the question: What gives Sharia the possibility of establishing a foothold in this, the most moral rights-respecting nation on Earth? It should be impotent, but our government and our culture is allowing it to be a real threat. The dominant philosophical trends in the culture are eating us alive from the inside out, weakening our defenses. We are thus vulnerable to both foreign (Islam) and domestic (our government) enemies.

But how do I then choose which threat must be stopped right now? I think that, because our government and the culture that drives it is, by the rule of law, the entity that is supposed to protect our rights, it is more important to strengthen it from within, to fortify those defenses, than it is to pick off one of the skirmishers from the foreign enemy camp.

We’ve got both strategic and tactical problems here. What is the best long-term strategy, and what are the short-term tactics to use in this particular situation? I think most Objectivists would agree with what I believe is the [long-term] strategy of the ARI, namely that we must change the culture of the West.

My view is that the long-term and short-term thus align. Checking the power of our government now would save lives now. Changing the culture long-term would empower it and thus the government to stand proudly and show Islam for the impotent force it should be in our country.

My concern is that if we don’t check the power of the state now, and start to roll it back, there won’t be anything left for Islam to conquer in the coming decades.

 After thinking about it, I added this a few minutes later:

One other thing I just thought of regarding theocratic statism as the greater long-term threat…

Considering this country’s history and some of the signs from the religious Right, I think it is more likely that we would swing toward Sarah Palin’s ideal of a Christian theocracy, both in response to the amoral secularism of the Left, and the threat of Islamic infiltration. The disdain of the “godless hippies” and the bloodlust for a religious war with Islam could be the perfect storm tipping us towards that hell. In that light, I think limiting our government is even more important, giving us more of a foundation to fight the Christians in our midst.

In essence, we are right to fear a theocracy, but I don't think Islam is the threat in the US that it is in Europe.  Instead, Obama's disastrous presidency and what I think will be the merging of the Tea Parties and the religious Right may radically strengthen the Christian theocrats, and a religious war with Islam would push us all over the edge.

The Census: But... it's for planning!

Let me tell you a bit about my recent experience with the Census Bureau.  But first, some backstory:

The Census is a once-every-decade thing that was intended, when government was relatively just, to tell the House of Representatives how many such reps should come from each state, based on population.  Thus, all that was needed was the straight number of people.

Then all hell broke loose, freedom and rights were eroded, the government started telling us what we could eat, how much we could pay, what we must wear, etc., all for our own good of course, and the census became an entirely different animal.

Enter the 2010 Census.  The Ed Begley Jr. advert during the Super Bowl Census.  The Obama, government is super cool census.

I was already on high alert, just waiting for the onerous, evil American Community Survey, when this 2010 Census came up.  I received in the mail a "hey, we're wasting your money to send you an advanced notice of the survey" notice in early spring, and soon after got the actual census form.  It contained all sorts of illegitimate questions like whether I own my house outright, or have a mortgage.  What the sex and ethnic background of all inhabitants is.  All sorts of invasive questions that 1) they have no Constitutional right to ask and 2) the evil intrusive government already has answers to (I'm looking at you, IRS).

I answered what I thought was proper: 4.  There are 4 humans in this house.

A month ago we found a friendly blue form from the Census Bureau stuffed in our doorjamb.  It said, in effect, "Hi!  I'm a useless temp worker and I stopped by and would *really* love to finish up your friendly questionnaire.  You can call me or I'll stop by in a few days!  Toodles!"

I called the number hoping to tell good old whatshername to back the fuck off, but it was a voicemail and I figured nothing would come of it.  We got a few more notes on our door, and then finally a week ago I happened to be home when she came by.

I opened the door, stepped out onto the porch and closed the door behind me.  This is the universal "you're not at all welcome near my home" notice.  I immediately said, "I already sent mine in as soon as I got it" and this threw her way off track.  She became very flustered and asked if I could just give her my name so she could take it back and check her records.  I said "no."  That went around for awhile and she gave up.

Then this week we got a notice yesterday from someone new, and then today.  Then, as I was fixing a nice martini this evening, there was a knock at the door.

I looked through the glass and upon seeing her fat, hippy-in-college-a-looong-time-ago face, I knew she was a new Census bitch, and pulled the same "you're not at all welcome" door closing process.  She looked a bit worried.

"Hi," she said.  "I'm from the Census Bureau," holding up a little white plastic badge she had around her neck "and I'm hoping we could fill out your forms."

"I already sent mine in, as soon as I got it in the spring," I said.

"Oh!  Well, there were a lot of problems with forms not getting processed, and we're nearing our deadline.  So could you answer some questions to finish this up?  First, I need the names and birth dates of everyone in the house."

"No.  You couldn't possibly need that information."

She looked a bit flustered.

"I sent in the only Constitutionally required answer in the Spring, and I'll tell you now.  4.  There are 4 humans living here."

She got an "oh no" look on her face.

I said, "The Census was created to determine representation in the House, and that's its only legitimate function.  I provided the necessary information."

"Oh, but there's so much more we need!  Can't you at least tell us the sexes and ages of all the people in the house?"

"No."

"But... but... it's for planning!"

"I don't recognize that as a legitimate concern."

"But, it's for planning," she said again.  "For schools and roads and things.  We need to plan."

"No."

She started to ask again, and tiring of this line, I said, "OK, fine.  There are two adults and two minors in the house."  This was information she could have clearly deduced from the fact that my kids kept opening the door to see who the hell was on the porch making daddy so mad.  She wrote a few notes on her form.

"Well, but, um.." she stammered.  "I don't suppose I could get answers to some..."

"No way," I interrupted.  "If you're going to ask whether I have a mortgage or what ethnicities everyone is, you have zero chance of me answering that.  You could just query the IRS for other data."

CensusBitch looked defeated.  She started to put her clipboard away, and I decided to go on the offensive.

"So, are you a full time Census employee, or a temp?" I asked.

"Oh, a temp."

"Oh, good," I said.  "You're doing your part to artificially lower the unemployment rates."

Seeing she was done, I nodded curtly and turned to go inside as she shook her head and walked down the stairs.  I closed the door forcefully and locked it.  That click is the nail in the coffin to someone outside who knows they are unwelcome.

Then I proceeded to explain to my kids what had just happened, and why I did what I did.  Someday, I hope they'll live in a world where such invasive indignities don't even exist.

The Typical American

It seems that foreign observers often have keener insights about the fundamental American nature and sense-of-life than do Americans themselves.  The following was written in 1929 by British historian B. H. Liddell Hart, in the preface to his biography, "Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American."  In the years after the Great War, Hart was attempting to learn historical lessons to avoid the horrific and useless mass casualties of deadlocked trench warfare, and in the process, seemingly developed a healthy admiration for the man and his country:

This study of Sherman is an attempt to portray the working of a man's mind, not merely of a man's limbs and muscles encased in uniform clothing.  The man is William Tecumseh Sherman who, by the general recognition of all who met him, was the most original genius of the American Civil War.  And who, in the same breath, is often described as "the typical American."  To reconcile the apparent contradiction, of the exceptional and the general, is a problem which in itself invites study and excites the creative imagination.  It is curious that the attempt at a solution has been neglected for so long.  For if this man was both so original in mind and so characteristically American, that combination—which many in Europe would say was paradoxical, if not improbable—may help to illumine our understanding not only of the last seventy years but of the tendencies still in the womb of fate.

. . .this study of Sherman may serve to give the European reader a clue to the better understanding of the American character as it has evolved from its "prototype," and to give the American reader an opportunity of testing, by the acid of Sherman, the purity of the present product and how far the reality corresponds with the ideal set up by that most realistic of idealists.

If that doesn't get you fired up to continue reading the book, I don't know what would.

Yet, at the same time, I can't help but think about what Liddell Hart—transported 80 years into the future—might have to say about how the "purity of the present product" in America stands up to the acid test.

Objectivist Roundup #152

Welcome to the June 10, 2010 edition of the Objectivist Roundup, your weekly dose of intellectual fuel and ammunition.

This roundup features posts by blog authors who are students and advocates of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. She called it a "philosophy for living on earth" and further described it:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

"About the Author," Atlas Shrugged, Appendix.

Despite the wide range of topics, note that the posts all share a common philosophical grounding in Objectivism, and consistently promote individual rights and the socio-economic system of laissez-faire capitalism to protect those rights. Such is the value of this roundup—weekly commentary on crucial issues from a rational, individual rights perspective.

And with that, I am pleased to present Objectivist Roundup #152!

---

1. C.W. presents Treasury Grab of Retirement Assets, Personal Consequences posted at Krazy Economy, saying, "More on the potential theft of your retirement accounts. The stock market will suffer severely. It is important to keep an eye on this issue."
2. Rachel Miner presents Mommy School posted at The Playful Spirit, saying, "This is a fun sharing of what I've done in the past for summer learning as I prepare for a very different summer to come."
3. Diana Hsieh presents Explore Atlas Shrugged, Sessions 17 & 18 posted at Explore Atlas Shrugged, saying, "My latest podcast is an extra long double session on the chapter that contains Galt's Speech. I learned a ton from doing this podcast, and I hope my listeners learn tons from it too!"
4. Paul Hsieh presents Today's Darwin Award Nominee posted at GeekPress, saying, "Don't try this at home! (From one of my ER patients.)"
5. Edward Cline presents The Stalking Horses of “Delegitimization” posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "The organizers of the “Freedom Flotilla” thought they could shame Israel into lifting its blockade of Gaza by making it concede that the “humanitarian” supplies it carried in its various holds were indeed merely “humanitarian.” They are oblivious or indifferent, but mostly hostile, to the necessity of Israel needing to inspect those cargos for arms and military materiel being smuggled to the terrorist organization Hamas. Hamas does not so much govern Gaza’s 1.5 million people (aka “Palestinians”) as rules them with fear and an iron fist. It is repeated the world over that Israel “occupies” Gaza and is cruel and even “genocidal,” when in fact Hamas occupies Gaza and is cruel and has genocide in mind in its campaign to destroy Israel."
6. Gideon Reich presents Activism: Israel Solidarity Rally in Los Angeles posted at Armchair Intellectual, saying, "Report from my participation in the Israel Solidarity Rally in front of the Los Angeles Israeli Consulate on June 6, 2010."
7. Ari Armstrong presents Progress Against Racism posted at Free Colorado, saying, "Recent trends in interracial marriages mesh with a long history of overcoming racism."
8. Kelly Elmore presents The Best Memory of my Life posted at Reepicheep's Coracle, saying, "This post tells the story of my best moment, my best memory, a real event from my past that I would use as my answer if anyone asked me, "Who are you really?"."
9. Jason Stotts presents Environmentalism is Responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill posted at Erosophia, saying, "Who's responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill? Environmentalism."
10. Rational Jenn presents Parents and Kids and Money posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "How do you discuss the family finances with your kids? I think open and age-appropriate communication models your financial decision-making process, and can be beneficial to children. Check the comments, too--there's some additional discussion about saving for retirement versus college."
11. Jenn Casey and Kelly Elmore present Podcast #6: The Trader Principle posted at Cultivating the Virtues, saying, "In our sixth parenting podcast, we discuss helping children manage frustrations, Ayn Rand's idea of The Trader Principle, and tooth brushing tactics!"
12. Mike Zemack presents The Coming Collision Between the Doctors and the State posted at Principled Perspectives, saying, "As ObamaCare nears, the statists have tipped their hand as to one of the means they will use for forcing recalcitrant doctors into obedient compliance with their dictates. But a rebellious medical profession has a secret weapon of their own if they choose to use it – what the statists apparently believe is their trump card, the government’s own licensure powers."
13. Gene Palmisano presents Different Shade of Green « The Metaphysical Lunch posted at The Metaphysical Lunch.
14. Jane Eisenhart presents The Moisture-Ridden House of Murdoch posted at Hometown Grotesque, saying, "This blog focuses on the transformative power of certain well-written books, in particular The Sea, the Sea by Iris Murdoch. I examine aspects of Ego as they are presented in The Sea, the Sea and also discuss some of the effects of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged on me personally."
15. Shea presents Quick Thoughts on Terms and Conditions posted at Shea's Blog, saying, "A short post about those annoying "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions" checkboxes and the moral requirement to actually read and agree."
    
16. I present Turkey's Rapid Descent into Hell posted at Titanic Deck Chairs, saying, "How the actions of Turkey's government and their supposed opposition have them spiraling toward Islamic tyrrany."

---

That concludes Objectivist Roundup #152. Next week's host will be Lynne at 3 Ring Binder. Submit your blog article to the Objectivist Roundup using our carnival submission form.

Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Turkey's Rapid Descent into Hell

When the Turks denied the use of their land when Bush invaded Iraq, many wondered why a supposed ally and the most secular nation in the Middle East would act in such a way. In hindsight, it's obvious that it was one of the first blatant indications of the Islamicization of the country.

I have written before of the tragic conflict between the historically secular factions, including the constitutional authorities, and the growing movement to impose sharia embodied by Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey -- the only Middle Eastern country that has been trying to modernize and Westernize -- is in a battle for its life, trying to derail the movement away from secularism toward Islamism and Sharia law. . .[I]n Turkey's case, those who want Turkey to remain a secular state and stay true to the complete separation of church and state, are trying to fight off rampaging Islamism from the AKP (Justice and Development Party). This is a good thing, in the context of Turkey's history and the battle it is waging to keep Sharia law from dragging the country into hell.

I wrote the above in response to a controversy in the spring of 2008 that saw the secular party appeal to the Constitutional Court to disband the Islamist AKP party because it (from the CS Monitor):

". . .uses democracy to reach its goal, which is installing sharia [Islamic law] in Turkey," the indictment says. "There is an attempt to expunge the secular principles of the Constitution."

I saw this all as a tragedy because one side was clinging to a secularism that it didn't fully understand in the face of an existential threat--Sharia--that it fully understood and feared, and I didn't hold out much hope it would succeed.

Well, according to an excellent and very disturbing op-ed in the WSJ today, Robert Pollack not only confirms my fears, but shows that it's significantly worse than I had thought. Using the recent Gaza Flotilla that originated in Turkey as his starting point, he discusses the Turkish media's propagandistic response to the Iraq war, and highlights not only the mindset and actions of Erdogan and the Islamists, but also the sorry state of the secular opposition:

The secular Hurriyet newspaper, meanwhile, accused Israeli soldiers of assassinating Turkish security personnel in Mosul and said the U.S. was starting an occupation of (Muslim) Indonesia under the guise of humanitarian assistance. Then U.S. ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman actually felt the need to organize a conference call to explain to the Turkish media that secret U.S. nuclear testing did not cause the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. One of the craziest theories circulating in Ankara was that the U.S. was colonizing the Middle East because its scientists were aware of an impending asteroid strike on North America.

The Mosul and organ harvesting stories were soon brought together in a hit Turkish movie called "Valley of the Wolves," which I saw in 2006 at a mall in Ankara. My poor Turkish was little barrier to understanding. The body parts of dead Iraqis could be clearly seen being placed into crates marked New York and Tel Aviv. It is no exaggeration to say that such anti-Semitic fare had not been played to mass audiences in Europe since the Third Reich. [bold added]

This is alarming: even the secular opposition is descending into anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, likely motivated by a wounded nationalism (the Ottoman Turks once ruled an immense Caliphate and the sting of losing an empire is one thing that motivated Kemal's lurch toward secularism after the humiliation of WWI).

Pollack describes other ways in which the secular remnants are destroying themselves and what's left of the country, but the shockingly paranoid, nationalistic anti-Semitism indicates to me that this is the dying breath of secularism in Turkey. They are conceding the ends of the Islamists--the eradication of the Jewish state, for example--but under the guise of national pride and blind racism, rather than the commandments of Islam. As I wrote in the summer of 2008, when it wasn't so obvious to me that secularism was nearly dead:

With the recent court ruling [banning Muslim headscarves in universities], reasserting secular practices on a divided people, it appears that Turkey has taken steps to slow its seemingly inevitable descent into Islamism. Without a fundamental shift in political philosophy, however, this is just rearranging deck chairs. Turkey is fighting the growing influence of Islamism, but the only weapon it has is the historical example Kemal. He established a "benevolent, secularist dictatorship," but there is no indication that the people themselves widely adopted those ideas. Secularism--not secular ideas themselves, but a particular set of commandments in the constitution viewed now almost as "revealed truth"--is now limping along from rote memory. Why maintain secularism? "Because we have always done so." Or, "Because Kemal said so." It's a reactionary response from entrenched centers of power. And that offers very little protection from a virulent, violent ideology like Islamism.

It appears that whatever protection there was has vanished. A population made up of radical religious fanatics on one side, and compliant, unprincipled advocates of a dead system who are all too eager to adopt the belligerent and racist positions advocated by their political enemies on the other side, is a country ripe for dictatorship.