Masking the Mosque with ‘moderateness’

Michael Tomlin

It may be the most misused or perhaps the most fraudulent word in our political language – the word “moderate” that is. We hate it in our own political parties, yet ask for tolerance and respect for it in others. It doesn’t work either way.

A moderate Democrat is either an ultra-liberal, or mostly a Republican, depending on which side of moderate they are on. In my party moderate means a RINO – a Republican in name only, and grounds for ostracizing: bad words any way you look at it.

But “moderate” suddenly becomes unbridled virtue when applied to anything Muslim. It was followers of radical Islam that attacked us on 9/11, not moderate Muslims. It is the moderate Muslims we are to embrace as they seek to build a mosque near ground zero in lower Manhattan, near the attack site.

It is the moderate Muslims we are to embrace, period, according to writer after writer in the national news and opinion columnist trade, even while we are still at war with Islam, a war against the West and civilization in general that Islam declared and started. Pardon me not using the word “radical.” It is unneeded.

No one differentiates between moderate and radical KKK’ers. No one differentiated between moderate and radical Aryan Nation members – simply to belong was to be wrong. A pacifist supremacist was no more tolerated or allowed than a pacifist child molester. They were just wrong per se.

In the business world, is it OK that maybe BP was only moderately in the wrong? Is all forgiven? Maybe we should only fine the radical wing of BP and hold the rest of the corporation harmless to the effects of lower stock value or lost profits? Right.

Let’s build a BP “mosque” in a dead broke fishing community in the gulf and channel the love. Or try to explain how only a relatively few radical partial-birth abortionists give a bad name to regular virtuous abortionists. It is inflammatory from the get-go, a non-starter, and actually an absurd intellectual position regardless of your abortion view.

So it is with Islam. Just as I am a Republican, end of story, it matters not that I disavow some planks in our platform. My position makes me disliked by “real” Republicans and no more liked by non-R’s. The general public gets this. Why is it so hard for the media-elite, the president and many politicos to understand?

I think they actually do understand, and it is the inconvenient truth they simply deny. Regardless, using moderateness to try and mask the reality of an Islamic outpost to be intentionally inserted near where their sect attacked and murdered Americans is not an issue of the First Amendment, but rather a second attack on the same target, intended or not.

16 Responses to “Masking the Mosque with ‘moderateness’”

1. Scott Nicholson Says:
   August 25th, 2010 at 8:55 pm

   I’m trying to figure out if this is tongue in cheek or not. I got lost when you go into you paragraph on being a Republican (the next to last paragraph – the logic doesn’t flow). I’m Republican & have been called un-American by the likes of Rush Limbaugh & his mini-me, Shawn Hannity because I disagree with many of the Republican positions. (Most particularly, at the moment, their willingness to stop any chance of real change by not participating in a valid exchange of ideas.) I’m a fiscal conservative & social moderate. I’ve voted R (including for the likes of Perot, if that tells you anything) – with the caveat that I’ll vote for the best candidate at that particular time, in all cases.

   But your point really is about Islam. I lose your train of though in this blog; either that or I have a different frame of reference. Are you seriously saying we’re at war with Islam or are you pulling my leg? We were at war with Japan once and we locked up all of them. Hopefully, we learned something from throwing everyone of a certain group under the bus & hold that act in shame. I certainly do and I didn’t even do it.

   I understand what a lot of people have said, that if we need to know who we’re fighting, they can throw a few last names out there for us to see the common denominator…. I get it. Does that mean you think we’re at war with all Muslims? Seriously?

   I know I’m going to have to apologize for suggesting that is your point (I hope). We’ve thrown whole groups of people under the bus before even when they’re loyalties were with us as a nation and as a civilized people. I am not suggesting every Muslim is looking after our best interest (as I am sure some will take this), but I for one hope we’re not in this as some sort of Crusade. I assume the people of Haiti don’t think all US citizens will try to steal their babies.

   Some very bad people did some very bad things. Islam did not attack the US. I’ve seen some Christians do some very bad things, but I don’t think it would be a rational conclusion to attribute their very bad actions to me as a Christian.

   Minor point #1…. your point that KKK / Ayrian Nations members don’t need to be separately called out as radicals since it is inherent in the membership to such groups. I agree with your premise, but those are voluntary associates to groups established, not to praise God, but put forth racial agendas (although a little reading did assert they developed out of a Christian background and assert Christian ties). I just went to the Aryan Nations web site & it was a tad scary to be honest with you. There seems to be a defense of some leader of theirs who just died for “…murdering the Jew Alan Berg and robbing a few banks.” Okay, think I’ll close that web site before someone gets the wrong impression…..

   Minor Point #2…. your BP argument is trash. BP is a corporation and, although I still can’t believe it, it has, in the eyes of the law, the same status as a person. I almost choke when I realize how preposterous that reality is, but it is what it is. Since they are a single legal entity, they are not a group of people, but a single legal entity. Should BP be convicted of a felony, the ramifications of that would / should flow to the legally responsible representatives. Although, in reality, when corporations are convicted of felonies, they seldom serve real time behind bars. (Whole nother issue, but why in the hell are corporations given such legal status? How weird is that? A corporation is not a person!)

   Minor Point #3…. I’ve heard people in these trying time say moderation is not a good thing and I’ve heard it more than once. That’s BS, end of point. Sure, I’m not a moderate on fiscal responsibility. I say we help those people who are helping themselves, but only for a relatively short term. Sorry guys, but people are responsible for themselves & when you remove that responsibility, you’ve lost the battle. If you take away responsibility (as we have), you’re screwed (which we are). There are other things which I am not a moderate about, like human rights. I believe two committed adults have the right to enter into committed relationships. You may have your thoughts on that subject, but I have a right to mine and mine are pretty firm…. you just keep your religion (or lack there of) out of my life & I’ll keep my religion out of yours.

   Semi-Minor Point #4…. there are moderates on abortion (as there are in ALL things). Sorry, but you’re dead wrong again. I’m going to save my own thoughts, but I have had heart to heart discussions with people on both sides of the issue in an attempt to better understand the issue & while (in my experience) people are very passionate about that issue, I’ve not met anyone yet who will take a life to save to make their point (vis a vis murder a doctor who performs abortions, which, by the way, is a religious response to the issue. How many atheists have murdered someone to stop an abortion?). So there are people who may be firmly on one side or the other, but act within their rights even though they vehemently disagree with the other position.

   I’d say Semi-Minor Point #4 could also fit into one’s commitment to the religion they were brought up in. Some are fundamentalists & willing to kill for their firm beliefs and some don’t have those same firm beliefs. To throw all Muslims under the bus for the acts of some, doesn’t work in reality. It didn’t work when we locked up all the Japanese; it didn’t work when we went through McCarthyism & it doesn’t work now.

   So, reassure me. You are being tongue in cheek, right?

2. Will Says:
   August 25th, 2010 at 9:42 pm

   Scott great points. I was really frightened by the article and also hope I just misunderstood it.

   Michael… did you really say that we are at war with Islam? As in all Muslims? I thought there were quite a few Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan right now that we are fighting on behalf of. Did you really compare all Muslims to the KKK and the Aryan Nation? If so, I can’t believe this kind of garbage got published in the Idaho Business Review. If like Scott, I misunderstood your point forgive my judgement.

   And I agree with Scotts point that there are moderate positions on all issues. Some of us like myself don’t view everything as black and white. Life isn’t that simple for some of us.

   Also, nobody is asking that you or me or anyone else “embrace” moderate Muslims. But I’d like to think that there is such a thing as religious freedom and tolerance in this country and I find it shocking that so many don’t see this issue that way. The likes of Newt Gringrich seems think there should be no Mosques built in America until countries like Saudi Arabia allow such freedoms for Christians. We are not a country of Christians…. we are Americans and all Americans deserve the same freedoms, opportunities and respect.

3. Phil Says:
   August 25th, 2010 at 11:38 pm

   “…a war against the West and civilization in general that Islam declared and started.”

   Your claim that 1.5 billion people have collectively decided to engage in war is absurd. Your gross generalizations only serve to demolish the efficacy of your argument.

4. Michael Tomlin Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 9:26 am

   Good points all, and this is a very dicey subject to address. It was not easy to write about. I read last week in TIME their cover story “Is America Islamaphobic?”, Maureen Dowd’s national piece on Obama fumbling the mosque issue, and about a half-dozen other pieces that talked around the issue and avoided the real elephant in the room. I decided to write mine more pointed and honest.

   If I say that Catholics oppose abortion – you can respond that you know a Catholic who favors abortion. The question then becomes “is that person a Catholic?” Who defines “Catholic?” I believe it to be their doctrine and the Pope, not some dude self-identifying as Catholic. FYI, I am not Catholic, real or moderate…

   Phil, are 360 million Americans at war against Al Queda? That is a generalization, yet we are all infidels just the same to those who are at war with us. The acts of terror do not carve out those who are sympathetic, no, if they are American, they are to be killed. It is all a generalization. And all generalizations are unfair to some.

   Will and Scott, I agree there are moderate positions on most points. But how was my dad to know which Japanese he was fighting were responsible for Pearl Harbor, and which were the more moderate? The truth is that we were at war with Japan – and that is both a fact, and a generalization.

   Our current war is a war of the uncivilized world vs. the civilized world. It is a war of Western Religion vs. tribal religion – Islam. And it is not a war we started.

   If Muslims must identify themselves as moderate Muslims to show they are with us, then they have defined their religion exactly as I have. No, friends. this was not tongue-in-cheek, but rather written with heart in hand. Not an easy piece, and not an easy topic. And certainly the reason for blogs – to allow discussions such as this.

5. Phil H Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 11:23 am

   I’ll go along with your argument if you will classify all Christians as radical for their believers’ actions from the Crusades and the Inquisition up to World War II (Hitler was supposedly Christian) and the Iraq war started under false pretenses. Do we have a deal?

   I agree that this conflict is civilized vs. uncivilized. But that excludes “moderate” Muslims the world over, and including those who live in Boise.

6. Andrew T. Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 12:14 pm

   By the columnist’s logic, some Christians are dishonest car salesmen and some Christians are murderers so all Christians are dishonest, murderers and must be persecuted. Or, by Tomlin’s logic, since Timothy McVeigh was a Christian and a domestic terrorist, all Christians are domestic terrorists and we should prevent all Christians from building churches anywhere near a government buildings in the United States. As noted above, some of our biggest allies in battling Muslim terrorists are Muslim governments, Muslim soldiers, Muslim leaders and millions of ordinary Muslim people. There are more than a billion Muslims and to paint them in one, bigoted swath is logically and morally inane. It is also very dangerous, even un Christian.
   One definition of moderate (from The American Dictionary — but (by Tomlin’s logic) since some Americans are Satan worshipers all Americans are Satan worshipers so the dictionary should be called The Satanist Dictionary) is “not excessive or extreme.” This is an understandable concept to most people. For Tomlin, perhaps think of ordering an egg or steak at restaurant: you can get them over-easy, medium or well, or medium-well, medium-rare or rare, etc. To most people, a medium-cooked egg is different than an over-easy or well-cooked egg. In this previous example, substitute the word moderately-cooked and perhaps you can begin to grasp the concept of “moderate.”

7. Duane Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 2:13 pm

   Thanks, Michael for writing a gutsy piece. Political correctness and tolerance/inclusiveness regardless of worth is what will bring this nation to it’s knees.

8. Dave Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

   The columnist is quite frankly wrong.
   Tomlin uses twisted logic to mask the underlying racism of his argument. They’re different from us, so it’s OK to demonize them.
   We are a country born on the principles of religious freedom and tolerance. By painting all of Islam with one broad stroke we cheapen the very underpinnings of our society. As others commenting have pointed out, you cannot equate the actions of some bad players to the whole of Islam. And that, I think, was Scott’s point with his comments about the Japanese. During WWII we locked up American citizens of Japanese descent, not because of anything they’d done, but because they looked different – it was easy to separate them from the rest of America. We didn’t lock up Americans of German or Italian descent, even though we were at war with them too.
   It is small minded people who demonize whole groups of others without any true understanding of their religion and customs. And in this fire-charged election year it seems the facts have no place in the arena of ideas. Mr. Tomlin is simply mouthing the lies being perpetrated by talk radio, who apparently are not part of the ‘media elite.’

9. Scott Nicholson Says:
   August 26th, 2010 at 4:01 pm

   Michael:

   Your blog was genuine and you are not alone in your thoughts. I’m not in anyway throwing you under the bus, even though it looks like you may be of foreign decent… (j/k). I respect you and I know enough about you from others to know you were expressing a thought. Thanks for having the guts to start a discussion.

   I remain saddened that there are plenty of people who are willing to discern friend from foe by looks or heritage alone and not on the character of the person. Sometimes that’s seems more expedient, but it always comes to no good in the long run.

   Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

   What good does it do a man or woman to gain the world but lose their own soul?

   It’s easy to pick quotes now a days, but those two seem to fit here. We are a nation in stress and in periods of stress is when mob rule can take over. While I defend free speech, I deplore hate mongers like Limbaugh, Hannity, & Beck. Once someone starts appealing to your emotional side & starts yelling & ranting, you better back off & start thinking about what’s really going on and remove yourself from that situation. Cooler heads need to prevail now & in the future.

   We have made some major mistakes in our history, let’s not do it again.

   Do I have time to also ask that we allow the drinking of beer on the Boise River again? I think that would help.

   Be good, friend.

10. Phil Says:
    August 28th, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Michael-

    You use an analogy that seems to suggest a group’s defining characteristics trump the autonomy of the individual. You again assert that there is some legitimate claim in assuming a war of the state is a war of the people. Being a citizen of America does not require me in any way to be “at war” with any other person or group. No political doctrine supports your claims and any law that does so is morally repugnant. And please dont bother to tell me 535 congressional members have the ability to tally the majority will of 675,000 people each.

    Wars are hardly ever decided through the deliberation of thousands of town hall meetings. Unfortunately those in power have the unilateral ability to allocate torture, limited resources and death.

    In no way can I answer your question regarding the desire of every citizen of America. Its a foolish question that hardly deserves this response.

11. Michael Tomlin Says:
    August 29th, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Phil, you are exactly right, thank you. And when the major clerics of Islam teach and shout “death to America,” they do not say “death to America except for Phil with whom we are not at war.”

    And Andrew, my point was never about the individual – Tim McVeigh did not define Christianity he was just one “member.” The Pope, prophets, cleric leaders, elected denomination leaders, etc., they define the religions of the world, not a few rogue members.

    Dave, Islam is not a race.

    Thanks Scott, beer on the river sounds great. I am not back in Boise that much, but will send a shout-out for beering – hopefully soon.

    Right now I have a column to write on whether it is fair to call President Obama a Muslim, a moderate Muslim, or a stealth Muslim…I want to get it right…LOL

12. Mr. Knowledge Says:
    August 30th, 2010 at 9:54 am

    “It is a war of Western Religion vs. tribal religion – Islam. And it is not a war we started.”

    Michael, you’re going way too far when you say stuff like this.

    Referring to Islam as a “tribal religion” is to give the impression that it is historically different and divorced from Christianity. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all part of the Abrahamic religious tradition. They are all monotheistic, they all enshrine God as creator, they all set down a set of moral precepts to live by, stress punishment for disobeying God, and – for better or worse (I’d say worse) – have at various times throughout history been distorted and bastardized by those who would use them to achieve military, political, and economic goals.

    I just don’t understand the religious war rhetoric, or the need to basically refer to 1.5 billion people as having a “tribal” religion. It’s provocative and inflammatory.

    Last, in my view it’s a little healthier to think of the conflict as one between the Western values of democracy and religious freedom (born of the Enlightenment) than casting the conflict in strictly religious terms. In my country I want to be able to worship (or not worship) as I want, read the books I want, watch the television and movies I want, and NOT BE TOLD by anyone (Muslim, Christian, or otherwise) what I can read, view or think, or who I can associate with.

    What distinguishes us from the Islamists is not that “we” are Christian, it is that we have the freedom to live our lives as we want in line with our consciences.

13. Leif Elgethun Says:
    August 30th, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    The onion put out a great piece that could have been about Mr. Tomlin I do believe.
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

14. T. Ray Says:
    August 31st, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    Michael,

    A very wise professor once taught me about syllogistic reasoning. Perhaps you have lost your copy of “Thought & Knowledge” . I would be happy to lend you mine.

15. Michael Tomlin Says:
    September 4th, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Hi TR, good to see you reading the IBR. I still have my Thought & Knowledge, and still use it. But reasoning can only be held marginally accountable in an opinion column. It is the one place in the world where a person can always be right – their opinion.

    Mr. Knowledge, your historical points are taken, but I am talking about today. Just as we cannot democratize a tribal and feudal people, neither can we accept their religion or other practices here. Give them 100 years of educating all of their children – male and female, fighting through their own civil rights issues, and move into the 20th Century, then we can take another look.

16. Phil Says:
    September 11th, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Thanks Lief!

    From The Onion:

    “All Muslims are at war with America, and I will resist any attempt to challenge that assertion with potentially illuminating facts,”