"Moderate" Muslims

As the debate over the Ground Zero mosque continues, we are told repeatedly by its proponents that the imam Rauf is moderate. Moreover, we have been told repeatedly that most Muslims throughout the world are moderate. Only a small percentage, we are told, are extremists.

It occurs to me that we need to define some terms more clearly in order to make sense of these claims. In other words, a Muslim may be moderate, but compared to what?

For example, suppose you picked a Muslim at random from anywhere in the world, and asked him the following question: Do you support the mass murder of innocent people in the name of Islam? He responds: no, I do not. Aha! For progressives in this country, that is sufficient to call this guy a moderate Muslim.

But suppose you ask a follow-up question: Do you support shariah law? He responds: yes, I do. If we continue to label this guy as a moderate, which progressives typically do, we have defined moderation as accepting that if a woman commits adultery she should be stoned to death. This guy may be moderate by the standards of Muslim extremists, but is he moderate by our standards? I say no. Any Muslim who advocates shariah is, by definition under our cultural norms, not moderate. He is moderate only by comparison with extremists like bin Laden.

The end result of this tendency among progressives to define "moderate" on Muslim terms is that they accept guys like Rauf, who strive to implement shariah here, as being no threat. But increasingly shariah courts exist in European countries, allowed to issue rulings on matters of civil law. Those courts will not be forever content to limit themselves to divorce proceedings. Sooner or later, they will begin to assert their authority over criminal matters involving the Muslim population. Will the multiculturalists finally say no when a shariah court in Britain authorizes an honor killing? The question may seem absurd, but I guarantee you that some progressives, both in Europe and here, will try to make the case that we have no right to interfere with the Muslim culture. Otherwise, progressives will be exposed as frauds. How can they praise Islam as a wonderful religion of peace, then turn around and condemn a central tenet of shariah?

The attempt to incorporate shariah into our legal system has begun. To the extent we label its adherents as moderates, we are abetting the effort.

More on Ramadan...

At the White House celebration of Ramadan, Obama said the following: "Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country."

It's nice that he put all this in perspective for those ignorant rubes who didn't know how wonderful Islam is. Witness all the Christian churches in Muslim countries, warmly welcomed in the name of diversity. Muslims are famous for treating with respect and tolerance those who have different beliefs. And the list of famous Muslims who have made extraordinary contributions to our history is extensive. Just off the top of my head, I recall a guy named Abdul who signed the Declaration of Independence, and I'm pretty sure there was an imam praying with George Washington at Valley Forge, and let's not forget the 14th Muslim Regiment of Maine who turned the tide at Gettysburg. And wasn't it Muslims who invented the cotton gin and the telephone? The list goes on and on.

Sarcasm aside, I can think of only one significant contribution made by Muslims to our history. Without their efforts, the slave trade would not have flourished as much as it did.

Endorsing Islam?

There is an item amidst the furor over the NYC mosque that hasn't gotten much, if any, attention.

When Obama made his initial comments about the mosque (right to freedom of religion, etc.), he made them during a dinner at the White House celebrating Ramadan. Why is the White House celebrating Ramadan?

I'm not bringing this up in the context of the recent poll in which 18% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim. I don't know what he is, although his fondness for Islam is clear from his statement some time back that the call to prayer for Muslims at sunset is one of the most beautiful sounds on earth. In my view, that sentiment goes a bit beyond the standard "we respect all religions" platitudes that we expect from politicians.

But whatever his religious beliefs may be, why is the White House having a dinner to celebrate Ramadan? Isn't that an endorsement of religion, which we are told by many (primarily on the left) is what the Constitution prohibits? We still have the White House Christmas tree each year, but over the years that has become a holiday season tree, lest some anti-religionists get offended. Every year we see cases where Christmas nativity scenes are found to violate the separation of church and state. No more prayer in schools, or Ten Commandments on one building or another. There has been an ongoing effort to stamp any reference to religion out of the public square, based on modern day interpretations of what the Establishment Clause says, as opposed to what it actually says.

So, I ask again. How can Obama have a White House dinner to celebrate Ramadan and those who crusade against government endorsement of religion don't even bat an eye?

Which side do you come down on? Freedom or control?

Let me be clear: Obamacare is a Tax.

Last September, Obama was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos about the health care bill. George quizzed Obama about the mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance, positing that the mandate is a tax and as such would violate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on people earning less than $200,000 per year. They had a brisk debate in which Obama dismissively derided any suggestion that the mandate is a tax.

Fast forward. Approximately 20 states have filed lawsuits challenging the administration's authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance. The Department of Justice has filed its brief in answer to these suits. The DOJ's argument? That the Congress has the authority for the mandate pursuant to its power to levy taxes.

To recap: Obama claimed vigorously that the mandate is not a tax. His DOJ
 now claims vigorously that the mandate is a tax.

I hope George interviews Obama again. I imagine it would go something like this...

George: Well, Mr. President, given what your Department of Justice is doing, is it still wrong to call the mandate a tax?

Obama: George, let me be clear. What most people consider to be a tax isn't really a tax for the purposes of taxation. Now, bear in mind that my administration inherited taxes from the Bush administration. And we're doing everything we can to redefine taxes such that the middle class will not be hit by taxes that the prior administration cut for the wealthy. So, when working families have to pay more, they should bear in mind that simply because the government will punish them for failure to pay, the extra money they must pay is in no way, shape, or form, a tax. What we have to call a tax in a court of law is not a tax in reality. You know, George, it's funny, but lawyers have to say things that normal people can't really understand in order to protect those people from thinking things that they shouldn't be thinking. But all of these attacks from Republicans are nothing more than a distraction from my promise to the American people to restore what the Bush administration took from working families and gave to the wealthy. Did I mention that Bush cut taxes for the wealthy?

George: And now, a word from our sponsor.