Thought for the Day

"Pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes."

-John Ruskin

From Forbes.

Moderate Muslims, Rational Islamic Theology

Claire Berlinski contrasts the moderate Muslims she lives around in Turkey with radical Muslims. Start the video, then go to full screen for better video quality.

On Ricochet (a blog-like discussion forum), she discusses a new book concerning a time, prior to the ninth century, when Islamic theology may have been more conducive to reason than it is today.

The answer ... completely hinges on God’s relationship to reason in Sunni Islam. Is God reason, or logos, as the Greeks would say? If God himself is reason, then it is hard to close the mind because one would then be closing oneself to God. This, in fact, was the view of the first fully-developed theological school in Islam, the Mu‘tazilites. The Mu‘tazalites asserted the primacy of reason, and that one’s first duty is to engage in reason and, through it, to come to know God. . . .

However, the school of theology that arose to oppose the Mu’tazilites, the Ash‘arites, held the opposite. Unfortunately, by the end of the ninth century, they prevailed and became the formative influence in Sunni Islam. For the Ash‘arites, God is not reason, but pure will and absolute power. He is not bound by anything, including his own word. Since God is pure will, He has no reasons for his acts. Thus what He does cannot be understood by man. One of the things that God does is create the world, which also cannot be understood. . . .

Interesting reading if you're up for some academic cross-talk.

There's a lot most of us don't understand about Islam.

The Chilean Mine Rescue, Chris Matthews, Two Presidents

While the world celebrated, Chris Matthews took this story as an opportunity to become completely unmoored from reality, declaring to the head of the AFL-CIO that if the miners had been tea-partiers, they would have been dead in two days.

Ann Althouse:

What that shows is that Matthews — in stereotypical liberal fashion — has forgotten the way private individuals cooperate and help each other. The government and only the government must be the source of all beneficence. If you don't want the government to solve all your problems, you must think you and everyone else can be 100% self-reliant.

A couple of simple questions for Mr. Matthews:

If Tea Partiers are so consumed by an “every man for himself” philosophy, why are their gatherings typically so well-organized and why do they leave, say, the National Mall spotless?

If unions, on the other hand, are so dedicated to cooperation and respect for others, why did so many of their buses leave before the OneNation rally was over, leaving some speakers to speak to a few stragglers? And why did they trash the National Mall?  

Unions are just as subject to corruption and decline as business and government are. When unions are protected in their declined state by government, decline is likely to get worse.

The President of Chile called for international help from the best and the brightest, promising to keep bureaucracy from interfering. As a result, the rescue came much sooner that the December estimate.  In contrast, during the Gulf Oil Spill, President Obama rejected most international help for months.  He refused to suspend the Jones Act, which kept the Dutch and others from helping directly. Apparently, in the President's mind, the interests of unions outweighed the interests of fishermen and  others whose jobs were threatened by the oil spill. The Jones Act specifies that foreign entities working with our government (including in disasters) must be unionized. It has been suspended by other presidents in the past in emergencies. (Oh, and EPA regulations requiring near-perfection in equipment for removing oil from water also prevented much oil from being removed from the gulf by the Dutch).  Many people were disappointed with the President's response. Chile's politics and culture seem to be in an ascendant phase, in comparison.

The rescue of Chilean miners recalls an earlier rescue

A wonderful story. A leader emerged who "rallied the troops" to cooperate in a disciplined survival regimen. A strong leader is crucial in desperate circumstances, but command-and-control leadership is less effective when conditions are not so dire. The President of Chile also contributed to the general air of competence in response to this emergency.

An interesting perspective on the miner rescue from Daniel Henninger: Capitalism saved the miners.

Some will recoil at these triumphalist claims for free-market capitalism. Why make them now?

Here's why. When a catastrophe like this occurs—others that come to mind are the BP well blowout, Hurricane Katrina, various disasters in China—a government has all its chips pushed to the center of the table. Chile succeeds (it rebuilt after the February earthquake with phenomenal speed). China flounders. Two American administrations left the public agog as they stumbled through the mess.

Still, what the political class understands is that all such disasters wash away eventually, and that life in a developed nation reverts to a tolerable norm. . .

Chile has a new American hero from the private sector.  But NASA, a U.S. government agency, provided a lot of help in Chile, too.  Somehow, the flexible Chileans seemed to be able to coordinate government and private help.

 Wretchard recalls another dramatic rescue of 33 men which required perhaps even greater flexibility in the responses of the rescuers, not to mention extraordinary courage on the part of some of them.

Zero Tolerance for Speaking Truth to Power

Rep. John Conyers asked comedian Stephen Colbert to leave the committee room rather than present live "testimony" concerning immigration. Donald Sensing compares the media reactions to testimony by Stephen Colbert and Christopher Coates on the same day:

Colbert 1,300; Coates 196


That's the count on Google News' leads of the coverage of the testimonies of comedian Stephen Colbert and Dept. of Justice official Christopher Coates. Colbert testified before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. Coates appeared before the US Civil Rights Commission. . . .


Note that the major media covered Colbert exhaustively, but were conspicuously absent from covering Coates. That was left almost completely to online media, especially blogs. From curiosity, I watched NBC News primetime broadcast. Colbert was the lead story. There was no mention ever of Coates. And they wonder why their viewersehip is plummeting?


Fortunately and commendably for Colbert, his "testimony" was dripping with all the sober gravitas it deserved. . . .


Coates told the commission that he was testifying as a whistle blower since he had been instructed by his DOJ superiors not to speak.


You know, some more "zero tolerance" that this administration has for speaking truth to power, especially when the power is them and the truth is, well, the truth.

Read the whole thing.  Interesting take on Colbert's apparent realization that it was absurd that he had been asked to testify about immigration.

More on the Coates testimony.  Interesting links.   Possible legal ramifications for cases with minority plaintiffs.   Criticism of AP story, kudos for real journalism.

Josh Gerstein reports the story for Politico. Gerstein's story is a model of good journalism.

Background: Older posts on the New Black Panther case which Coates discussed in the hearing (and related issues of equality before the law) here, here and here.

Coates must be an extraordinarily strong individual to have remained in the DOJ after his demotion for supporting equality before the law. His testimony, against the orders of his superiors, probably ends any possibility that he could return to his career at the DOJ. But it was probably over before now, anyway. One of his subordinates had already quit to become a whistleblower. Going public may actually reduce the hostility which Coates must have been facing within the DOJ as a whistleblower. Here is an account of what he said at the going-away event at the time of his demotion.

Of course, there's a possibility that the Colbert appearance was not planned as a diversion, but was just another devastatiing unforced error by this Congress.

Nancy Pelosi on "Hollywood-American" Colbert: “He’s an American. He has a point of view.” From the comments:

“He’s an American. He has a point of view.” I thought Congress sought testimony from people with some expertise. There are fifty people in front of the local Home Depot who know more about this than Colbert.

North Korea: Run by and Emperor

Dennis Prager interviewed the author of a new book on the ordinary lives of North Koreans. She noted that North Korea is not a typical communist country, but rather one run by an emperor. Dennis pointed out that most Communist countries are run by emperors, even when the horrors don't get as bad as those in North Korea, China or Cambodia.

She noted that in NK, the people are the possessions of the government. Dennis pointed out that the bigger the government, the more of its citizen's lives it "owns".

Happy Constitution Day

Restoring Madison's Vision

Can the Constitution be sustained in such a large country?

Toqueville and today's America. Did he miss some developments that make "soft despotism" less attractive? Something to think about.

Obsession with the Feelings of Muslims

The Ground Zero Mosque has become a soap opera. Inspired by the opposition to the mosque's location, a publicity-seeking Pastor threatening to burn Korans set off the Muslim World, asked for, and got, a message from the White House, and also got a "friendly warning" from the FBI before calling off his stunt. Spengler (via Tigerhawk) comments on larger implications in the big, nasty world of international intrigue:

Meet the Reverend Terry Jones, asymmetrical warrior. It appears that pinpricks can produce chain reactions in the Islamic world. The threat may be termed asymmetrical because Islam is more vulnerable to theological war than Christianity (or for that matter Judaism).

As the youngest of the major religions (apart from Sikhism), Islam must defend its historical narrative more fiercely than the older religions. Islam never withstood the withering criticism of Enlightenment scholars from Spinoza to the Jesus Project determined to discredit sacred texts. And because the Koran is not a human report of God's word, like the Christian and Jewish bibles, but rather the "uncreated word" of Allah himself, any challenge to its authority cuts at Islam's credibility. The fact that Islam has established neither a Magisterium in the Catholic sense, nor an authoritative tradition like that of Orthodox Judaism, leaves it decentralized, divided and fractious. . .

Russia has more urgent reasons to sow discord in Muslim countries, and centuries of experience in doing so. Simply because America has committed its reputation and resources to stability in the Muslim world, Russia has an interest in promoting the opposite. Russia views the world as a chessboard, in which pressure on the flanks increases its control of the center of the board. Moscow's on-again, off-again deal to supply Iran with an advanced anti-missile system, for example, represents a bargaining chip that it can use with Washington for a variety of purposes.

There is a deeper Russian interest in fostering Muslim weakness, though. Before mid-century the Russian Federation likely will have a Muslim majority. . . .

But back in the U.S., the liberal elite wants to reach out to Muslims. James Taranto, September 16:

The real problem here is that the liberal elite has responded to 9/11 in a totally inappropriate way. When the only tool you have is a hammer, the cliché goes, every problem looks like a nail. To American liberals, every problem looks like the civil rights struggle, the original one of which was their last real moral, cultural and governmental success.

That is why the liberal elite sees 9/11 less as a national security challenge than as an imperative for a kind of affirmative action aimed at ensuring that "inclusiveness" extends to Muslims. . . . And of course it is what Americans everywhere see in the obnoxious plan to build a fancy 15-story mosque adjacent to the site of an Islamic supremacist atrocity.

But whereas white Americans collectively had a great deal to atone for in their historical treatment of blacks, it is perverse and offensive to suggest that 9/11 leaves Americans with an obligation to atone to Muslims. . . .

Multiculturalists cheering on the Cordoba House

I left a comment at US News and World Report piece by Robert Schlesinger concerning the "new nativism" in the U.S. which is the alleged cause of the Cordoba House controversy, spacing changed here:

The Cordoba Initiative Hardens Differences

The current controversy over this project, and the hardening of positions on all sides, was almost certainly anticipated in advance. I think Victor Davis Hanson got it right. The initial choice of the title, "Cordoba House" for the (now) Park51 complex and the continued use of "Cordoba Initiative" for the project means different things to different people:

"Cordoba is as much a mythical construct of a long-ago multicultural paradise so dear to elite liberals as it is a fantasy rallying cry to Islamists to reclaim the lost Al-Andalus. . . So Cordoba is a two-birds-with-one-stone evocation: in the liberal West proof of one’s ecumenical bona fides; in the Middle East proof of one’s Islamist bona fides."

But even beyond Islamist vs. multiculturalist fantasies about Cordoba, there are reports of Muslim scholars who are convinced that this is a Jewish plot to connect Islam with 9/11.

Everything is so simple to proponents of multiculturalism like Mr. Schlesinger. The "new nativism" in America, as characterized by over-the-top statements by a distant third-place candidate in a primary election in Tennessee, can be the only explanation for the widespread disapproval of the "Cordoba Initiative". Because multiculturalists are in a "group think" intellectual world, they believe that everyone else must think the same way.

And Mr. Schlesinger is certain that this project would "enrage" bin Laden. How does he know that? Hasn't bin Laden repeated western liberal talking points in his most recent messages to the world?


Why wouldn't he be happy about the completion of an Islamic cultural center topped by two floors of mosque, erected in place of a building which had been damaged by parts of one of the 9/11 planes, scheduled to be opened on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, when the Ground Zero memorial will not even be finished? Even if the backers say that they are trying to promote understanding between "people of the book" (excluding atheists and practitioners of Eastern religions, of course)?

Positions do seem to be hardening. People pick out the most extreme positions to characterize others' views. For example, concerning a previous comment, I don't thnk that most honor killings are conducted in accordance with sharia law, or that genital mutilation is part of sharia law, even though both practices occur with impunity in areas where sharia law is considered to be the law of the land. On the other hand, Mr. Schlesinger should not pretend that sharia law is not making inroads in several countries where Muslims are currently pushing against western-style law.

Seriously, VDH has some fascinating thoughts on the cynical brilliance of this project, plus some corrective world history.

And here, he debates Alan Dershowitz concerning the ADL's opposition. Other contributors at VDH's website: Raymond Ibrahim and a "citixen comment" by Karen Lugo.

RELATED: From Twitter

Jim Treacher:

How about "Not-at-Ground-Zero Mosque-Type-Structure for People Who May or May Not Be Muslims, Not That We're Judging"? Kind of a mouthful...

New rule: Turning down a job is now a violation of religious freedom.

If construction crews refuse to work on the #911DebrisFieldMosque, then the religious-freedom-fighters will. Pack a lunch,

Iowahawk:

Of all the arguments in favor of the mosque, I think the "opponents are subhuman racists" one is the most persuasive.

But it's not the one Howard Dean is making. For a change.