Mike Walker, USMC Colonel (retired)
President Obama, Newt Gingrich, the Manhattan Mosque, and Burning Books
All,
It is not too often that I get up the chutzpah (being Irish Catholic) to criticize both President Obama and Newt Gingrich in one e-mail. The controversy over the Mosque in Manhattan with its attendant drama has provided that ample pause for thoughtful written reflection, or so I kid myself.
1. Mr. President, words matter. Recently you made a statement that is as dangerous to the lives of Americans abroad as the foolishness of some very minor minister in Florida.
Here is where the damage was done: "...the idea that we would burn sacred texts." We? WE, Mr. President?
As my Marine Drill Instructor used to say: "Unless there is a mouse in your pocket, there ain't no WE here!" Of course, on those occasions that was followed by an endearing epithet like "maggot," "moron," "numb nuts," etc. But you are the President and I was simply an aspiring Marine.
Sir, let me set the record straight, I am as disgusted and offended by the proposed Quran burning as anyone. Of course, I was equally disgusted and offended by the "art show" presenting a crucifix of Jesus Christ submerged in a jar of urine. There wasn't any "we" in that sorry episode either.
When the President of the United States of America says "we" it means us all. The President is saying “we” did it and “we” are all responsible. That is plain wrong. What it does is give an official sanction to al Qaeda and their ilk, by the highest level of our representative government, to take revenge for this possible outrage against any and all of "we."
Having served as a Marine once in the Balkans and twice in Iraq, I know from savage personal experience what form that revenge will take. I fully know that "we" means targeting for death any American man, woman, or child, at any place and at any time.
While I do hold our Commander in Chief responsible for the words he chooses this is also an indictment of his senior advisors for National Security, Counterterrorism and Homeland Security. That our President would use “we” i.e. “all Americans” to affix responsibility to this outrageous act to a worldwide audience must lie squarely at their feet. Shame on them for their failure to the President, the American men and women serving today in harms way, and to the American people as a whole.
2. Newt! Although I frequently disagree with you there are very few Americans who make as compelling and reasoned an argument in favor of their convictions as you. However, a friend sent a newsletter you wrote in July entitled: “Newt Gingrich Statement on Proposed Mosque/Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero.” Here is my opining on that.
Newt Gingrich is right in publicly "shaming" Saudi Arabia about their intolerance of other faiths. However, he creates a false nexus between the proposed Cordoba House and Saudi Arabia. This is not a project created and funded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For example, it would be as if one opposed the building of a new health clinic associated with the Cedars-Sinai Hospital because one opposes the policies of Israel. The connection is too frail to accept as valid.
As to the name “Cordoba” to which Mr. Gingrich took offense, rather than a celebration of Islamic military prowess it can equally be argued as a warning of the limitations and failures of spreading Islam through the sword vice peaceful evangelical conversion. The Arab armies in Spain did convert a church in Cordoba into a mosque only to see it return as an even grander church, a cathedral, in point of fact. “Cordoba” can also be seen a lesson on how the gains of an armed jihad can be as fleeting and futile as the blowing breeze.
3. Conclusions on the Mosque
There needs to be full transparency regarding the project leaders and funding sources for this development. Every project leader and donor should publicly and on the record pledge full and unqualified support of freedom of religion and religious tolerance in the United States of America.
If they refuse to make that public avowal then this project should face strong and continuous public condemnation, protest, boycott, and other appropriate acts of civil disobedience as the price to be paid for accepting leadership and/or funding from those who practice, aid, or abet religious intolerance in a free and democratic republic.
If you want to defeat an unjust and intolerant act here is the rule to follow: Non-violent advocacy of the truth is a far more powerful path to religious tolerance within the boundaries our great nation than any intolerant provocation or tactic.
If the leaders and financial backers of the “Cordoba House in Manhattan” are tolerant and peacemakers as we define those terms in the United States then they have nothing to fear. If the case is otherwise then the truth will out and they will fail.
Semper Fi,
Mike
