Herbert London

Herbert London is the author of Decade of Denial (Lexington Books), and most recently, America's Secular Challenge (Encounter Books), and publisher of American Outlook. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

The Mosque on Sacred Ground

At a White House dinner on August 13 President Obama in unequivocal terms defended the building of a mosque in lower Manhattan on religious freedom grounds. As I see it, the president was correct about the Constitutional protections afforded religious freedom on private property. But he was myopic about the context, i.e., the effrontery to build a symbol of Islamic faith at the doorstep of the Ground Zero site where terrorists killed in the name of Islam.

September 11 lives for downtown residents of New York. The World Trade Center site is a constant reminder of human malevolence. It also speaks to political incompetence, of politicians compromised by double-dealing and arrogance.

While the site shows signs of rebirth and a tribute will be built to remind Americans of the 2,800 innocent people who lost their lives one crystal-clear morning in September, an insult deep and penetrating is being launched two blocks away on Park Place with the building of a mosque that will overlook the World Trade Center site.

Mayor Bloomberg and the Downtown Community Board (by a vote of 29 to 1) approved of this religious center, citing freedom of religion arguments. What they overlook, however, is far more persuasive than First Amendment defenses.

Freedom of religion, like any freedom, is not absolute; freedom is defined by limitations. Indians are not free to use peyote indiscriminately in religious services since drug use violates the law of the land. And religion that promotes hate or is an incitement to violence should be and can be curbed.

In the case of the downtown mosque several questions remain unanswered. If a mosque can be built anywhere, why is it being constructed adjacent to the former World Trade Center? Although denials abound, the title of the mosque, Cordoba House, reveals a great deal. In Cordoba, Muslims built a mosque on a Catholic church as a symbol of their triumph in Spain. That symbolism may be evident at the New York site as well.

It is also instructive that the provenance of the $100 million for the project remains unknown. My guess -- based on many global examples -- is that Saudi petro dollars are behind the underwriting. If true, this mosque is likely to promote Wahabbist beliefs -- the most radical brand of Islam.

The promoters of the mosque contend they are Americans who love their country and eschew violence of any kind. Yet they refuse to condemn Hamas and refuse to recognize it as a terrorist organization.

What this episode demonstrates is a form of liberal myopia, an unwillingness to recognize the optics in this situation. For Muslims around the world who deplore the West, specifically the "Great U.S. Demon," this mosque is the symbol of victory. It shows that America doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to resist its enemies. There are lines to be drawn on the matter of taste, patriotism, and appropriateness that transcend reflexive adherence to the First Amendment.

As far as I know, no one is arguing against the construction of mosques, albeit when a religion promotes hate against other faiths, believes apostates and other believers are less than human, argues against the separation of church and state, and is eager to undermine the Constitution, an argument can be made that this religion engages in sedition and should be banned or, at least, censured.

At this point, the pols have spoken. The mosque most likely will be built. But for those of us who reside downtown that building will not be an expression of tolerance, but rather a wound on the city and the nation. It will represent despair; it will serve as a permanent insult to those New Yorkers who lost their lives a decade ago.

In the midst of sacred territory there will be a constant reminder that those who despise our way of life and everything this republic stands for can use our hard-fought liberties to desecrate this land. No matter what Bloomberg says, this is what New Yorkers will be reminded of whenever they pass the mosque on Park Place. As significantly, this is also what radical Muslims will see whenever television cameras pan to this religious edifice. What a shame; alas, what a disgrace.

The Wild Turkish Card

The arrival of the U.S.S. Harry Truman Strike Group in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea and its war games with France and Israel, as well as reinforcements for American forces in Azerbaijan (on the Iran border) could be mere saber rattling or a prelude to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Whatever the motive, it is also clear that Turkey, as a NATO member, has access to a wide array of American military technology that could reveal our aims to adversaries in the Middle East. With a dramatic shift in its political orientation and increasingly close ties to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, Turkey has the potential to cause great damage to American regional interests and even forestall possible military action.

Yet the Obama administration has shown little interest in the radical reorientation with Turkey and its relationship to NATO according to a JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) report. The recent arrest of past and present military figures who are defenders of secularism should have promoted comment from the White House. Instead, there has been conspicuous silence. Similarly, the Turkish role with the Gaza flotilla and the inflammatory rhetoric that emanated from the Turkish corridors of power received very little attention from the State Department.

Clearly the Obama team does not want to jeopardize its alliance with Turkey, but it is also clear that Turkish intelligence services are working overtime to separate the military from Israel and former Western allies. From the U.S. perspective, a key concern is whether these moves lead to the sharing of information with our enemies, information that could undermine any action against Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

It should be noted that Turkey has the third largest air force in NATO with 230 F-16s. It has several refueling tankers, four AWACs to direct air battles and a navy with diesel submarines, and amphibious capability. Moreover, the United States has not taken any steps to reduce or eliminate the flow of military technology or systems to Turkey. On the contrary, because Turkey has a small contingent in Afghanistan, the U.S. regards this commitment as critical to its counterinsurgency program. But this commitment comes with serious risks. Turkey's growing closeness to Iran could complicate Afghanistan's future, particularly if ideological collaboration trumps all other strategic concerns.

That the U.S. appears to be dithering as Turkey moves away from its former friends is alarming to other nations in the region. It also foreshadows a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. General McChrystal argued that in his meetings with President Obama, the president seemed disengaged and uninterested. It may be that this too was a sign of America's emotional, as well as physical, disengagement from the region.

If that is true -- and there is little reason to doubt it -- it augurs for a dangerous period. A political vacuum is always filled. Iran is the emerging "strong horse" in this neighborhood and everyone from Maliki to Erdogan realize as much.

Can the U.S. recapture its influence after displaying a lack of interest? Will it allow Turkey to use its strategic association with NATO in order to advantage Iran? Will Turkey interfere directly or indirectly to thwart any military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities? These questions are not answerable at this time, but in the answers rest the fate of the Middle East and perhaps the world. As the French poet Charles Pegury noted: "Everything starts in mystery and ends in politics."

Oliver Stone and Hugo Chavez

In what can only be considered the view of a misguided dupe, Oliver Stone has released his pro-Hugo Chavez film, "South of the Border." The Socialist International (SI), not exactly the precinct of Milton Friedman, reports that the oil-rich Chavez is suppressing dissent, interfering with press freedom, mismanaging the economy, and destabilizing the region.

One might assume that SI would defend the Venezuelan ruler, but instead this organization argues Chavez is hurting the very poor people he has vowed to represent. Chavez does have his American supporters, e.g., Mark Floyd at the F.C.C. and Mark Weisbrot of the Soros-supported Center for Economic and Policy Studies. None, however, are as devoted to Chavez as Stone.

Stone has directed a festschrift that has only a passing relationship to the truth. He relies on the husband of a Chavez government employee who misrepresents many of the facts surrounding the Chavez government. Stone neglects to point out the 30 percent inflation rate, the highest on the continent, or the deepening recession brought about by Chavez's incompetent management. Chavez has even abandoned thousands of tons of food in shipping containers despite widespread food scarcity. Most noteworthy is the suppression of dissent and the intimidation of minorities such as the centuries-old Jewish community.

Caracas is characterized by a climate of insecurity and fear, conditions that Stone has chosen to ignore. Chavez has subverted democratic procedures while seizing control of the oil industry, electrical production, steel and construction industries, agriculture, telecommunications, and banking. He exercises his power through the take-over of private businesses and manipulation of the election laws, unaffected by modulated criticism.

On the foreign policy front Chavez is just as confrontational. He has been a leading supporter of FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and has signed several pacts for the exchange of military material with Iran. At an event for Syrian president Bashar al Assad, Chavez denounced Israel as a genocidal government that is "a common enemy," a murderous arm of the Yankee empire. Statements of this kind and continual harassment forced the head of the Jewish community, Rabbi Brenner, to leave Venezuela.

Yet despite the evidence and the arguments of eyewitnesses, Stone and his collaborator Mark Weisbrot, who co-wrote the screenplay, insist the charges against Chavez are "nonsense." They contend that U.S. media have unfairly depicted Chavez as a dictator, oligarch, and friend of terrorists, even through Chavez himself defended ties to FARC and military agreements with Iran.

Asked by the New York Times to explain factual inconsistencies in the film and the failure to acknowledge fair criticism of Chavez's human rights record, Tariq Ali, another script writer, said, "It's hardly a secret that we support the other side. It's an opinionated documentary." Of course, he could have said it's a propaganda vehicle designed to sanitize the actions of the dictatorial Chavez regime.

This new Stone feature comes on the heels of Stone's usual anti-American refrain in film after film. According to Stone, Wall Street is filled with amoral, greedy entrepreneurs, the CIA plotted to kill JFK and, the U.S. deserves to be defeated in war. Never mind that Stone has enjoyed wealth beyond the imagination of Croesus, undeserved fame and status for his obsessive conspiracy theories. He is an exemplar of a new breed: the critic who achieves fame and fortune for attacking the government that affords him freedom to attack.

If Stone were ever successful in achieving his goals, he would put himself in the position of irrelevance. It is a good thing for him that America remains resilient. If that weren't the case, Stone would soon be out of work.

Thought Control at Augusta State University

It often seems as if political correctness hasn't any boundaries. Recently an Augusta State University counseling student filed a lawsuit against her university claiming it violated her First Amendment rights when she was allegedly told to change her traditional Christian views on homosexuality or leave.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit on behalf of Jennifer Keaton seeking to prevent the expulsion from her master's degree program.

According to David French, the ADF attorney representing Keaton:

They (college officials) made a cascading series of presumptions about the kind of a counselor she would be and have consequently . . . tried to force her to change her beliefs. It's symbolic of an educational system that has lost its way.

The suit claims that program officials were upset that Ms. Keaton stated her belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not a "state of living." According to the suit, the university wants her to undergo "thought reform" intended to alter her perception. Most significantly, she faces expulsion unless she complies.

To exacerbate matters within the department, Ms. Keaton argued the "conversion therapy" for homosexuals should be entertained, a point of view that departed significantly from accepted norms within the program and according to program officials, from "psychological research." It is noteworthy that the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) defends the practice Keaton advocates and notes opponents of conversion therapy are often criticized by politically motivated biases, albeit, in fairness, the reverse accusation might also be made.

The Augusta State University counseling program required Ms. Keaton to attend at least three pro-gay sensitivity training courses, read pro-gay peer reviewed journals, and participate in Augusta's gay pride parade. She was also asked to familiarize herself with the Association of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Issues in "Counseling" webpage, which defines homosexual behavior as healthy and an appropriate way of life. In addition, her professors required "a two page reflection" each month on how her participation in pro-gay activities "has influenced her beliefs" and how future clients might benefit from her experience.

Without getting into the merits of the case and the claims in the lawsuit, it seems to me that if even a portion of the allegation is accurate the Augusta counseling program is engaged in a form of thought control that hasn't any place in the Academy. As I see it, if there are diametrically different positions on the nature -- nurture argument regarding homosexuality both points of view -- with empirical evidence marshaled for each side -- should be entertained and given a fair hearing. It is not as if one position is dispositive, notwithstanding the position taken by the counseling program.

In far too many instances a university orthodoxy is confused with the rational exegesis of an idea. Proponents of the orthodoxy act as if they are the American version of the Red Guard, incapable of even giving a fair hearing to an alternative point of view; in fact, often going to the extreme of requiring a reeducation program.

Here is the rub: university life predicated on the free and open exchange of opinion has often become a filtering mechanism for politically correct ideas. Those who do not share this view are chastised or, in Ms. Keaton's case, put through a thought control exercise.

It is interesting that Ms. Keaton's religiously based view of homosexuality is disregarded, even though one could argue her First Amendment rights are being violated. In the way the university is constituted today, some designated groups have more rights than others. You don't need a program to know which groups fall into that category; the university catalogue is likely to offer that information.

The Arts in the Obama Age

From the origin of the National Endowment for the Arts during the Johnson administration to the election of President Obama, the arts community was united in its opposition to censorship. The argument that prevailed is that the NEA should not use funding to restrict artistic expression or deny support for art that might offend bourgeois sensibility.

When a significant segment of the public was outraged to learn that the NEA provided funding for Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," the arts community rose as one decrying censorship over efforts to cut funding for his "art." The arts community was equally upset at the suggestion that government policymakers might influence the content of its art work. As the arts world sees it, the government should pay, but should remain silent about artistic content.

During the George H. W. Bush administration the NEA required grant recipients to sign an anti-obscenity pledge, which sparked a spate of angry comments from the arts community and a generally hostile stance to President Bush.

Now, however, the worm has turned. The NEA under President Obama has expressed a desire to use the agency as a propaganda instrument to promote the administration positions. And astonishingly, the arts world seems all too amendable to political advocacy as part and parcel of its work.

Patrick Courrielche, a film-maker, exposed an Obama administration attempt to use the NEA to build support for the president's agenda. At a White House meeting artists were encouraged to promote arts activities that "can be used for a positive change." That, of course, translates into advocacy for presidential policies in healthcare, environment and energy, education, and community service. As Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, noted, "We're going to come at you with some specific 'asks' here."

One might have assumed that the "asks" to the artistic community would lead to public outrage. After all, the fiercely independent artists are being told that promoting the president's agenda might result in NEA grants. In fact, it appears that taxpayer money is being employed to enlist artists in a promotional campaign for the president. It is hard to imagine what kind of journalistic explosion would have occurred if the erstwhile Bush administration tried anything like this.

NEA funding has always been controversial because there are critics -- I count myself among them -- who believe the government should not be funding the arts at all. To avoid controversy that emerged from Serrano's work and Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photography, the NEA allocated funds to state and local arts agencies where there was somewhat less chance controversial decisions world emerge.

But that is changing with the Obama team. The Stimulus Package, for example, includes an additional $50 million for the arts, presumably to maintain employment in this field. The DC Examiner, however, points out that seven of the groups receiving this NEA funding had representatives on the Obama campaign's Arts Policy Committee.

In what seems like the very distant past, the NEA explained that it could not interfere with the artworks of those who received grants from the agency. Dana Gioia, former NEA chairman, wrote "the NEA does not dictate arts policy to the United States."

Of course, under President Obama that is precisely what it does. Is a culture czar far fetched, one who assures us that the arts are needed to enhance presidential actions? Where are the artists who celebrate their adversarial role?

Oprah Winfrey recently produced a video urging Americans to take a "presidential pledge" by volunteering "to make a difference." The lead singer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers says, "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama."

Where is artistic defiance when you need it? The comments by the arts community are dripping with hypocrisy. Artistic expression in the Obama era appears to be little more than a compliant political instrument. 1984 may be a quarter of a century in the past, but the sentiments in this book indicate it is back to the future as Obama pays artists to propagandize on his behalf. It is hard to believe this is happening in the United States with the willing acceptance of the artistic community, but there you have it. *

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." --Patrick Henry