I apologize for the lack of articles as of late. Work has taken up much of my free time over the past few weeks. Hopefully that will pass soon. In the mean time, I had a few thoughts on three similar topics that I wanted to share with you.

What does the term “hallowed ground” truly mean? Essentially, it is an area that is deemed to be sacred and set apart. Churches, for example, are said to be built on hallowed ground. The same is true for cemeteries and areas that have seen a great loss of life. So it was interesting that I’ve heard the term hallowed ground mentioned in three separate news stories over the past week.

During the debate over the proposed mosque near the World Trade Center site, President Obama stated that “Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” But just how far does that hallowed ground stretch? Is it just the area around the footprints of the fallen buildings? The distance where debris fell into the surrounding blocks? Or is it arbitrary depending on what is being developed around it?

In a similar story, Mindy Crawford from the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, “It is altogether fitting and proper that gambling be kept away from Gettysburg’s hallowed ground.” But where does the hallowed ground end? Just in the area where the main fighting took place? Within the National Park boundary? How about the greater area outside of the Park?

The last story I heard was a renewed debate over the Westboro Baptist Church and their protests at funerals for fallen soldiers. Chief US District Judge Fernando Gaitan struck down a Missouri law that barred inflammatory protests outside the funerals, stating that it violated the First Amendment by placing restrictions of free speech. In the law was a requirement to bar protests within 300 feet of the funeral.

So how should we define hallowed ground, and who should make the determination of where it begins and ends? These three examples about are difficult to resolve because it is emotion-based and subjective. Is it disrespectful to build a Mosque two blocks away from the World Trade Center? Or a casino a half-mile away from the Gettysburg National Park? How about protests outside the gates of a cemetery?

For me, the I think the last is the easiest to answer. I doubt a loving God would want his followers to protest the funerals of troops who died during war. There should be some limit on “where” such protests can be held. Such limitations have held up in court, since it is a common practice within Washington, DC to bar protests from certain areas around the Capitol building and White House.

The question over the casino would be the next easiest answer. The National Park engulfs a large area of the battle field as well as the neighboring cemeteries. Building a casino a half-mile away should not be an issue, especially since archaeologists will be brought in before any major ground-breaking and construction begins. Additionally, the casino could result in increased awareness of major Civil War battle site, and the revenue from the casino could increase the educational resources for visitors to the Park.

The hardest question is that for the Mosque. While it is true that it was Islamic terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11th, it wasn’t an act by Muslims as a whole (if so, then we would have to worry about 7 Million Muslims in the United States). So building a Mosque near the WTC site just for that narrow reason alone should not be an issue.

The issue comes to the politics behind building the Mosque. Reports show that there is a low population of Muslims in Lower Manhattan, so there isn’t a “demand” for the center in that area. Is the Mosque being built as a poke in the eye to Americans, or is it being built as a bridge to a better understanding of Islam? If it is for any reason other than a slight towards the United States, then I don’t see why it can’t be relocated. After all, if you are going to invest that much money, you would want it to be easily accessible for your congregation. However, if it is for the other reason, which it sounds like it is, then I’m sure the developer will find many more obstacles for development, making it financially prohibitive in the long run.

In short, I think you should take away from all of this one simple note. No matter what you do in life, stop and think about how others might view your actions and how it will impact their lives. In this faster pace life of ours, we tend to act first and think second. If we just slow that process down a little, we can take others into consideration, and make wiser decisions that not only benefit ourselves but also those around us. That, I think, would be a great way to remember all of those who went before us to give us this great nation we have today.

NOTE:  I will try to get the Political Blog Weekly published tomorrow.  If not, I will incorporate it into next weekends edition.

As the debate over the proposed Mosque located near the Ground Zero site in New York City continues, I’ve heard many opinions on the radio and read many online.  They have ranged from First Amendment arguments to arguments over sensitivity.

Our long-time friend over at EGO has the following advice when approaching the topic:

It is important that the resistance against the building of the mosque is based on rational arguments and that you prevent that the demonstrations against it will be hijacked by “dark elements” (read: collectivists) as it happened in Gothenburg, Sweden. I think that Dr. Leonard Peikoff and Amy Peikoff have given the best arguments for not having a mosque in New York city, near Ground Zero.

The New Clarion defines two possible realities:

In this case, since the government is defaulting on its proper role (the safeguarding of a civilized order, where such things as property rights hold sway), we are placed in the position of considering the lesser of two choices, both of which are rotten when seen in the light of derivative principles, but nonetheless necessary. Choices like this are of an emergency nature, like medical triage, and involve tradeoffs (NOT “sacrifices”) that morally we should never be asked to make.

In this case, the alternative we face is the following: permitting the enemy a symbolic success as Embedded I describes here, versus interdicting that symbol at the cost of emboldening the statists, our enemies in *this* country — and of further sanctioning the accelerating expansion of an out-of-control State.

Our friends over at Questions and Observations add:

Exactly right. Another way of saying all of this is “grow up”. You either have religious freedom and ownership rights or you don’t. It isn’t a “right” if it can be selectively applied under the arbitrary rubric of “what is right” fueled by bigotry.

And, as inevitable as the rising sun, you can count on politicians gearing up for a run for office to grab the populist opportunity to chime in and side with the bigots because it is the popular thing to do.

Taking a different approach on the issue, the Atheist Revolution proposes:

For me, the problem with the proposed center is not that it is Muslim but that it is religious in any way. Given that 9/11 probably would not have happened but for religion, it seems like a secular center to promote tolerance would be a more appropriate choice. The thing is, that is not what is being proposed. So the question must be about whether this particular center should be permitted and not about whether some other hypothetical center would be better.

I so not see any defensible grounds for denying permission to build the proposed center. Yes, we could have a “no religion of any kind near Ground Zero” policy, but this would not be constitutional. So yeah, if it was my decision (and I am glad it isn’t), I’d allow the proposed center to be built. There is no other choice.

TalkLeft chimes in with the following:

I agree the Islamic Center has every bit as much of a right to be built on the site as any other kind of building. To reject it because of 9/11 is to further the very prejudices we should be striving to overcome.

Islam is a religion, it is not al Qaeda. Tolerance will get us a lot farther than blind prejudice.

Lastly, our fellow SeededBuzzer Just Joe adds:

I haven’t said anything yet about the Ground Zero Mosque issue. Too many other ridiculous voices were making noise over how peaceful Muslims should “refudiate” the mosque and others who think we should flush the entire First Amendment and not build any mosques anywhere until Saudi Arabia decides to build churches.

In my view, it boils down to two things: doing what’s right and what you have the right to do.  Those wanting to build the Mosque have the right to do so as long as it meets the local zoning laws.  As the vote earlier this week shows, the city has no plan to block the construction of the Mosque.  On the other hand, they might better serve the city by choosing an alternate location away from a controversial site.  If the Mosque is going to draw the ire of the local community, it is possible that it could lead to vandalism of the Mosque because it might become a symbol that caused the tragedy on September 11th.

My hope mirrors that of the Atheist Revolution.  If the site is used more as a cultural center rather than a religious facility, it might help to heal some of the wounds caused by a handful of fanatics.  We’ve mended fences with the citizens of Japan, and we can do the same with Muslims.

Roughly nine months ago, we witnessed what happens when the commanding officer in a theater of war criticises the decisions coming out of Washington. General Stanley McChrystal made a few public speeches and interviews expressing his doubt about the current state in Afghanistan while laying out his case for additional troops on the ground. The impression that was made was that the Obama administration were dragging their feet. McChrystal was eventually called back to Washington for a face-to-face meeting with the President (the first time they met since he was placed in charge of the Afghanistan operation).

In round 2, the General (and some of his aides) was the subject of an eight-page article titled “The Runaway General” in the latest edition of Rolling Stone magazine. In this article, the General takes on a laundry list of individuals including Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden, and even the President himself. According to the article:

Joe Biden – aides joked that his last name sounded like “bite me”
Karl Eikenberry – McChrystal said he felt betrayed over Eikenberry’s opinions expressed in a leaked internal document
Richard Holbrooke – aide referred to him as a wounded animal, and McChrystal groaned over constant e-mails from Holbrooke
Jim Jones – an aide called him a clown
President Obama – McChrystal said the President was disappointing unprepared during their first meeting

Some of the comments surrounding this article touches on the amount of access Rolling Stone had with the General. Due to a fluke event of nature (the volcanic eruption in Iceland that grounded European flights), Michael Hastings had his two-day interview with the General extended to a month. He followed McChrystal and his aides across Europe to Afghanistan during this period, allowing the aides to grow comfortable with the reporter. At one point while they were in Paris, the reporter and the Generals’ staff were out on the town for the evening. Some of the aides consumed too much alcohol and grew more candid as time went on. Hastings says this is where most of the controversial comments originated.

In my article nine months ago, I asked two questions: Was McChrystal right? Was McChrystal in the right? In this case, as the last, the General was wrong for criticizing the President. While he (and we) might not agree with the decisions coming from Washington when it comes to war, the commanding officer’s role is to enact those orders. Questioning or criticizing the orders in public weakens the chain of command and can put a campaign into complete disarray, which brings us to the biggest question of the day. What will happen to McChrystal?

The General received a pass last year, but it is highly unlikely for that to happen again. Insubordination is taken seriously in the armed forces, and even more so when it comes to the officers. History shows how flag officers have been recalled or reassigned after challenging their civilian leadership. Just look back at the actions of Generals MacArthur, Patton, and Abizaid for example.

The one thing that can save McChrystal’s command is the chain reaction that might occur by recalling, reassigning, or retiring of the General. The aides to the General will need to be replaced, since they are equally at fault for the content in the article. Additionally, Eikenberry would need to be replaced because he has no faith in the current Afghan leadership, and it was his opinions in an internal document that drove a wedge between himself and McCrystal as well as the US and Afghanistan. Removing the official representative of the United States to Afghanistan as well as the commanding officer of US forces (who shares a close relationship with Karzai) would cause a power vacuum on our side. Also, we are currently building up to a large operation in Kandahar, with McChrystal playing a major role in the strategy and coordination of forces and supplies. Replacing him now would delay the operation even more, and the replacement might not have the full vision of what the General was trying to achieve.

Expect the General to submit his resignation tomorrow when he meets with the President. After making formal apologies today, this would be the next step in the process for the General to admit his insubordination. It would be up to the President to accept the resignation, reassign the General, or reprimand him while returning him to his post. In my view, I have a feeling Obama will accept the resignation.