More on the Mosque Debate

Jim Harper:

There is a strategic dimension to the story. This episode is signaling to audiences around the world the current relationship between the United States and Islam. These audiences might support or oppose the United States and act accordingly to undermine or support terrorist groups. For these people, knowledge of a Muslim community, active in New York and proximate to Ground Zero, would help put the lie to the “clash of civilizations” narrative sought by al-Qaeda and its franchises, undercutting their support.

The debate itself sends signals: If the United States were predominantly anti-Muslim, this debate wouldn’t be happening. If our political leaders had the power to decide matters of religious observance, this debate wouldn’t be happening. The debate is helping to show Muslim populations around the world—who might not know otherwise—that we think and debate about these things, that we are a functioning democratic republic, and that our country is undecided about the position of Muslims in the United States or, at worst, weakly anti-Muslim.

The debate only sends signals to literate Mahomedans but sadly most are anything but.

PS I really wanted to say: "but sadly most are illiterate goat-fucking tribal pedophile peasants who like to stone women and hang gays."

PPS Maybe I should start a new blog called "Somebody has to say it." Nope - I'm an old-fashioned conservative who believes that some limitations are good.