Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.
This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.
There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.
The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.
Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.
Ron Paul talks good sense. It’s a breath of fresh air in the tired ‘mosque debate’ to have someone take it back to the real issues — the conflation of Islam and terrorism. If we want others to break that connection, we should start at home first.
To insinuate that Ron Paul was ever affiliated with the Tea Party Rallies hosted by Fox News in 2009 is dishonest.
During the election Fox News tried hard to ignore the grass roots support of Ron Paul until the December 16th money bomb, which was the largest single-day fundraiser of any kind in U.S. presidential campaign history.
After the election Fox News and Astro Turfing organizations hijacked this support and fomented a vile sentiment for the purpose of protecting corporate interests by directing it away from Wall St. and Health Insurers and towards the government.
Ron Paul does not “talk good sense” (the left rarely, if ever, defends private property rights of American private businesses) any more than he talks good grammar (“Statistics of support is [sic] irrelevant” “defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech” “the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible” huh?!).
The guy does have some spine, but he’s still a nutjob.