Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dianahsieh

NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

"Descent" is quite a broad continuum, but let's look at the relevant extreme: Suppose it's 1942 and a guy who has just immigrated from Japan walks into a gun store and wants to buy a dozen automatic rifles. That OK with you?

I don't use Facebook, so I don't know what is being given as reason for preventing this mosque from being built. However, although you have only posted short statements on this thread, I tend to agree with your line of thinking here. It would not be ok for a Japanese, in the above context, to freely buy dozens of automatic rifles. Additionally, while most of the talk in the 40s about a fifth column was mostly hype and generally unsubstantiated, I applaud the actions taken by the government to actively monitor, watch, and investigate Japanese at the beginning of the war--the same goes for Germans and, later, Russians. Were civil liberties--and individual rights--violated during these times, sure, unfortunately, we were at war--this should not be taken as an excuse for the excesses of the various programs. Just as rights can and are violated by our active police force, as a result of them doing their job of protecting rights, so to will rights be violated when fighting foreign agents on our own soil.

Currently, the country is at war with Islamic theocracy, indeed, with a particular brand of Islam, fundamental Islam. Therefore, the same actions that have occurred in the past, to protect the country and our rights, should be applied to our current threat: the proper agencies should be actively monitoring and investigating moslems and supporters of Islamic regimes for sedition, subversion, and treason. In light of such proper actions by our government against threats to it, it doesn't seem too far fetched to me that some Objectivists are against the building of this mosque--whether or not they are correct in their conclusion is a different matter. In any case, if it were determined that this mosque and the proponents behind it were a threat and acting against this country--that they are indeed subversive and agents working against our rights--then the mosque should not be built.

Additionally, what is kind of startling is the way people are jumping to conclusions against others or even questioning their principles in how they relate to Objectivism. It should be remembered that Objectivism is not libertarianism: civil liberties is not a sacred cow that must be upheld at all times, in all situations. Objectivism is about using reason for life on earth, and all things must be put into context. Sometimes, because of the actions of our enemies--their violation of our rights--the rights and liberties of individuals are sometimes violated in the pursuit of squashing the enemy. This is how Leonard Peikoff can make an analogy about attacking the home of a citizen, because a criminal is shooting out of it, even when the property will be destroyed and the citizen possibly killed--similar libertarian questions have been asked and answered in the past, of which I will not be looking up the sources, but this particular one either came from Peikoff's radio show or the Andrew Lewis show. Essentially, and to reiterate my position, I do not think anyone, when asked if it is ok for a Japanese immigrant to buy dozens of automatic rifles, after a Japanese invasion, should automatically conclude that they have that right; I would only expect such things from a libertarian or lawyer for the ACLU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Objectivism is not libertarianism, but it is not conservatism either. The idea that rights of minorities can be violated in order to protect the country is not rationally supported. It contradicts the principle of individual rights (as outlined by Feather's and David's posts earlier) and is fully susceptible to the above reductio ad absurdum. There can be no such “violating rights in order to protect rights” policy by government. You don't uphold rights by violating them. You don't uphold using reason for life on earth by destroying men's capability of using it. Again the question must be answered: What force as that mosque initiated? None. What laws have they broken? None. There is no justification to forcibly shut it down.

No one is saying that the government should not investigate and even spy on suspicious characters and groups, just that it should be objectively done in accordance with probable cause and the rule of law, not on the principle of collectivism and whim-based emotional reactions to foreigners (eg., the people in that “mosque protest” that surrounded two Egyptian men and began shouting at them, even though they turned out to be Christians and were against the mosque at ground zero.) If the mosque has ties to terrorists groups, it should be investigated and those involved charged, but nobody has any evidence of criminal wrongdoing here.

We are against religion, period. Against all mosques, churches, and temples everywhere. Going to “protest the mosque at ground zero” with a bunch of (I like how David puts it) frothingly irrational conservatives is not exactly the most rational way to spread the right ideas in opposition to Islam.

Do you agree with statements like “Muslims don't have any property rights” and “there are no peaceful Muslims” and “everyone that loves life has a duty to destroy that mosque!” and “our enemies are trying to use our virtue of respecting individual rights against us, so we should stop respecting individual rights of Muslims” and “we can't allow open immigration because too many Muslims might come in!”?

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, it is not possible to get rid of Facebook once you've created it; I don't need any more spam in my life.

?? There is no spam, I have no idea what you are referring to there, as far as having an account you cannot get rid of...that is only a problem if you are putting information on there that you should not have put on there in the first place, and even if you did, there are plenty of other places on the internet, many that don't require your registration that will get that information and sell it/distribute it anyways. This is besides the point however and is not conducive to or even part of the discussion in this thread however so I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's already a link in Diana's post to the FB conversation.

If you read other peoples comments....a lot of people cannot use that link. I wouldn't have spent 10 minutes of my time fixing that up for no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we need to shut down the mosque at ground zero to defend ourselves?

We need to do a lot more than that.

I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation, but as a general principle, if somebody has started a war against you, then you use all the force it takes to defend yourself against whomever is associated with the enemy. Whether the person happens to be on U.S. soil or abroad at the moment is a non-essential. Whether a particular building is claimed as a religious place by the enemy is also irrelevant; you are free to exercise any religion in the U.S. as long as you respect the rights of others, but if your religion asks you to kill infidels, then you are not free to exercise that.

Besides, from the limited information that I do have on the matter, it strikes me as dishonest to say that Pamela "wants to use the power of the state to prevent the mosque from being built" in the first place. It's not like she is advocating some new kind of government power, she's only asking the bureaucrats to wield the power they already have in a way that favors us rather than the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation, but as a general principle, if somebody has started a war against you, then you use all the force it takes to defend yourself against whomever is associated with the enemy. Whether the person happens to be on U.S. soil or abroad at the moment is a non-essential. Whether a particular building is claimed as a religious place by the enemy is also irrelevant; you are free to exercise any religion in the U.S. as long as you respect the rights of others, but if your religion asks you to kill infidels, then you are not free to exercise that.

In this specific situation, I'm not aware of this mosque being used to support the enemy in any way....yet. If evidence becomes available that Islamic Fundamentalists are using the mosque to support action against the US either here or abroad, then I would shut it down in a New York minute (no pun intended). Until that evidence is available, I don't see how a rights respecting government can take action against individuals who are not yet known to be hostile. Remember, this should be a war against Fundamentalist Islam and its active supporters, not against Islam itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swine, thanks for posting that. It will take some weeks to dissect the voluminous verbiage. I have skimmed the material, and it appears to me that there is not actually a concrete government action being proposed (not in this thread). The closest to a concrete proposal is Ben Bayer's initial statement about a non-participant: "Geller is talking about suing to stop it from being built and is urging her followers to pressure the government to do so". Rather than putting attention on the nature of that act, the discussion seems to focus on justifying an unnamed or under-specified action.

Diana make a very apt comment in her post: "Ayn Rand, in contrast, always took a principled approach". The idea of a "principled approach", when it comes to government, means "conducting government according to the rule of law". The concept "law" does not simply mean "any action performed by the government in pursuit of an end", it refers to a system of objective moral concepts which will be enforced, by government, on people. This means, then, that not only must those principles be justified by reference to reality -- the nature of man and the function of government -- but they must also be stated objectively, in the fashion that is proper for man's cognition -- as concepts, omitting inessential specifics, which open-endedly identify any individual subsumed under the concept.

It is striking that supposed Objectivists fail to identify an objective legal concept that leads to the government forbidding the construction of a mosque on private property. With due apologies to the author, in case there is someone in that long thread who actually identified a correct, objective legal concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether a particular building is claimed as a religious place by the enemy is also irrelevant; you are free to exercise any religion in the U.S. as long as you respect the rights of others, but if your religion asks you to kill infidels, then you are not free to exercise that.

I think you need to take a step back and look at what you are implying should be done here....and you also need to take a minute to think about how religions work. Not how they are supposed to work, but how they actually work. The people with your position on this are taking what is said in their book as the ultimate concrete respecting their religion and ignoring a whole lot of other facts of reality in the process.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Objectivism is not libertarianism, but it is not conservatism either. The idea that rights of minorities can be violated in order to protect the country is not rationally supported. It contradicts the principle of individual rights (as outlined by Feather's and David's posts earlier) and is fully susceptible to the above reductio ad absurdum. There can be no such “violating rights in order to protect rights” policy by government. You don't uphold rights by violating them. You don't uphold using reason for life on earth by destroying men's capability of using it. Again the question must be answered: What force as that mosque initiated? None. What laws have they broken? None. There is no justification to forcibly shut it down.

No one is saying that the government should not investigate and even spy on suspicious characters and groups, just that it should be objectively done in accordance with probable cause and the rule of law, not on the principle of collectivism and whim-based emotional reactions to foreigners (eg., the people in that “mosque protest” that surrounded two Egyptian men and began shouting at them, even though they turned out to be Christians and were against the mosque at ground zero.) If the mosque has ties to terrorists groups, it should be investigated and those involved charged, but nobody has any evidence of criminal wrongdoing here.

We are against religion, period. Against all mosques, churches, and temples everywhere. Going to “protest the mosque at ground zero” with a bunch of (I like how David puts it) frothingly irrational conservatives is not exactly the most rational way to spread the right ideas in opposition to Islam.

Do you agree with statements like “Muslims don't have any property rights” and “there are no peaceful Muslims” and “everyone that loves life has a duty to destroy that mosque!” and “our enemies are trying to use our virtue of respecting individual rights against us, so we should stop respecting individual rights of Muslims” and “we can't allow open immigration because too many Muslims might come in!”?

I wasn't taking the position that every possible action could be committed in order to protect the country--a collectivistic conception of country is being used here. The government is there to protect the rights of its citizens, so I don't promote the idea of the "country" being the base unit of political ethics; therefore, there is nothing conservative about my argument. If you weren't referencing this type of conservatism, then I don't know what you would be talking about. Additionally, I never wrote or implied that the government should have a policy of violating rights, and if you are going to quote me, try to actually quote what I have written.

The gist of what I previously wrote was that to uphold rights, out of context, like some libertarian, is wrong. In the process of protecting rights, our active police and government agencies sometimes violate rights. Note here that the policy is not violating rights, but is instead protecting rights. If some fugitive is on the run, maybe you'll get stopped; if a criminal goes into your yard, expect the law to give chase; when the government has reason to believe that a person of interest is in contact with you or is in your area, maybe your phones will be monitored; if a group is related to an invader who just attacked your country, they shouldn't be allowed to stock up on weapons and ammunition.

Furthermore, remember also that I wrote that in order for this mosque to be banned, there must be some threat:

In light of such proper actions by our government against threats to it, it doesn't seem too far fetched to me that some Objectivists are against the building of this mosque--whether or not they are correct in their conclusion is a different matter. In any case, if it were determined that this mosque and the proponents behind it were a threat and acting against this country--that they are indeed subversive and agents working against our rights--then the mosque should not be built.
I still stand by that opinion.

As for those 'statements,' no, I don't agree with them. However, I do partially agree with one, and it somewhat applies to this discussion: “our enemies are trying to use our virtue of respecting individual rights against us, so we should stop respecting individual rights of Muslims”. While I don't know exactly how many agents of our enemy use such a method to destroy us, our virtue of respecting individual rights can definitely assist the enemy, especially when such a virtue is taken out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there is nothing out of context about my examination of how rights should be protected. If anything, then you are sounding like some libertarian-conservative-sectarian that doesn't put rights into an integrated context.

And I will quote you here (I wasn't quoting you before)

In the process of protecting rights, our active police and government agencies sometimes violate rights. Note here that the policy is not violating rights, but is instead protecting rights.

I don't think that is right. If the policy is that in protecting rights, sometimes rights must be violated, then the policy is “violating rights to protect rights.” “Sometimes we violate a little bit of rights, in order to protect a lot of rights.”

This isn't at all consistent with Objectivism, as I understand it anyway, (that should not be taken as an appeal to authority) and I don't think it makes sense period, given a coherent description of rights, like this one:

When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate -- not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.

You cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday," just as you cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in an emergency," or "man's rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose." (“Textbook of Americanism”)

The examples you gave were a false analogy. There is no such “right to harbor a rights-violator” or if the police stop me, unless I've committed a crime or am subject to probable cause, I can refuse to answer questions and leave.

The third example you give is where I attribute the conservatism. The idea that a group or individual is related to another, then he is morally responsible for the other group's actions is as Diana said, pure collectivism, if not outright racism, or “the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.” (“Racism”)

Yes, if someone is affiliated (by choice) with someone else who has committed an invasion, then he may be treated as the enemy, but not simply because he shares a common genetic lineage or chose the same religion. Upholding that principle (collectivism) as a basis for government force “invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty.” And again, you don't uphold using reason for life on earth by destroying men's capability of using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read other peoples comments....a lot of people cannot use that link. I wouldn't have spent 10 minutes of my time fixing that up for no reason.

I think you should reconsider your posting of that material. That conversation was conducted on Facebook -- not a public forum. People who choose not to get Facebook accounts don't get to read stuff on Facebook. That's their choice, and that's the price they pay. Personally, I don't mind that my comments were reproduced, but I know that others might for various good reasons. You didn't get permission from everyone on that thread to post their comments, but I think that's what you'd need to do.

I suggest that you remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should reconsider your posting of that material. That conversation was conducted on Facebook -- not a public forum. People who choose not to get Facebook accounts don't get to read stuff on Facebook. That's their choice, and that's the price they pay. Personally, I don't mind that my comments were reproduced, but I know that others might for various good reasons. You didn't get permission from everyone on that thread to post their comments, but I think that's what you'd need to do.

I suggest that you remove it.

While I understand what you are saying, and I agree with this part: "You didn't get permission from everyone on that thread to post their comments" that means you should remove your link as well. Simply having a facebook account (which is all that is required to view it, not being friends with Edward Cline) is not automatically a qualifier for that invasion, as you have in fact made it available on a public forum without their permission in this case. The only difference is that it takes a person an extra 2 minutes to make a facebook account and then never add any information to their profile (and the information given thus far in the profile creation could have easily been fake or irrelevant).

I cannot delete it myself unfortunately at this point, but I will make sure someone does so. (My posts of it)

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand what you are saying, and I agree with this part: "You didn't get permission from everyone on that thread to post their comments" that means you should remove your link as well. Simply having a facebook account (which is all that is required to view it, not being friends with Edward Cline) is not automatically a qualifier for that invasion, as you have in fact made it available on a public forum without their permission in this case. The only difference is that it takes a person an extra 2 minutes to make a facebook account and then never add any information to their profile (and the information given thus far in the profile creation could have easily been fake or irrelevant).

(1) You say that, but you've not actually removed or edited your posts. So that looks like tu quoque to me, rather than a genuine concern on your part.

(2) You're wrong to claim that I should remove my link. People commented willingly on Ed's Facebook thread, knowing that lots of people (whether Just Ed's friends or friends of friends or anyone on FB) would be able to view that thread. (However, people they'd blocked would not be able to see their comments.) My linking to it didn't change that one iota. However, those people had no reason to expect that thread to be reproduced in a public forum, viewable to anyone and everyone, such that it would be made subject to Google searches. At least one person who posted on that thread is not happy about that, and for good reason. Of course, if that person -- or anyone else on that thread -- requested that I remove the link due to privacy or other reasonable concerns, I would do so ... pronto.

I'm not going to engage in further debate on this topic. Do what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) You say that, but you've not actually removed or edited your posts. So that looks like tu quoque to me, rather than a genuine concern on your part.

(2) You're wrong to claim that I should remove my link. People commented willingly on Ed's Facebook thread, knowing that lots of people (whether Just Ed's friends or friends of friends or anyone on FB) would be able to view that thread. (However, people they'd blocked would not be able to see their comments.) My linking to it didn't change that one iota. However, those people had no reason to expect that thread to be reproduced in a public forum, viewable to anyone and everyone, such that it would be made subject to Google searches. At least one person who posted on that thread is not happy about that, and for good reason. Of course, if that person -- or anyone else on that thread -- requested that I remove the link due to privacy or other reasonable concerns, I would do so ... pronto.

I'm not going to engage in further debate on this topic. Do what you will.

(1) I said in my last post that I am UNABLE to remove it, I also cannot edit it after a certain length of time and that time has long passed. As in it won't let me. I reported both posts with comments to remove them at behest of the thread creator. Not my fault the moderators haven't gotten to it yet.

(2) Facebook is subject to google searches first of all, albeit I am not sure if privacy constraints effect that and to what degree, all I know is it is google searchable. Second, I was unaware of any blocking that had gone on, that changes things quite a bit. As this is text-only I cannot tell if you are taking this in a confrontational way, but that is how I am reading it. There was no intention on my part to come off as rude or confrontational, I am sorry if that is how you interpreted it.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) I said in my last post that I am UNABLE to remove it, I also cannot edit it after a certain length of time and that time has long passed. As in it won't let me. I reported both posts with comments to remove them at behest of the thread creator. Not my fault the moderators haven't gotten to it yet.

(2) Facebook is subject to google searches first of all, albeit I am not sure if privacy constraints effect that and to what degree, all I know is it is google searchable. Second, I was unaware of any blocking that had gone on, that changes things quite a bit. As this is text-only I cannot tell if you are taking this in a confrontational way, but that is how I am reading it. There was no intention on my part to come off as rude or confrontational, I am sorry if that is how you interpreted it.

First, my apologies. I was in a less-than-benevolent mood when I wrote my last post, largely due to fatigue and hunger. I didn't recognize that at the time of writing, and so I took out my grumpiness on you. I'm sorry about that; it wasn't fair.

I don't know about the general accessibility of FB material via Google, but that thread does not seem to be part of Google's archives. And thanks much for contacting the moderators about your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to take a step back and look at what you are implying should be done here

What am I implying? The implication may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me.

What is all too obvious, though, is the implications of the contrary view, i.e. that people should be free to act on any commandment of murder as long as it comes from a religion. It is quite true that most religious people don't take everything in their holy books seriously, and if a religion is actually peaceful in spite of what its books say, then people should be free to practice its ceremonies and quote from the books etc. But Islam is anything but peaceful at this point in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is all too obvious, though, is the implications of the contrary view, i.e. that people should be free to act on any commandment of murder as long as it comes from a religion.

This is fallacious. This is not the implication of the contrary view. Not the contrary view here anyways. On some liberal website on the web it might be, but that is not the contrary view on this website...the one presented here in this thread. That is, the Objectivist view. I don't know what category your view is in but it is certainly not in the category of the philosophy of Objectivism. The implication I was alluding to is what you further clarified in this post. That because the fundamental religion suggests violence that it should be banned merely for that reason, removing all context as to how ridiculously complex Islam is or the fact that the vast majority of those who practice it, at least in the West, are not true believers/do not follow such. You are suggesting for the government to intercede based on an attribution to the entire group, when it is only legitimate if there is evaluation on an individual basis...such as if the individual or individuals that are funding and running this mosque are tied to objectively evidential individuals or organizations which blatantly wish to use violence to impose their religion upon Americans, and as has been discussed thoroughly, there is as of yet no real evidence of that, and even if there was, it would only legitimize action against this specific mosque, not all mosques, not the entire religion, and not all of its members or half-assed advocates.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swine, you still seem to be confusing war with crime. You fight criminals as individuals, but you cannot fight a war that way. And don't call your view "the Objectivist one" ; doing so doesn't convince any rational person of anything, and it is not up to you to decide what is Objectivist and what is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There still has to be evidence that a person in your country (or any country) is acting for or with the help of the enemy. In this case, the enemy abides by "fundamentalist totalitarian Islam", and those countries or groups are mainly Iran, but also Lebanon, Turkey, Hamas, Taliban, etc. Even Yaron Brook separates "regular" Muslims from "fundamentalist-totalitarian" Muslims. When that evidence is put forward, ie that the funding for the mosque was wholly or partially funded through Iran or other such groups, then those individuals should be treated as enemies of the state, not mere criminals.

Of course, in the long term, the ideological enemy is religion in general, including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism - as well as Islam. But in the short term, it's "fundamentalist Islam" which is the immediate threat to life and liberty here in the West and the rest of the world (including Iranians themselves). When and if the US and NATO wages war on those countries, they need to use the help of as many Western sympathizers (I know many such people in Maldives) as possible, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What I take from that FB conversation is that many of those people (minus Mrs. Hsieh) are arguing that the West wages war against all Muslims and suspends their rights, regardless of their actions, here in Western countries.

I would think the FBI or CIA, even the Israeli intelligence, would have evidence of the funding or connections of that mosque and come out with it by now. If they don't have evidence, why not? If they do have evidence, why haven't they come out with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swine, you still seem to be confusing war with crime. You fight criminals as individuals, but you cannot fight a war that way.

It seems to me that you are saying this, in effect: When we ask you to show how the mosque builders have innitiated force, we do so because we have confused acts of war with criminal action. It also seems to me that you deem the building of this mosque on private property (with private funds) to be an act of war. Have I understood you correctly?

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think the FBI or CIA, even the Israeli intelligence, would have evidence of the funding or connections of that mosque and come out with it by now. If they don't have evidence, why not? If they do have evidence, why haven't they come out with it?

Political correctness, the same pervasive willful blindness motivating the denial that Nidal Hassan was a threat until he started killing people on a Texas army base. Bush and Obama put forth the lie that Islam is a religion of peace. Obama as the chief executive in charge of the FBI and CIA, and the Justice Department can and does interfere with investigations. Israeli intelligence has its own country to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swine, you still seem to be confusing war with crime. You fight criminals as individuals, but you cannot fight a war that way. And don't call your view "the Objectivist one" ; doing so doesn't convince any rational person of anything, and it is not up to you to decide what is Objectivist and what is not.

"and it is not up to you to decide what is Objectivist and what is not."

I can understand and accept your statement/criticism. I made that statement because I believe your conclusions here to be in conflict with general objectivist principles.

You cannot have a war with an idea, you can fight it with other ideas, but not with bombs, and last I checked there is no country called Islam. Secondly, the fact it is a "war" doesn't change the fact that evidence must be shown that they are a threat where force may be used against them to protect individuals in the society from individual right violations. Last I checked some brown dudes on their knees praying to Mecca are not an active threat against my individual rights. We are "at war" with the followers of islamic totalitarianism, not Islam in general, which is how you seem to be treating it. As far as the individuals vs. groups thing, that may be true when we are in a hostile country, but that does not apply here in our own country on this matter. Now, if these specific Muslims were proven to be affiliated with a hostile group, that is another story. You must first start with the individual. You do not seem to be making the necessary differentiation between the hostile sub-group and other groups within the larger group. Please tell me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying.

the same pervasive willful blindness motivating the denial that Nidal Hassan was a threat until he started killing people on a Texas army base

This difference was that with Nidal there was evidence, and many people stated there was evidence of such motives prior to the event. The bureaucracy/political correctness just suppressed it the the extent where no action was taken. So far I have not even seen a shred of evidence in regards to this Mosque that it is an active threat, and no one here has ever suggested action not be taken if such is presented. More people than just the government are involved in this one also. If there was something to dig up, someone would manage it.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You cannot have a war with an idea, you can fight it with other ideas, but not with bombs

Certainly--but when people act on the idea, you may have to defend yourself with bombs.

We are "at war" with the followers of islamic totalitarianism, not Islam in general, which is how you seem to be treating it.

The problem is that it is often not easy to tell the two apart. If a person makes it clear that he is opposed to totalitarian Islam, I have no problem with him performing Islamic rituals and building mosques on his property etc., just as I would have had no problem during WWII with a person from Germany or Japan who has given some solid evidence that he is opposed to the regime of his country and wishes to be a free American citizen. But note that in this situation, it is up to him to remove any doubt as to where his allegiance lies; due to his association with the enemy, involuntary as it may be, we cannot presume his innocence, and no "neutrality" is possible to him--he has to be either with us or against us. This is the difference between fighting crime and fighting a war: if we are at war with your country (or other organized group), then the default position is that you are a target.

As I said, I don't know much about the details of this proposed mosque, but given that they just "happen" to be building it right next to Ground Zero and just "happen" to want to start construction exactly on September 11--well, I just "happen" to have a hunch that they are not exactly pro-American. (And here's some background on them, BTW.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roland, did I get your position correct in post 46? Is building this mosque an act of war? Also, would you support rounding up every muslim and forcing them to affirm or deny their support for Sharia law?

Political correctness, the same pervasive willful blindness motivating the denial that Nidal Hassan was a threat until he started killing people on a Texas army base. Bush and Obama put forth the lie that Islam is a religion of peace. Obama as the chief executive in charge of the FBI and CIA, and the Justice Department can and does interfere with investigations.

Grames,

In addition, our government is no longer to use the phrase "Islamic Terrorism". That makes it pretty hard to publicly call them out if they are funneling money to terrorist groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...