Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Ground Zero Mosque

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Saw this announcement from Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard earlier:

"The print edition of the Fall issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, we are making my article “The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts” available on our website early and for free."

The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts by Craig Biddle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this announcement from Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard earlier:

"The print edition of the Fall issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, we are making my article “The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts” available on our website early and for free."

The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts by Craig Biddle

Very good article.

Violating the very principles we seek to defend is no way to defend those principles. In fact, doing so actually advances the enemy’s stated goal of “eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within.

If we want to protect civilized society, we must unwaveringly uphold the principles of civilized society—no matter how justifiably outraged we may become about the irrationalities and injustices perpetrated by our enemies. If, in an effort to stop Muslims from destroying America, we trample individual rights and the rule of law, we will have surrendered the very thing we were supposed to be fighting to protect.

Absolutely!

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, in an effort to stop Muslims from destroying America, we trample individual rights and the rule of law, we will have surrendered the very thing we were supposed to be fighting to protect.

If it could be proven that requiring the prospective mosque builders to relocate their project a few blocks over is necessarily and unavoidably a violation of their rights, then the case for allowing the mosque to go forward would be complete. Biddle has not established that. Neither have the Hsieh's or anyone else. The mosque or community center could be prevented on the basis of the priority of property rights claims of other property owners in the neighborhood, if any want to make that claim. I have also made the case that there is a similarity to extortionary threats carried to completion in the way that this building which will be used to spread Islam is only possible because of a crime motivated by Islam.

Biddle advocates America declare war on Saudi Arabia. Rights are universal, implying that individuals in Saudi Arabia have the same rights as the mosque builders. If Biddle regards Saudi Arabians as having surrendered their rights, then he should name the basis for that judgement. What exactly is the justification for war? I contend the case for war against Saudi Arabia requires exactly same kind of logical leap in moving from ideological cause to terroristic effect as the case against the GZM. I do not write "logical leap" in a pejorative sense, the case can be made but it will require reasoning from particulars to a generality to a particular just as for the GZM. Why is war seemingly so much easier to justify for the "respect property rights" faction than the legal case for a civil suit? War should be a measure of last resort.

Since Saudi Arabia is the location of Mecca and Medina and is the source of a large fraction of the world's oil supply, a war on Saudi Arabia would simultaneously be an assault on the physical manifestations of a religion and an economic calamity. This is supposed to be comparatively more reasonable than insisting the Ground Zero Mosque move a few blocks? Or is the war necessary to justify insisting that the GZM move a few blocks? An actual war on Islam (and it would be a war involving every country under the control of Islam, whether Biddle intends that or not) would be a basis for prohibiting the construction of any mosque, not just the GZM. It would be a needless escalation of the conflict.

We are no longer at war with Nazis and Imperialist Japanese because those nationalist movements could be defeated by defeating the nations involved. Where do we go to defeat a religion? The answer is: everywhere and nowhere. The analogy Biddle reaches for does not fit.

If it has to come down to a world war of America versus the Islamic world I like our chances (for now), and it would certainly be "clarifying", but it is foolish to seek that out as the preferred solution when others are available.

I find the article merely recapitulates the Hsieh position (no surprise since they helped to vet it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where everyone is making a mistake is in classifying Islam as simply another religion. It is not. It is a subversive political movement who's objective is the overthrow of Western democratic government and law and replacing it with Sharia law. Seen in this light, it is apparent that it is as dangerous as was Soviet style communism or Germany's fascism. Islam has no place in the West, it's values are incompatible with ours. A devout Muslim can not serve two masters, secular and Sharia. It's Allah or nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I agree with Biddle on one thing: Those four points on how average Americans can combat Islam are very good and well thought out.

However, I must condemn him for his stance on upholding the "rights" of the mosque owners. Normally when someone takes this stance, I give them the benefit of the doubt. I assume they must be ignorant or they don't fully understand one or more of the important concepts or principles involved. I've seen people take his stance because they misunderstand rights, but he seems to understand them. I've seen people take this stance because they aren't thinking in principles, but he seems to think in principles too. (And even has the gall to assume that people who support government force against the mosque aren't thinking in principles.) I've seen people take this stance because they don't think the mosque gives spiritual support to those who are seeking to destroy America. But Craig Biddle acknowledges that the mosque gives spiritual support to them! I've seen people take this stance because they think Islam is a peaceful religion. But he acknowledges that they aren't. I don't think I've seen anyone claim that we are not at war with fundamentalist Islam, but I'll include that too. Craig acknowledges that we are at war with them, even if the enemy is not identified by our leaders yet.

Craig Biddle acknowledges all the facts that should lead him to the same conclusion that I've reached. But he doesn't reach that conclusion! How? While he acknowledges that we are at war, he isn't actually applying that context to this situation I think. If he were, and if he were willing/capable to look at the big picture, he would see how this mosque is a threat to the rights and lives of Americans. He essentially is masquerading as looking at the big picture, but he isn't looking at a big enough picture. He cannot claim ignorance for the stance he has taken.

Edited by Amaroq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify...

The argument you're making suffers from the fundamental error that you accuse Biddle (et al) of making: the inability to identify the enemy. The stubborn refusal of some people to recognize that Islam is not a monolithic belief system--with hordes of unthinking drones who all want to destroy Western democracy--indicates either intellectual laziness, thick-headedness, or outright bigotry. Folding your arms and saying "I know everything I need to know about Islam" doesn't mean that you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify...

The argument you're making suffers from the fundamental error that you accuse Biddle (et al) of making: the inability to identify the enemy. The stubborn refusal of some people to recognize that Islam is not a monolithic belief system--with hordes of unthinking drones who all want to destroy Western democracy--indicates either intellectual laziness, thick-headedness, or outright bigotry. Folding your arms and saying "I know everything I need to know about Islam" doesn't mean that you do.

This same critique you make could be leveled at all those who foresee an impending Christian theocracy taking over America. Ridiculous, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anyone who thinks that there is an impending Christian theocratic takeover in the United States or anywhere else. Even so, if there are people who think there is an impending Christian theocracy in this country, they would be wise to notice the difference between run-of-the-mill churchgoers and politically active fascists like Pat Robertson.

I think the overall health of our society is currently more vulnerable to Christian nutjobs than it is to Islamic nutjobs. The Islamists can kill some of us and make our buildings collapse, but there is no serious threat of Islamic doctrines finding their way into our laws. The same cannot be said of Christianity. Since pro-Islamic legislation is basically impossible in the United States, Islamic nutjobs can only succeed in undermining the freedoms on values that built this country if they successfully provoke overreactions that result in us voluntarily giving them up. The reaction of many people to the mosque "controversy" is an example of such an overreaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to agree with Wrath. The suggestion that the United States is vulnerable to a future impending Christian theocracy is absurd to anyone that has lived here for a lengthy period of time and has been engaged within the religious/non-religious community in this country on even a moderate level. By threat of theocracy I of course mean serious subversion of the law or the political power structure to allow such a thing to even be likely. Now, as Wrath suggests once more, that does not however mean that the United States is not susceptible, especially in certain areas, to perversion by Christianity, and I would agree that this is a much more realistic fear in this sense than is Islam. Islam is not likely to gain any solid footing ethically, politically (aside from the status-quo trend towards increased multiculturalism and political correctness, but that has its limits), religiously, or legislatively. Not only would our cultural and historical trends create a very strong opposition to such things, but there just isn't the demographic base necessary for it anyways.

Islamic nutjobs can only succeed in undermining the freedoms on values that built this country if they successfully provoke overreactions that result in us voluntarily giving them up. The reaction of many people to the mosque "controversy" is an example of such an overreaction.

This 100x's over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anyone who thinks that there is an impending Christian theocratic takeover in the United States or anywhere else. Even so, if there are people who think there is an impending Christian theocracy in this country, they would be wise to notice the difference between run-of-the-mill churchgoers and politically active fascists like Pat Robertson.

Then you are not well informed because (for example) both the Hsieh's and Peikoff are united in that conviction. Apparently the DIM Hypothesis is supports that conclusion. I do not know the that the DIM Hypothesis is correct or that Peikoff is well enough informed to apply it correctly if he restricts himself to the New York Times, but there is some substantial buy-in to this among Objectivists.

I think the overall health of our society is currently more vulnerable to Christian nutjobs than it is to Islamic nutjobs.

Christian nutjobs have always been with us (see the history of Great Awakenings), they haven't destroyed the country yet. There are now hundreds of years of history of Christianity coexisting with secular government. Secular government was invented by Christians to establish peace between Christian factions. Islam has no track record of secular government except Turkey, which is steadily going Islamist, and the Islamic factions all prefer state religion and civil war to peace. We hardly even have any Muslims, and just the domestic Islamists (so leave out 9/11) already have an impressive track record of death and destruction and domestic violence out of all proportion to their numbers, a performance consistent with their global and historical track record.

The Islamists can kill some of us and make our buildings collapse, but there is no serious threat of Islamic doctrines finding their way into our laws.
Really? One never leads to the other in time? Your statement is only true today based on numbers, but the numbers will not stay the same. Demographics will change, and appeasement of Muslim rage is already the official doctrine of the politically correct. This assertion is founded on quicksand. I think you give too much weight to the fact that the Christians are here right now and the Muslims are mostly not here right now, concrete facts that are true but not integrated with the history of those religions and the fact that demographics change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We hardly even have any Muslims, and just the domestic Islamists (so leave out 9/11) already have an impressive track record of death and destruction and domestic violence out of all proportion to their numbers, a performance consistent with their global and historical track record.

Yes, but the point is, using Govt. force right now to stop this particular mosque is not the proper first step in opening the eyes of the world to the fact that Islam is anti-life barbarism. Problem is, if people havent figured that out for themselves already, I dont know what that proper first step should be. Not this though. And I for one dont fear a Christian theocracy any time soon, people in this country still have the capacity to think, to some extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you are not well informed because (for example) both the Hsieh's and Peikoff are united in that conviction. Apparently the DIM Hypothesis is supports that conclusion. I do not know the that the DIM Hypothesis is correct or that Peikoff is well enough informed to apply it correctly if he restricts himself to the New York Times, but there is some substantial buy-in to this among Objectivists.

Like I said, I don't know anyone who thinks the US is on the verge of Christian theocracy. I don't personally know the Hsiehs or Peikoff. I know Peikoff supported the Democrats in '06 b/c he thought Christianity was a greater threat than socialism but, given that he now advocates voting for Republicans, I'd say he's changed his tune. To the extent that anyone really does think the Christian theocrats are on the verge of taking over, I'd say they've lost touch with political/societal reality.

Christian nutjobs have always been with us (see the history of Great Awakenings), they haven't destroyed the country yet. There are now hundreds of years of history of Christianity coexisting with secular government. Secular government was invented by Christians to establish peace between Christian factions. Islam has no track record of secular government except Turkey, which is steadily going Islamist, and the Islamic factions all prefer state religion and civil war to peace. We hardly even have any Muslims, and just the domestic Islamists (so leave out 9/11) already have an impressive track record of death and destruction and domestic violence out of all proportion to their numbers, a performance consistent with their global and historical track record.

Christians did not invent secular government. But I grant that they were the ones who put it into practice in Europe. But...so what? They did it in spite of Christianity, not because of it. And you are absolutely wrong to say that there is no track record of secular government within Islam. The government of Arab lands during the European Dark Ages was eons ahead of European Christianity. It wasn't secular by modern standards, but it was certainly more tolerant of religious differences. And I think many experts on Turkey would dispute the notion that it is becoming Islamist. Also...there are governments in the Arab world that, while leaving much to be desired, are secular in nature. Syria, for example.

Really? One never leads to the other in time? Your statement is only true today based on numbers, but the numbers will not stay the same. Demographics will change, and appeasement of Muslim rage is already the official doctrine of the politically correct. This assertion is founded on quicksand. I think you give too much weight to the fact that the Christians are here right now and the Muslims are mostly not here right now, concrete facts that are true but not integrated with the history of those religions and the fact that demographics change.

I guess I should clarify. I'm not taking into account what demographic changes might happen over the next 1000 years. In our lifetimes, there is effectively zero chance of a demographic shift that would allow Islamic principles to be codified into American law. Whatever appeasement there is of Islamic sensibilities is really trivial. It is based on general philosophies of multiculturalism and apologizing for perceived Western misdeeds, rather than any serious sympathy for Islamic ideals. One only need look at the Ground Zero issue to see that Islam is nowhere near being a serious influence in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames have you read any books/policy reports/govt. reports/sociology reports etc. about the subject of Muslim immigrants and the data shown about how they behave over time in the United States? I ask this because I would like to compare data, particularly on this claim:

just the domestic Islamists (so leave out 9/11) already have an impressive track record of death and destruction and domestic violence out of all proportion to their numbers, a performance consistent with their global and historical track record.

I am also looking for clarification on what you mean here: I could either agree or disagree with this depending on what you meant.

and the Islamic factions all prefer state religion and civil war to peace

Your statement is only true today based on numbers

I agree that the numbers of terrorists has been increasing over time, and exponentially since we initiated the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is based on the most comprehensive data to date.

Islam has no track record of secular government except Turkey, which is steadily going Islamist

First "steadily" is disingenuous. They have gained ground but not in the sense suggested by this comment, if I assume correctly you mean that it is essentially going down the drain.

Second, I have no interest in typing out all of the main points here so I will just provide a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians did not invent secular government. But I grant that they were the ones who put it into practice in Europe. But...so what? They did it in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

Ok, Christians re-invented secular government in the modern era for Europe. The point is that there is no such thing as an achievement in spite of Islam. You say Muslims are not all the same. I say not all religions are the same. We are thinking at completely different layers of abstraction.

And you are absolutely wrong to say that there is no track record of secular government within Islam. The government of Arab lands during the European Dark Ages was eons ahead of European Christianity.
Keeping to the highlights, there was the era of the Caliphs, which was succeeded by the Ottoman Sultanates. These do not support your contention. If the Pope had his own army there would be a complete equivalence.

Also...there are governments in the Arab world that, while leaving much to be desired, are secular in nature. Syria, for example.
A hereditary military dictatorship is technically a secular government, but this is a distraction from the topic of the thread. Theocracy is bad. Autocracy is secular, but it is also bad so this is no proof of the ability of Muslims to govern themselves properly.

I disagree with your forecast of what can happen within our lifetimes. Opposition to the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque can only serve to falsify your own forecast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames have you read any books/policy reports/govt. reports/sociology reports etc. about the subject of Muslim immigrants and the data shown about how they behave over time in the United States? I ask this because I would like to compare data, particularly on this claim:

No, and I don't need to because there is simply no parallel to the string of recent domestic terrorism incidents by American Muslims, many of which are not even committed by immigrants. The closest phenomenon in American history would the presidential assassination and bombings by anarchists loosely corresponding to the period from the Haymarket Massacre to the Sacco-Venzetti trial, but anarchism is not a religion.

I am also looking for clarification on what you mean here: I could either agree or disagree with this depending on what you meant.

The Sunni, Shi'a, Sufi and other sects of Islam despise each other and do not even consider the alternatives as Muslims, so the Koranic injunction against killing fellow Muslims does not apply and the Muslim world is a free-fire zone. Even so called secular governments in Syria and Iraq are captured by one sect which then oppresses and persecutes the others. That is the civil war I refer to. How can there be tolerance for apostasy when Koran prescribes death for apostates? A government that did try to defend freedom of religion would be widely reviled by portions of all factions and will not be stable.

I agree that the numbers of terrorists has been increasing over time, and exponentially since we initiated the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is based on the most comprehensive data to date.
Huh? The numbers I was referring to are the number of voters in America that were Muslim.

First "steadily" is disingenuous. They have gained ground but not in the sense suggested by this comment, if I assume correctly you mean that it is essentially going down the drain.
Steadily as in monotonically increasing influence by Islamists. "The most consistent side wins".

Second, I have no interest in typing out all of the main points here so I will just provide a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

That article pretty well documents why secularism is a failure in the Muslim world: there is no alternative to the shariah law. Secular government does not provide any benefits if there is no secular philosophy of law but only a hodgepodge of bureaucratic rules for administrating the country, the stuff too boring and down in the weeds even for the shariah law to care about like traffic regulations and business permits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument you're making suffers from the fundamental error that you accuse Biddle (et al) of making: the inability to identify the enemy.

I did not accuse Biddle of failing to identify the enemy. Maybe you should read my post again.

I've seen people take his stance because they misunderstand rights, but he seems to understand them.

People of faith and people of feelings have the same rights as people of reason: the rights to act on their judgment, to keep and use their property, to speak their minds, and the like—so long as they do not violate (or threaten to violate) the rights of others.

I've seen people take this stance because they aren't thinking in principles, but he seems to think in principles too.

One important element of thinking in principles is identifying the fundamental principles that govern a given situation. In political matters, those principles are always (properly) individual rights, the rights to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech. These rights protect people’s freedom to take the actions they must take in order to live as human beings: acting as one’s life requires (the right to life), acting on one’s rational judgment (liberty), using the product of one’s effort (property), pursuing one’s chosen goals (pursuit of happiness), expressing one’s views (freedom of speech). These principles should not be applied as contextless absolutes; rather, they should be applied, as indicated earlier, with respect to the purpose and limits of rights and with respect to the relevant facts of the matter in question. But with that purpose, those limits, and the relevant context in mind, individual rights govern all political matters.

I've seen people take this stance because they don't think the mosque gives spiritual support to those who are seeking to destroy America. But Craig Biddle acknowledges that the mosque gives spiritual support to them!

Such aid to the enemy, however, is different in kind from aid that warrants government force. In order for aid to warrant government force, it must somehow—whether directly or indirectly—materially aid the enemy.

I've seen people take this stance because they think Islam is a peaceful religion. But he acknowledges that they aren't.

Contrary to widespread misconception (including the unfortunate language of the First Amendment), there is not and cannot be any such thing as a right to “practice” or “exercise” one’s religion—not if one’s religion calls for its followers to commit murder or violate rights, which all three monotheistic religions do.

I don't think I've seen anyone claim that we are not at war with fundamentalist Islam, but I'll include that too. Craig acknowledges that we are at war with them, even if the enemy is not identified by our leaders yet.

America is in a (shamefully) undeclared but nevertheless real military war with Islamists

You've completely missed the point of my entire post. The point is, that everyone I've seen who says the mosque should be allowed has had to disagree with, or misunderstand, at least one of the above points. Craig Biddle appears to understand and accept them all. But I suspect that he fails to apply the context of our war to the existence of the mosque. Particularly, he fails to see how spiritual support for the enemy in wartime is a violation of our rights. So while he acknowledges all the basic premises required to reach the proper conclusion, he doesn't seem to be thinking abstractly enough and/or actually applying every fact he acknowledges in order to reach his conclusion. During the Vietnam war, Craig Biddle would have been writing that we must respect the rights of the hippies, etc to fly the Vietnamese flag. If you're familiar with, and understand, the position Rand took on that, you should be able to grasp this, because it's essentially the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, that everyone I've seen who says the mosque should be allowed has had to disagree with, or misunderstand, at least one of the above points.

I don't speak for Mr. Biddle but I happen to share his point of view so I can offer you my reasoning.

There are two aspects here: the philosophical threat and the physical threat.

Philosophical enemies, in this case Islam as an ideology (but applies to any irrational ideology), can only be effectively fought and ought to be fought against on philosophical/ideological grounds. Currently Islam ideologically can't really conquer Americans. The chances of such a thing in America is extremely low. Nonetheless we should speak loudly against the ideas of Islam. The hold that Islam or other religions have is primarily through ideology and only secondarily through force. Attila needs the witch-doctor and they don't need to be two different people.

Then there is the physical threat. I am all for fighting against jihadists with uttermost ruthlessness. Being a Muslim, however, is not an equivalent to being a member of a terrorist group or a mafia. Even mafia members are subject to proper due process. I advocate the same proper due process for any criminal weather he is driven by religion or any other irrational idea. Concrete evidence of funding or aiding terrorists or advocating terrorist attacks against America is necessary to substantiate a claim of conspiracy. Those involved should be arrested and ruthlessly punished but objective process has to be followed.

The most significant threat to freedom in America currently can only come from Americans themselves. Freedoms are most likely lost starting with unpopular or offensive ideas first and always "for a good cause" and when people feel a sense of emergency.

What you do not want your or any government to allow, and which you dangerously advocate, is to violate some people's freedom of speech and assembly because most people/the government do not agree with their ideas. Again, there are already processes available for dealing with criminals.

Objectivist ideas are just as dis-favoured today by most Americans and the current socialistic government. Our conferences could just as easily be banned and websites could just as easily be blocked by order of the government. If proper due process does not need to be followed before such actions are taken, if the ideological disagreement is enough, then there is nothing stopping such a thing from happening to us or anyone with unpopular ideas.

What you and others are proposing is to me like digging a ditch under yourself. The kind of laws which are your only protection against the majority, laws which we all desperately need right now more than ever to fight wrong ideas, to fight our immediate enemies at home, enemies who are trying to grab more power to use against us every day - you want those laws your government to ignore - you advocate for such a thing - and all this while your government does not represent your ideas and was elected by that majority which also does not share our ideas.

The difference of opinion on this issue arise from the fact that some people underestimate the danger of allowing the government to take such actions. It seems unthinkable and unlikely to them that this won't be just a special scenario case - "only against the Muslim because we are at war" (except not officially and without properly identifying the enemy).

I judge today's context, given what has happened in recent years and months, as fragile on the freedom front. This is exactly the kind of opportunities, that little crack for a good cause, allowed by people with good intentions, that the enemies of freedom look for and unfortunately there are plenty of such enemies in America today. It is a process of slowly adjusting what is acceptable - little cracks against freedom make other cracks more likely and some shots have already been taken and accepted in the name of safety and security. Countless small incursions wear away freedom after freedom, and the government has a good excuse each step of the way. Today the excuse is terrorism.

If you wanted to understand better the opposite point of view - here it is.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've completely missed the point of my entire post. The point is, that everyone I've seen who says the mosque should be allowed has had to disagree with, or misunderstand, at least one of the above points. Craig Biddle appears to understand and accept them all. But I suspect that he fails to apply the context of our war to the existence of the mosque. Particularly, he fails to see how spiritual support for the enemy in wartime is a violation of our rights. So while he acknowledges all the basic premises required to reach the proper conclusion, he doesn't seem to be thinking abstractly enough and/or actually applying every fact he acknowledges in order to reach his conclusion. During the Vietnam war, Craig Biddle would have been writing that we must respect the rights of the hippies, etc to fly the Vietnamese flag. If you're familiar with, and understand, the position Rand took on that, you should be able to grasp this, because it's essentially the same thing.

Perhaps Biddle et al get that. We just don't agree that empowering the statists currently in the government to stop an American citizen who has broken no laws from building a mosque because of "spiritual crimes" is a really, really dumb idea. And we aren't convinced with the appeals to authority either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sophia, I agree with almost everything you've just posted and I completely understand where you're coming from. I'd like to explain my reasoning to you in return, so you can understand where I'm coming from too.

I'm not advocating what I am in order to combat the philosophical threat. I'm advocating what I am to combat the physical threat. We are at physical war with fundamentalist Islam. They are out there attempting to subvert and/or destroy us. This mosque so near the site of Islam's victory against America will inspire the enemy and demoralize Americans. Mind-body integration. In wartime, morale can be a matter of life and death. So in an abstract way, I'm advocating for us to defend ourselves. There can be no right to violate others' rights, and the way I see it, all the people advocating for the rights of the mosque owners are not taking into account that the existence of the mosque serves to help violate the rights of Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot be at physical war against an abstract concept like "fundamentalist Islam." We are at physical war with certain people who hold beliefs that are consistent with fundamentalist Islam. And until you can demonstrate that the people building this mosque are acting in league with our enemies, your argument holds no water. The fact that they fall under the same generic heading of "Islam" is not enough. The existence of the mosque does not, in any way, violate your rights. Lose the persecution complex.

Link to comment
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...