We had a long and involved discussion of the NYC Mosque and the principles surrounding it in this thread (now closed), so I am not going to go into a great deal of details regarding defending LP’s position. I think it is quite clear, given the facts of the case and leading up to 911, that the USA was attacked by Muslims who were acting fully and consistently with Islam and that it was an ideological stance on their part. Those who are against the prevention of the NYC Mosque do not see the battle in philosophical terms – they tend to see it as several religious nut cases flying airplanes into buildings with no greater meaning to the acts of destruction. However, if one takes ideas seriously and realizes that the “Death to America!” slogans espoused by Iran and other Islamic nations do represent their actual philosophy and that they *mean* it – that destroying America is a moral ideal in their philosophy – then, yes, one has not only the moral right to prevent them from building a monument to their wanton destruction, but a moral obligation based on reason to prevent them from becoming established in this country (at least so long as the war is going on). And that they ought to be utterly destroyed insofar as they seek to establish a country or an empire based upon that ideology.
Why then not to destroy each and every Mosque in the country, to ban all Muslim institutions and to make the practice of Islam Illegal? But as far as I remember Ayn Rand said that even use of retaliatory force should be under the strict supervision of objective law. She also said that one should fight bad ideas with good ideas, not with force. Force should be reserved only for retaliation. Dr. Peikoff’s proposal takes the concept of preemptive strike much too far.