"Is the controversy over building a mosque near Ground Zero a grand
distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose
demagoguery?
It has been said, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." Are we not
overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various
ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the
politicians are "fiddling while the economy burns."
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of
property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own
property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and
religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position
while demanding that the need to be "sensitive" requires an all-out
assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from "ground zero."
Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had
been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and
prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism
on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the
mosque debate raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand
continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled
to constantly justify it.
They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally
support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from
soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque
is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
The claim that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is
misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are
indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious
and political leaders. And we're supposed to believe that abusing
our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars
overseas will solve our problems.
The nineteen suicide bombers didn't come from Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country
that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy
Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.
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 (are) 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.
The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a
congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the
mosque --- a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment
rights, and the Rule of Law --- in order to look tough against Islam.
This is all about hate and Islamaphobia."
(In truth you can find neo-cons on both sides of this flap, though
Paul's thrust on the uses of Islamaphobia is on point, IMO.)