Carrol
"Max B. Sawicky" wrote:
>
> "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.)
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk