"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."
I do not think that liberals defend the Islamic Center on the grounds of property rights, but on the grounds of free speech and tolerance/minority rights.
I also think he misses an even more fundamental point that businesses are not persons, and therefore have no rights of any kind. Acceptance of the notion of "business rights" undermines the fundamental libertarian premise of individual rights - if some institutions, like businesses, have rights equal to those of physical persons, then why not other institutions, like governments?
Wojtek
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Max B. Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> 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
>