RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : The Mosque Fiasco

Sunday
August 15, 2010

The Mosque Fiasco by Tibor R. Machan

There is a time to be righteous, yes, and when some truly despised organization such as those who have made the vile choice to built a mosque near ground zero of all places, then speaking up for their rights is arguably honorable and righteous. But it isn’t if those doing such speaking up forget about all the other rights human beings have that go neglected, unprotected, abused and violated throughout the land, not to mention the globe. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (47 messages)

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 10:33am

>>I have moral objections to people abusing drugs, but I MUST defend their right to do that...<<

Absolutely! By repealing the wrong law. But if the kid from the street goes to prison for doing drugs, and the son of prominent politician is not for doing the same - it's called corruption.

And that's my point - if censorship laws are being applied every day - kinda strange to exclude only our Muslim friends from them.

Put your energy toward repealing these laws. Muslims will take care of themselves - they have enough money to plow their way through American politicians.

(Edited by Maria Feht on 8/19, 10:38am)

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 10:36am

As another take on the issue here's an Altlasphere column.

The only problem I have with the mosque is the specific location they have chosen. How can it be anything other than deliberately provocative and insulting?

Sam

WIJG?

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 11:01am

>>How can it be anything other than deliberately provocative and insulting?<<

It can't!

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 11:15am

Has any of the folks wringing their hands over this mosque think that the great capitalist system can simply outbid the Immam on the property. If Gates and Buffet are going to give away Billions, why not ask for the smallest percentage of that go into outbidding the measely $4.7 M (that seems like a real steal for any significant NYC property) that the developer took.

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 3:11pm

That's the most intelligent post on this thread.

Better yet, someone with the entrepreneurial skills should set up a company to buy the site with all the donors as shareholders. They'd have my hundred bucks in an instant. That's only 50,000 donors like me.

Sam

WIJG?

(Edited by Sam Erica on 8/19, 3:28pm)

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 3:47pm

The only problem I have with the mosque is the specific location they have chosen. How can it be anything other than deliberately provocative and insulting?

Of course it's meant to be provocative and insulting! Limbaugh read a letter from a Canadian Muslim who is pretty upset by this thing. He wondered why the imam was spending millions of dollars on another mosque when there are millions of impoverished Muslims all over the world. He wondered why the imam refused to put any (any, none, zip) recognition of 9/11 victims, which include Muslim Americans, anywhere on the facade or inside the building.

Talk about provocative!

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 4:41pm

We appear to be remarkably inept at waging war on the worst of fundamental Islam. We deploy hundreds of thousands of the best trained, best equipped military the world has ever seen and despite some earlier successes we are only keeping Al Qaeda partially in check. On the cultural/sociological/intellectual war-front, it is like we aren't even there - we seem to be losing to PC and just plain ineffectiveness.

Think about this. Barbaric, cave-dwelling, robe-wearing, bearded, nut cases that force their women to live in bags and stone them to death for adultery... idiots who are mostly armed with children strapped to bombs are holding the Western world hostage (and winning) on behalf of a ideology inferior to what the average goat-herder would be expected to articulate.

We need to do better. We need to do something else because what we're doing now isn't working.

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 5:39pm

This war of words from Bill Whittle is exactly the kind of thing that makes those bearded monsters pee their robes.

Inspiring rhetoric won the Cold War. It can win this one too.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=4031

Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 6:52pm

Hey, I have a question...if no one wants this mosque being built on Ground Zero then do tell me....

WHY HAVEN'T THE TWIN TOWERS BEEN REBUILT YET, FER CHRISSAKE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and I'll tell ya what's even more interesting to me:

I think it's funny that so many Americans are finding this so offensive, yet these are likely also the same Americans that were worried about what other countries thought of us, didn't want to offend the Muslims with that picture of Mohammed, didn't want Racial Profiling at airports, and tried to make burquas a fashion statement.

Could someone please explain this reasoning to me cause it's totally lost on me here....

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 3:34am

Who can explain the "reasoning" behind your unsubstantiated conclusions, Mr. Kay?

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 8:36am

Maria, post 16: Yes, we must return our laws back to American principles, but meanwhile we can not treat some groups other that the others. Either this is country of law or not ... ?

Just as in case if KKK decides to build their center in prominent place in NY there should be public hearing.

Couldn't disagree with your underlying premises more, Maria.

I believe in the NIOF (Non-Initiation Of Force) principle, Maria, which is an underlying principle of Objectivism.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that people who don't own a particular piece of private property get to tell the actual owners what they can do with that property if those non-owners are not being physically harmed by the use or proposed use of that property.

If the KKK wants to build a property advocating for their reprehensible beliefs in a place that would offend the feelings of (some of) their neighbors -- say, in the middle of Harlem -- that is their right. They should not have to go and beg permission of non-property owners to do so because that might offend the tender sensibilities of others. There should be no public hearings necessary, no zoning laws, nothing at all to impede their First Amendment right to be complete arseholes.

That is the underlying principle upon which the Constitution is based. You are arguing the statist, collectivist line which shreds those principles. You are arguing for the opposite of Objectivist principles.

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 9:49am

I suppose it's pretty late in the thread for me to just haul-off and jump in here and sound a conspiratorial alarm that the mosque ordeal was likely drummed up by Obama et al. in order to get the peoples' focus off of the failing economy (before upcoming elections)?

But I could be wrong about that.

:-)

Ed

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 10:19am

Ed, while I don't think it's a consipracy, I do agree that that is exactly what politicians do.

Now think on this.

Suppose the Cordoba House is built. What is the damage? What have you really lost?

Suppose the Cordoba House is not built. What is the reward? What have you really one.

The arguement is drummed up to create strife. If (IF!) Cordoba House was being built to support the terrorists (Which I do not beleive) then either result would be a victory for the terrorists.

Either it's just another building on private property in the country or we make it into something else that does not serve "our" goals.

You see? The only "winners" in this are the politicians and the extremeists on all sides.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 8/20, 10:20am)

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 12:23pm

Ethan,

That was good. That was real good. But, if you ask me (and I'll assume you are), you're not taking the conspiracy far enough, in your mind. Now, you're damn good at this stuff, I'll give you that. But here's the real conspiracy ... when you get deep down into nitty gritty of the cold, dark corners of nationwide/worldwide skullduggery:

Suppose the Cordoba House is built. What is the damage? What have you really lost?

Aaah. But the damage is still coming, you see. The damage isn't in the building of the thing, it's in the taking down of the building (after it is built). You stopped too soon in thinking this all the way through, my friend. The proper 2 alternatives then are these:

Suppose the Cordoba House is taken down peacefully (by trade or law, rather than by force). What is the reward? What have you really won?

Suppose the Cordoba House is taken down forcefully (by right wing radicals). What is the damage? What have you really lost?

And the answers are:

What is won in the first case is "score 1" for the terrorists, as they can point to the loss of the mosque as evidence of American exclusion and evil.

And what is won in the second case is, again, a win for terrorists (only one on a scale orders of magnitude larger). If Obama can show that it's not safe to build buildings in the United States, then he will be able to declare martial law and ...

[I think that you can see where this is going]

Ever wonder why white house officials have been so vocal in the past about a backlash against Muslims after instances such as that which occurred at Fort Hood? Do you think -- do you honestly think -- that officials in the current administration wouldn't be thrilled to find out that some right wing wing-nut had popped upon hearing of this instance of Islamofascism and just went crazy and took out some Muslims in response? Do you truly think they wouldn't absolutely 'capitalize' upon that?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/20, 12:49pm)

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 12:31pm

Hi Ed,

Politicians want one thing, power. Doesn't matter the party, they're all like that. It's not a conspiracy, it's their nature.

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 12:53pm

>>Couldn't disagree with your underlying premises more, Maria. ... You are arguing the statist, collectivist line which shreds those principles. <<

I guess I need to learn how to write in English - nobody on this forum understands what I am trying to say.

The laws should be applied equally to everybody - otherwise they are becoming an instrument of political pressure.

American laws do not reflect American freedoms. In many cases highlighted by media the public pressure changes the outcome and American freedom lovers celebrate the victory. However, in many more cases, when they remain relatively unknown, the laws are being applied - businesses, organizations are closed, people lose jobs.

The case to illustrate it - lemonade stands. How many times I read that under public pressure the authorities allowed children to sell lemonade. Everybody should be allowed to do the same but they can not - by law. What I like to see the law being applied to little girl just like to everybody else - because THE LAW IS THE LAW, NO EXCEPTIONS - and following public outrage changing the law. I do not like to see authorities making a favor to little girl and everybody celebrating the American freedoms. When freedom exists only as public emotion, public sentiment - and not reflected in laws - there is no individual freedom and there is no privacy.

The laws should apply equally to everybody - this way there is hope that they will be repealed, and this way they can not be used for political pressure.

If laws are applied to certain groups and American freedoms to others, then this country is no different than Russia where Hodorkovsky is imprisoned for tax evasion and other businesses enjoy Putin's favors. It's called corruption, if you don't know. And it exactly what we see in Mosque case - the existing laws in this particular case are not being applied.

This situation leads to many consequences: disrespect for law, class warfare, and so on. No different than any other country where different sets of laws seem to exist for elite and ordinary people.

As long as these laws exist: The same laws that would be applied to KKK center, should be applied to Muslim center. There should be no favors.

If our government wants this mosque to built according to American basic freedoms they should change the laws in such a way that they reflect those American freedoms. We all will benefit from it!

(Edited by Maria Feht on 8/20, 1:33pm)

(Edited by Maria Feht on 8/20, 1:45pm)

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 12:58pm

Ethan,

I agree, for the most part. Some politicians -- e.g., Ron Paul -- don't, but most politicians do. The irony in my example above is that -- by propagating the bipartisan dichotomy -- Obama would succeed in branding republicans as "the party of terror".

What you get is what we've always got:

A) A politician wants to rule over free people.
B) The politician finds something (bombed buildings) which puts fear into free people.
C) The politician lays out the case of "us vs. them" and convinces the fearful public that he can root out the evil which threatens us -- but for this to occur, he needs one thing from us:

more power (over us)

It's been the same story, told and re-told, for 4000 years.

Ed

p.s. Obama even pulled this racketeering scam with CEO's (taking sides with them against the public) when he told them:

"My administration is the only thing between you [CEO's] and the pitchforks."
--http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/barack_obama_2.html
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/20, 12:59pm)

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 5:15pm

"The case to illustrate it - lemonade stands. How many times I read that under public pressure the authorities allowed children to sell lemonade. Everybody should be allowed to do the same but they can not - by law. What I like to see the law being applied to little girl just like to everybody else - because THE LAW IS THE LAW, NO EXCEPTIONS - and following public outrage changing the law. I do not like to see authorities making a favor to little girl and everybody celebrating the American freedoms. When freedom exists only as public emotion, public sentiment - and not reflected in laws - there is no individual freedom and there is no privacy."

I completely agree with you, Maria. There's no way the authorities would look the other way if adults were selling lemonade!

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 6:41pm

Thank you Theresa!

I didn't expect to be misunderstood so much. Next time I'll try to write with more clarity and edit my text before posting it.

I think my point is valid: when we arrived to America we were told many times that this is a country of law. You don't like the law: call your lawmaker and try to change it.

If politicians want this mosque so much they should re-write all censorship laws they created over the years.

Otherwise: (my post # 16)

>>in NY there should be public hearing. Our Muslim friends should be asked some simple questions:

1/ Why their book preaches hatred, intolerance, murder of infidels and how do they feel about it?

2/ Are they going to preach hatred, intolerance, murder of infidels according to their book, and if not what exactly they are going to preach?

3/ Who is the real owner of the place?

4/ Do these owners have any connection to terrorist or extremist organizations?

5/ Where did they get money to pay for the property?

6/ Did they get any donations from people connected to terrorist or extremist organizations?

7/ Were the taxes paid according to American law?

8/ Is global climate going to be affected by building this mosque? ... <<

Friday, August 20, 2010 - 6:43pm

Teresa,

I agree with that paragraph you quoted from Maria - but only in that circumstance. Demanding that the little girl not be allowed to sell lemonade is projected as a technique to get a bad law changed. But in the case of using a zoning ordinance or building code or something to stop the mosque is the opposite. There would be little to no public outrage. It would be taking a bad law and using it to achieve an end run around property rights.