Ron Paul: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque!

[^_^ 5,021]

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 from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is 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 is 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.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

Indeed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Ron Paul is a libertarian, as are most Americans. "Mind your own business" sums it up correctly.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Just build the thing already. It is just a church for Gods sake. I really don't understand the overt fear some people have about this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just build the thing already. It is just a church for Gods sake. I really don't understand the overt fear some people have about this.

Yep.

[alienlovechild 75]

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.

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.

Ron Paul makes some good points but still retains his nutball credentials. Nobody has said the NYC mosque is the reason to retain troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Anyone who can rationalize 9/11 the way he did should be laughed off the political scene as he was in 2008.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Just build the thing already. It is just a church for Gods sake. I really don't understand the overt fear some people have about this.

It's not even a mosque. It is a community center that has space on the top floor for prayers.

Gary, you really should check your information again, a majority of americans are NOT Libertarians. I would agree that most people are in favor of Civil Liberties, but your assumption is asinine.

ALC, your summary of Paul (and Libertarians in general) is spot on. They will have a few good ideas, but those great ones will be overshadowed by the overall batsh!t crazy ones.

[Heracles 417]

ALC, your summary of Paul (and Libertarians in general) is spot on. They will have a few good ideas, but those great ones will be overshadowed by the overall batsh!t crazy ones.

Now that we can all agree on.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but this is related to what Rob said about Libertarians...

Monday, Aug 23, 2010 15:24 ET

"Liberaltarians" out at Cato

Is the Koch-funded libertarian think tank no longer interested in finding common ground with liberals?

By Alex Pareene

Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson are leaving the Cato Institute, one of the more prominent libertarian think tanks. Lindsey was the Institute's vice president of research. Wilkinson, a Cato scholar, edited their website. Their departures are notable because they were two of Cato's most prominent "liberaltarians."

Lindsey coined that term in a 2006 piece on the possibility of libertarians and liberals finding common cause. Cato produces a lot of work that liberals ought to love -- Radley Balko's work on police militarization, to pick one example, is essential, enraging reading. But it looks like any explicit efforts toward reaching out to liberals and Democrats have been called off.

Various libertarians (and, to a much lesser extent, liberals) have wondered, as Lindsey did in that 2006 piece, why libertarians so often align themselves with conservatives instead of liberals. Considering the number of anti-libertarian policies the conservative movement fights for, it seems slightly odd that libertarians would act as an arm of that movement. But I think the answer is sort of obvious: While some outlets, like those leather jacket-wearing rebels at Reason, just tend to go after whoever's currently in power, most of the big libertarian institutions are funded by vain rich people. And these vain rich people care a lot more about tax policy (specifically a policy of not having to pay taxes) than they do about legalizing drugs or defunding the military-industrial complex. And if they're keeping the lights on at Cato and AEI, they want Cato and AEI to produce research that relates more to hating the IRS and the EPA than to hating the NYPD or the FBI.

And Cato was born as a Koch family pet project. As in the Koch family that is bent on the political destruction of Barack Obama.

Anyway, Lindsey and Wilkinson aren't saying anything about their departures, but, as Dave Weigel writes, it looks for all the world like "Cato is enforcing a sort of orthodoxy."

A libertarian influence on the Democratic party in the realms of law enforcement, drug policy, and civil liberties would definitely be a good thing. But the big libertarian institutions are not really amenable to working with liberals.

link

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Just build the thing already. It is just a church for Gods sake. I really don't understand the overt fear some people have about this.

It's not even a mosque. It is a community center that has space on the top floor for prayers.

I understand, up to a point, some of the fear but this is blown way out of proportion. People tend to fear things they don't understand. I know some of it comes from bigotry but I think most of it is just ignorance. When we found out that UBL was behind the attack, and that he was Muslim, people that had no conception of what Muslims really are just lumped all of them into the potential "terrorist" camp. It is too bad that some have translated fear and ignorance over time to bigotry rather than taking the time to understand that these dirtbag terrorists have as much in common with Islam as an abortion clinic bomber has with Christianity. They use religion as an excuse rather than a motivator.

If this center has the effect of educating the common American that has a head full of misconceptions about Islam then it will be a plus. Maybe the backers of the center could use this as a chance to bring us together and pledge part of the space for a tribute to those lost on 9/11 and point out the good things Islam does around the world. If they are a loud voice denouncing the terrorists then all but the truly bigoted will stop protesting.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I understand, up to a point, some of the fear but this is blown way out of proportion. People tend to fear things they don't understand. I know some of it comes from bigotry but I think most of it is just ignorance. When we found out that UBL was behind the attack, and that he was Muslim, people that had no conception of what Muslims really are just lumped all of them into the potential "terrorist" camp. It is too bad that some have translated fear and ignorance over time to bigotry rather than taking the time to understand that these dirtbag terrorists have as much in common with Islam as an abortion clinic bomber has with Christianity. They use religion as an excuse rather than a motivator.

If this center has the effect of educating the common American that has a head full of misconceptions about Islam then it will be a plus. Maybe the backers of the center could use this as a chance to bring us together and pledge part of the space for a tribute to those lost on 9/11 and point out the good things Islam does around the world. If they are a loud voice denouncing the terrorists then all but the truly bigoted will stop protesting.

QFT +1

The ironic part I find is how quick to denounce all of Islam some people are, all in the name of anti-terrorism. Yet, they are muted when someone like Martin McGuinness comes to Boston to do a speaking engagement, or even fundraise for Sinn Fein.

[alienlovechild 75]

If this center has the effect of educating the common American that has a head full of misconceptions about Islam then it will be a plus. Maybe the backers of the center could use this as a chance to bring us together and pledge part of the space for a tribute to those lost on 9/11 and point out the good things Islam does around the world. If they are a loud voice denouncing the terrorists then all but the truly bigoted will stop protesting.

If 9/11 and 9 years of war in 2 majority Muslim countries and our "Muslim" president with the middle name no one is allowed to utter haven't enlightened the public about Islam, then an Islamic center sited at one of the worst locations funded by unknown sources has no hope of building anything than a bridge of reconciliation to nowhere.

Is there any reason why the mosqure backers they chose that site and won't accept anywhere else?

[BobandXiaomei 14]

If 9/11 and 9 years of war in 2 majority Muslim countries and our "Muslim" president with the middle name no one is allowed to utter haven't enlightened the public about Islam, then an Islamic center sited at one of the worst locations funded by unknown sources has no hope of building anything than a bridge of reconciliation to nowhere.

Is there any reason why the mosqure backers they chose that site and won't accept anywhere else?

They own the property is my understanding and they want it there to serve the Muslims working in Manhattan.

[alienlovechild 75]

The ironic part I find is how quick to denounce all of Islam some people are, all in the name of anti-terrorism. Yet, they are muted when someone like Martin McGuinness comes to Boston to do a speaking engagement, or even fundraise for Sinn Fein.

Why should McGuiness be allowed in London (supported by British taxpayers no less) but not Boston?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If 9/11 and 9 years of war in 2 majority Muslim countries and our "Muslim" president with the middle name no one is allowed to utter haven't enlightened the public about Islam, then an Islamic center sited at one of the worst locations funded by unknown sources has no hope of building anything than a bridge of reconciliation to nowhere.

Our Muslim president? You're part of the 20% or so of dumbfcucks in the country that believe that shite? Interesting.