printProvocative to say the least: Dr. Fleming (to mimic the “Dr. Johnson” sobriquet) of Chronicles magazine makes mincemeat of the popular argument that the Ground Zero Mosque monsters cannot be “denied a permit because that would infringe their religious freedom.”
I, of course, argued from private property rights, recommending immigration policies as the broader remedy to an incompatible culture. Construction boycotts would work as a local solution.
“Religious freedom,” writes Dr. Fleming, “is a gift of a society or commonwealth, not a natural right. This is partly because religion is not faith–what one believes or feels–but an organized public action. Thus the public or republic has the right and duty to protect itself from alien or malignant cults. In a diverse Christian society, naturally, the various churches have had to learn to tolerate each other, though in practice toleration is generally a sign of indifference. Church becomes that thing you do or don’t do on one day a week. It is like the beautiful jewel you take out of the box every once in a while to admire and feel good about yourself for owning. But religion is more like a wedding ring, a visible symbol of an enduring commitment.”
“The idea of Christians according religious freedom to Muslims who define themselves in part by their hatred of Christianity and who have oppressed Christians whenever they have had the power to do so, is preposterous. It is worse than preposterous, because the point of the exercise is not to liberate Muslims but to enslave Christians.”
As provocative is Dr. Fleming’s taxonomy of the political spectrum:
“The Hard Left—whether Marxists, Libertarians, or Multi-Culturalists—take their stand on freedom of religion, while the Soft Left (otherwise known as Conservatives) say that while there is a freedom of religion, it does not quite extend to Satanists or Muslims wanting to build a mosque at Ground Zero, though a mosque anywhere else is just fine and dandy.”
Nothing if not original is our friend at Chronicles.
UPDATE I (Sept. 8): “International Burn a Koran Day” is set to take place in a decidedly provincial setting in Florida, America. It would be a tourist curiosity if not for the media having so hyped up Terry Loony Tunes Jones’ act. Ron Paul has it right:
UPDATE II (Sept. 19): Pat Buchanan is even righter that Ron:
“This episode reveals the gulf between us and the Islamic world. Despite all our talk of universal values, tens of millions of Muslims, in countries not only hostile but friendly, believe that a sacrilege against their faith, like the burning of theQuran by a single American oddball, justifies the killing of Americans. What kind of compatibility can there be between us?
What do we have in common with people who believe that evangelism by other faiths in their societies merits the death penalty, as do conversions to Christianity, while promiscuity and adultery justify stonings, lashings and beheadings.
And what does it say about our ability to fight and win a ‘long war’ in the Islamic world if our war effort can be crippled by a solitary pastor with 50 families in his church who decides to have a book burning?”
UPDATE III: Julia Goren wants to know, “Why is there so much more tolerance of extremism in the name of tyranny than in the name of liberty? Why is tyranny more politically correct than liberty?”
I do not like Ron Paul on the mosque issue: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html
I prefer Fleming. I think there’s ample meat in this issue for good arguments from libertarian leaning writers. That will help the rest of us (those who do not ascribe to the libertarian label) to sort things out.
The constitution is a suicide pact after all.
I would agree with Barbara Grant, Ron Paul is dead wrong on this issue. His specific brand of libertarian ideology only lets him see “the State” (i.e. the American government) and neocons as the enemy. He clearly has no understanding of Islam and what its doctrines demand of its followers. Neocons and “statists” are not the only threat to our republic. Sadly, Ron Paul sounds like a liberal in his attack upon the opponents of the Ground Zero mosque, throwing around such terms as “Islamophobia”. It would have been better if he had remained quiet on such issues.
Rand Paul, on the other hand, has clearly come down on the right side in this issue. Pat Buchanan has also written against the Ground Zero mosque. Dr. Ron Paul needs to realize that there is more at stake here than mere property rights.
Damn the details and the rhetoric about tolerance, forbearance and all the other manifestations of cowardice the weenies in our culture always hide behind. Simply, the Muslims hate us and our faith. What faith you ask? It doesn’t matter if it’s not Muslim. This ground zero business is them spitting in our eye and our political leaders are mostly too gutless to speak up. However, while we’re getting so hot and bothered about the Mosque, about whether Obama is a Muslim or a Christian we had better keep an eye on his other hand an watch what he’s trying to shove through congress.
A people who, having gotten over Obama’s preposterous statement…
“America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
…decide make a stand on the issue of one mosque in one place are merely wrangling over the terms of surrender.
I like the name “Libertarian.” It has a nice ring to it; Liberty to all it seems to say. However, when we use it as a political definition, it becomes a mishmash of ideas and concepts. I always thought of Libertarians as someone who advocated a government without the capitalism restrictions of the Democrats or the moral restraints of the Republicans; more of a common sense government, I suppose. Some Libertarians think that liberty should extend to anarchism, others have very restrictive views. It’s not easy to use the word anymore, because it confuses people.
I’m not too fond of Mohammad or his Christian copy, Calvin (Reform Christianity) in that both attempt to restrict the individual personal freedom of those outside their religion. That said, the argument over the Ground Zero Mosque and the church in Florida that wants to burn the Koran with freedom of religion as a part of their constitutional rights are actually making the religions political, not spiritual and it needs to be looked at that way.
I doubt whether most Americans care what religion their neighbors practice, so long as it does not interfere with their own practices and laws. The “Islamophobia” label seems unjust in this case; as “fear of Islam” does not appear to be the issue. Rather, there is demonstrated evidence that wherever Muslims gain power in the west, calls for Shari’a follow, the latter philosophy being inimical to western liberties. The placement of a mosque at the Ground Zero location where “infidels” were cruelly immolated would be nothing if not an example of the power of Islam to change hearts and minds.
Libertarians need to be careful. If they wish to gain converts to their philosophy, they might start by recognizing (as Ilana has stated many times) that their philosophy is part and parcel of western tradition, and nowhere exists independent of it.
I come down on the side of property rights. Any form of liberty that is “conditional” on approval of politicians or “the people” is no liberty at all.
Simultaneously, we have the issue of those wanting to burn a Koran on 9/11. They have an absolute right to burn their own book on their own property. Freedom may offend other’s feelings but people live for themselves and NOT for others. You can build your Mosque and I can burn your Koran – freedom is freedom!
What’s galling about Moslems is their bully/crybaby mentality. They happily blow up Buddhas (did any Moslems object???); proudly murdering/expelling Christians, Jews, Hindus, and even Moslem dissenters/apostates. Then they simultaneously cry “foul” about their sensitivities burning a Koran or posting a Mohammed cartoon. People remember the celebrations 9/11/01 when the Palestinians behaved as if they’d just won the World Cup (their free speech!).
Arguably, most devout Moslems are not deserving or capable of appreciating liberty – which is why we should leave them to stew in their own cesspools of intolerance (in their own countries, not America!). On the other hand, I prefer not to compromise MY rights just to stick it to “THEM”.
Incredibly, many libertarians whom I know personally have drunk the Kool-Aid and have come down on the side of the Muslims–and against Israel. I didn’t have the heart (or the guts) to ask them if they too wish to see Israelis driven into the sea. One of them even claims that all those people celebrating 9/11 in the streets were Israelis and not Muslims (according to some website). One of them is “sick and tired” of Jews “whining” about the Holocaust. One of them told me not to take it “personally” if I should read or hear of Muslims wanting to kill Jews (of which I am one).
A lot of libertarians don’t get that these issues might go far beyond “religious tolerance.” They don’t get it that if Muslims reach critical mass in this country (as they are doing in France and Sweden, for example), things aren’t going to be so nice anymore.
Yikes! I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party anymore, but I’m almost ready to shun some of the libertarians I’ve known over the years.
Conservative writer Mark Hackard has some timely observations on the Ground Zero mosque debate:
Read it all.
I wish the pastor in Florida would stand up now and say, “I’ve made my point and there is no longer any need to burn the Koran. I just wanted to demonstrate to the world that I could drive half the Muslims in the world crazy.”
Ron Paul’s views reinforce my decision to move beyond not just the Ron Paul movement, but politics altogether, and see change through the culture, rather than through Washington, as the way to save Western Civilization. No amount of fighting for the Constitution is going to change this country. Washington DC is the product of a blighted society.
I see the pastor has done what I suggested in the previous comment.
Regardless of one’s view of the Iraq war, the Left’s situational ethics and inconsistent position is now naked. For almost 8 years the MSM published classified information and otherwise made statements that flamed and endangered soldier’s lives and made it more difficult to find murderous terrorists. But burning a Koran is unacceptable because it is ‘dangerous.’
Meanwhile, the uproar from the religion of peace over the Koran leads us to wonder just what proportion of Muslims around the world can be classified as ‘radical.’
It’s a strange world, and the MSM is no longer able to have a rational discussion. The pastor, whatever you think of him, unclothed the Progressive narrative.
Would that we could burn them all.
1. Julia Gorin is mostly correct – EXCEPT that the 2 billion, 50,000 nuke Communist Empire in its heyday (with its Western leftist “intellectual” allies) was a bigger threat than a hoard of illiterate savages. Fred Reed’s latest cynical column notes that the “Christian World” inflicts much greater military damage on the “Islamic World” than the other way around (to no strategic purpose, of course).
2. Pam- the LP is mostly amateurish and Third Parties attract lots of nutcases.
However, anti-Semites also exist in mainstream political parties (examples: Sharpton and many in European parties). The Lew Rockwell site also has a few foaming Israel haters (including David Kramer who is Jewish).
3. Pam – America should support America, however, and not Israel. Israel should defend Israel (see Deuteronomy 15:6). That is a perfectly “libertarian” and Jewish stance.
4. Our political and military “leaders” are pathetic craven wimps bowing to Islam.
5. QUESTION – if Korans were attached to Israeli buses, would Jihadists then refuse to blow them up??? Given how Moslems enjoy killing fellow Moslems, I think the SENSITIVE practitioners of the RELIGION OF PEACE would gladly sacrifice a Koran or two in order to kill and maim Jewish children.
Amidst all this, I have forgotten to say, “Happy New Year” to Ilana, Myron, Pam, and all the Jewish people who contribute here.
Myron, I disagree with you on the point of the “bigger threat” to the USA from the old Soviet Union. Despite their number of nukes (and long-range delivery systems) the Soviets were not suicide-minded. I doubt whether the most strident Soviet dictator wanted to see Moscow nuked in retaliation for an attack on the west. The fact that we threw out Carter and elected Reagan in 1980 was perhaps a wake-up call for them. When the Soviet Empire was defeated, all those nukes went…where? Do we know? When a potential enemy does not value his own life, he is surely not going to value the lives of others. That’s why the present situation is so dangerous.