Tuesday 29 June 2010

Controversy over proposed ‘Ground Zero’ Mosque [update 3]

In his latest podcast, Leonard Peikoff comes out swinging against allowing the “give America the finger” Mosque to be built just three blocks or so from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, where more than 3000 people were killed in the name of Islam less than ten years ago.  But he’s not just objecting to its construction, he’s calling for government action to destroy it altogether. Asked “isn’t it private property and therefore protected by individual rights?” Peikoff says no, emphatically not, and further

_Quote In regard to this issue, I would say, any way possible, permission should be refused; and, if they go ahead and build it, the government should bomb it out of existence. Evacuating it first, with no compensation to any of the property owners involved in this monstrosity.”

Trouble is (well, there’s several causes for trouble, really), his argument applies to every mosque built in every street in every city in the west. Which is no better than what Roosevelt did when he locked up every Japanese-American he could find right after the attack on Pearl Harbor.  As Ari Armstrong said last week:

_QuoteIf there is real evidence that the builders of the mosque actively plan to forcibly overthrow the United States government or harm its citizens, then they should be prosecuted and imprisoned by the government. I have seen no such evidence.”

Yes, Islam is at war with the west.  And yes, those who’ve committed acts of war should be treated as casualties, not as defendants.  But as far as those building the mosque are concerned, any guilt must first be proven, not just assumed.

If not,  seems to me that objecting to this mosque is simply a proxy for objecting to what’s not being done to hunt down and kill those responsible for terrorism and for supporting terrorists —in other words, objecting to the foolish war that is being waged against a tactic instead of against the real enemy, a failing war that has left the real enemies to haunt failed states like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan and hostile states like Iran in the same way that a vampire haunts darkness. Or in Diana Hsieh’s succinct words:

_QuoteTotalitarian Islam is a major threat, but that threat needs to be fought by the military -- by destroying the states that sponsor terrorism -- not by violating private property rights in order to prevent a mosque from being built.”

On this then, Trey Given’s carefully considered words speak for mine:

_QuoteDr. Peikoff says in his comment that if I disagree, then I don’t understand Objectivism.  I’m fine with that. I do not subscribe to Objectivism so that I might call myself an Objectivist.  I call myself an Objectivist because I agree with all that I know and understand about Objectivism.  Part of that understanding is that I make up my own mind about these things.  Dr. Peikoff can think whatever he likes about things, but his thoughts are not mine.  I will not accept an argument from authority.
    “All I can say is that I will re-listen to the podcast and re-consider what he says and see if I agree.  At present, I do not.”

Me either.

RELATED POSTS:

Read his whole post here asking What About the Forty Other Islamic Centers?.

11 comments:

MarkT said...

"Which is no better than what Roosevelt did when he locked up every Japanese-American he could find right after the attack on Pearl Harbor"

Not saying I necessarily agree with Peikoff (undecided).....but don't think that's a fair analogy. Being of Japanese origin is purely racial and implies nothing necessarily of your ideology or loyalty during a war. However a Muslim mosque implies advocacy of a certain belief system; the same belief system which motivated the S11 perpetrators.

A closer analogy might be letting Japanese build a Shinto temple (the Japanese state religion during WII) at Pearl Habor whilst the war was still being fought. I would certainly have been against that, so to the extent they are analogous, Peikoff might have a point…

PaulB said...

What is in this for the builders of the mosque? Surely they must realise the controversy it is going to cause which will surely result in the continual harassment of it's members if it goes ahead. I agree they have the right to build what they want on their property though.

Peter Cresswell said...

@Mark: But the same objection to the Pearl Harbor Shinto temple applies to every Shinto temple. That's part of my point above: if you think govt action against the NYC osque is merited, then why not every mosque in every street in every city in the west?

And even if you were to agree with that, a further objection applies: that is, that it's not appropriate to simply overleap the foundations of objective law to ban or bomb what you've decided is dangerous. It either requires due process, to prove the guilt of those involved, or an actual declaration of war, to make explicit what is at present only being fudged. (This last is part of Robert Tracinski's point in that linked article.)

MarkT said...

@ PC: Mmmmm.... I suppose it comes down to an issue of legal process then. What temporary(emergency) powers can governments have during war - and what is required before they can enact them - eg: a formal declartion of war?

Anonymous said...

While you guys debate in the name of "Objectivism" how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, consider the following:

Firstly, the Islamofascists are taking advantage of America's tradition of religious tolerance and pluralism to build an deliberately insensitive monument to their own religious intolerance and totalitarianism.

Anyone who has lived and worked in an Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia [it is Wahhabi money building the New York mosque same as it pays for mosque-building all over the Western world] will know that not only is it illegal to contruct a public building dedicated to a non-Islamic religion, but unlawful to even hold a non-Islamic prayer meeting in a private home.

Tolerance is a two-way street. The West should not extend it to these people unless it is unequivocally reciprocated.

Second, Islam has traditionally built mosques on the religious sites of defeated enemies as a sign of conquest. Some examplesm are the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and the Great Mosque of Cordoba in Spain.

In every case, Muslims built mosques on those spots to send a message: "We conquered you, took your holy site, and now it belongs to us."

Building a mosque on New York's former Twin Towers site is meant to send precisely that message. Just in case anyone missed what the Islamofascists are trying to do, they're naming it Cordoba House to ensure there's no confusion.

Those involved with putting this project together claim to be "moderates," but know that around the world, building this mosque will be considered the greatest victory for radical Islam since 9/11.

Radical Muslims all over the world will be cheering deliriously, firing off rifles in the air, and handing out sweets in the streets, just like they did after 9/11.

Those who hate America with every fibre of their being will be heartened by this incredible "victory" over America. Is that the message the USA wants to send to its enemies?

Anywhere in the world, Muslim immigrants have refused to assimilate into Western culture. This might have something to do with the Koran's 5th sura, the final revelation chronologically.

Allah ordered Muslims "not to question the Koran." Those who did so, he said, "discarded their religion." Bukhari V4B52N260 is unequivocal regarding the fate of recalcitrants: “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’” Koran 4:114 is one of many suras warning that “apostates” are also punished in the afterlife: “He who disobeys the Apostle after guidance has been revealed will burn in Hell.”

Although percentage-wise, Muslims may make up a small part of the population of Western countries, they are allowed by leftist political correctness to get away with behaving like an oppressive majority.

Sharia and polygamy have become the law of the land in parts of Britain. Non-Muslim women in part of Amsterdam have started wearing veils for protection. Belgian police officers have been told not to drink coffee in public during Ramadan. In France, Muslim violence, riots, and car burnings are just considered to be a part of life.

Everyone is running scared of the threat of Islamic violence when crossed. Newspapers are afraid to show Danish cartoons of Muhammad. Comedy Central, which is planning a whole show dedicated to mocking Jesus, refuses to show Muhammad's image on South Park.

Even as the people building the mega-mosque at Ground Zero are remorselessly taking advantage of American tolerance to advance their project, what they're doing fits in perfectly with the sort of backwards, uncivilised, and anti-social behavior Muslims have tried to force on Western culture in Europe.

If Americans don't stand up for what's right for America and prohibit the further establishment of Islam in their country, Americans will pay a price in freedom, civilisation, and human decency that they may never get back

Dinther said...

@Anonymous:

That is a powerful plea that tugs all the right heartstrings and on an emotional level I fully agree with what you are saying. "I want to kick someone's butt!", "Someone do something, anything"

You say: "If Americans don't stand up for what's right for America..."

And that is what you need to get clear in your head. What is right for America is freedom, property rights, individualism, small government etc. That is what made America great.

We say the western world is under attach by Islam. And I suppose on many levels you are right. These guys are masters at their game and so far we buy it hook line and sinker. The current freedom at western airports is a typical example.

"We got to do what is right!" is the emotional response. And what do we do? We make the place a little less free at every turn. Now by taking property rights away in some cases that is arbitrarily decided on by a government that is too powerful already.

I am longing to the day that people do what is right. And this is to kick out the current socialists and rebuild a country based on the constitution. Only then will America have the economic power again to fight back.

Don't honour your freedoms by restricting others. Instead honour it by valuing your own right down to the core of it.

It is not the Muslims destroying our western values. We are doing the work for them. An absolute master stroke of evil genius.

MarkT said...

@ Anon: Well the point of the debate, as I see it, is how we fight the Islamofascists without surrendering our own rights and liberties in the process.

Is the latter something you care anything about - or is this just "angels dancing on pins" to you?

Or maybe you do care about it, but have trouble considering both issues simultanteously?

Mo said...

I see some valid points in anon's post (although polygamy isn't one of them. I'd also prefer integration to assimilation)

but I must say the current western culture is very collectivist- Europe moreso than the US- although the US is heading that way and in certain aspects Europe are more free than the US. There is a lot of political correctness and bending backwards to appease certain minorities. Add to that a welfare state and you can see where all of that going.

The fact is that our culture doesn't respect individual liberties and its not just the politicians its the people who vote them in as well.

How can you protect something you don't understand or respect?

Peter Cresswell said...

@Mo: That's part of the importance of making sure you understand it, and do your best to communicate that understanding to others.

@Dinther & @Mark: Great responses. I trust "Anonymous" reads them.

@Anonymous: I take your point, but the mosque is not being built "on that spot." It is being built three blocks away, as which you can see by following the link in the orginal post.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter Cresswell said...

Please follow commenting guidelines. Posts should be all your own work, i.e., do not simply copy and paste someone else's. And they should contain your name, or at least a recognised pseudonym.

And some sign of intelligence would also be welcome.