Religious Tolerance and the Ground Zero Mosque
The controversy of the day is the construction of a mosque in the shadow of the "ground zero" site. The talk shows are afire with all the reasons why it should not be built. Is it insensitive on the part of Muslims-certainly. Is it an exercise of freedom of religion and private property rights to build it-yes. Does it make most of us angry-oh yeah. But why? Why do seventy percent of us oppose the construction of this mosque? Is it fair to "profile" all Muslims for the actions of a few? Why are we reluctant to believe the statements of its organizers who assure us that the Muslim center is meant to be a bridge between the Muslim community and all Americans, a vehicle for healing and peace?
As a "radical" libertarian, it would seem impossible to come to the conclusion that the mosque should not be built even on the "sacred" site itself. After all, if the only purpose of government is to protect our rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and private property, how can we legitimately use the power of government to prevent this free exercise of religious expression? If it was a church, cathedral, synagogue, Hindu temple, Shinto shrine or Buddhist monastery, it would be nigh impossible. But it is not; it is a mosque, the symbol and center of the Muslim community, the focal point for the followers of the prophet Mohammed.
The crucial issue at hand is the fundamental nature of Islam and that is where we must go to make our case. The first thing we need to do is eliminate all the talk of religion and religious expression. That is irrelevant and we need to move our argument elsewhere. Listening to some commentators, they make a big deal about how Islam is an all encompassing way of life as opposed to...what? Christianity? Does not Christianity have ritual, symbols, a calendar of festivals? Do you not hear your preacher exhort you to live a "holy life", making every decision in accordance with the teachings of Jesus? What about Judaism with its 613 commandments, the Mishnah and the teachings of the rabbis that deal with the most arcane and seemingly insignificant areas of life. The Amish and some communities of orthodox Jews live lives just as separate and are just as devoted to their way of life as are Muslims, radical or otherwise.
But Muslims want to take over the world. Oh? And Christians do not want to convert every soul to their religion? Isn’t Judaism to be a "light to all nations"? No, the argument cannot be made there either. Discussing this as a religious issue in the common parlance will get us nowhere. We must ask the more fundamental questions. What is the purpose of religion? It is to give the individual a connection with the divine and a context in which to apply the product of that connection in the everyday world. Because religion is such an transcendent individual experience, it is explained through symbol and analogy and these evolve into religious expressions and for the "unsophisticated", superstition. Because of the ecstatic nature of religious experiences, people who have had them desire to share them. If the individual’s experience is profound and powerful enough, they may start a new "religion."
This is where history comes in. Judaism began with Abraham, Christianity with Jesus, Buddhism with Siddharta Gautama. To become part of Judaism, in the days of Abraham and in the present, one has to be born into the clan or voluntarily convert. Jesus preached voluntary repentance as did his followers and if one wants to be a Christian today, one has to voluntarily convert. Buddhism is a voluntary commitment to seek enlightenment. In contrast to the origins of all these other major religions, Islam began as a political system. By that I mean that from the beginning Islam used physical force to convert and enforce its edicts. That is the fundamental difference between religion and politics. Religion uses persuasion to influence belief and behavior, politics uses physical force. Within our social system, religion is a matter of conscience, people involved in religion employ the power of persuasion to influence behavior and belief. Politics, on the other hand, is concerned with the proper application of force, the power of the state, to influence behavior and ideas. For a libertarian, the use of state power to "positively" influence behavior rather than "negatively" employ it to protect personal and property rights, is where all governments become tyrannical. Islam began with the assumption that it is proper, that it is "God’s will", to use force to make others believe and behave in certain ways and that makes it a political system and it needs to be treated as such. There is not freedom of conscience in an Islamic system. In an Islamic state on cannot choose certain personal behaviors or beliefs. A woman in a bikini would be stoned in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Men without beards were killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Converting to another religion is also punishable by death. Women and children are mere property to be bartered with, abused and discarded. While some may decry the desires of the "religious right" to use the power of the state to impose morality, I know of no preachers who advocate the death penalty for the violation of a dress code, promiscuous behavior or conversion.
Using the power of the state to enforce moral behavior that does not violate the rights of others is a bad idea and in direct contradiction to the founding principles of this country. That is what freedom of conscience is all about. If one chooses to be part of a religion, one can voluntarily accept restrictions on behavior but that religion does not have the right to force you to do so or punish you with fines, imprisonment or death for violations. When religion becomes entwined with the state, using the power of the state to enforce its edicts, it always ends badly. The inquisition and witch hunts are two examples of Christianity getting away from its roots and experimenting with political power. However, the roots of Christianity and the other major religions were not political so such things are the exception and not the rule. Because Islam began as a political ideology, its abuses are the rule rather than the exception. Even in places like America and Europe where Islam does not have control of the power of the state, its war against rival ideologies is apparent. Outright attacks are part of that. Honor killings are another. The murder of filmmakers and cartoonists. The desire to enforce sharia law in their communities is another even though such enforcement is in direct contradiction with constitutional law and our founding principles. Are there some Muslims in America that have made the ideological leap and view Islam as a religion and not as a political ideology? Yes, but they are the exception. Those few have, in reality, abandoned Islam as conceived by its founder and are making it something else and that takes courage and persistence. Until the majority of Muslims make that leap and stop cheering every successful terrorist attack, they must be viewed as members of a violent and destructive political group and not as part of the larger religious community.
Because of this, the construction of the mosque is not a "freedom of religion" issue because we are not dealing with a religion, we are dealing with a political ideology. Most Americans perceive Islam as a religion because in the United States, it does not have real political power although in our politically correct culture, they do have an inordinate amount of influence. It is perceived as a religion because we find common themes with Muslims-prayer, worship, morality. But beneath the veneer is a political ideology that desires to enslave as it has in just about every country where it has become dominant. If we as Americans refuse to accept and understand that truth, actual acts of violence will escalate in accordance with the rhetoric we already hear from most Imams. Islam must be treated not on par with Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism but as we once understood Communism or Fascism-ideologies incompatible with our founding principles and therefore direct threats to the country, our freedom and our way of life.
As Americans, we have the right of self preservation, individually and communally. We have a country based on certain principles and ideals and we enjoy their fruits. We do not have to tolerate an ideology that is in direct opposition to those ideals and has not hesitated to use violence to advance its cause. This is more than a national security issue, it is about preserving our basic freedoms for our posterity. We do not have to let the politically correct crowd’s view of constitutional liberty transform our founding document into a suicide pact. We have a right to our country and Muslims have plenty of other places in the world in which to live. Harsh words for some but we are talking about self preservation here. Immigration from Muslim countries should be stopped immediately. Imams or other Muslims who are not US citizens should be deported immediately if their rhetoric or behavior in any way advocates violence. There should be a moratorium on any mosque or "community center" construction. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed to build a monument to their greatest attack as of yet in New York. Sound ridiculous? Would we not do the same if some neo-nazi group started building "community centers" where they advocated the violent overthrow of the government? Didn’t we round up Germans, Japanese and Italians, most of whom were good Americans and posed no threat, when their counties went to war against us? When are we going to realize that Islam is at war with the west just as the communists of the Soviet Union were? Their war was mostly "cold" just as ours is, but the primary front is not only in a distant country like Vietnam or Iraq but in our own cities and towns. No one doubted the intentions of the communists to "bury us" and the rhetoric of most Muslim leaders is no less vehement in advocating our destruction. We are, after all, the Great Satan.
So why do so many on the "left" support the "right" of the Muslims to build the mosque? Because ideologically, there is no difference between liberals/progressives and Muslims. They both believe in using the power of the state to enforce their ideas of how every human being should live and believe. One wraps itself in the cloak of religion, the other in environmentalism or fairness or social justice. The result is the same. Those who are under such systems are slaves, under the threat of the whip or the sword of their masters, freedom a distant memory, fear a constant companion. If liberty is to survive, if future generations are going to enjoy the vision our founders had for the country, we must jealously and unapologetically guard what freedom remains and stop retreating under the onslaught of political correctness or under misconstrued arguments for religious tolerance. It is time to advance the cause of freedom before it disappears forever from our blessed land.
As a "radical" libertarian, it would seem impossible to come to the conclusion that the mosque should not be built even on the "sacred" site itself. After all, if the only purpose of government is to protect our rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and private property, how can we legitimately use the power of government to prevent this free exercise of religious expression? If it was a church, cathedral, synagogue, Hindu temple, Shinto shrine or Buddhist monastery, it would be nigh impossible. But it is not; it is a mosque, the symbol and center of the Muslim community, the focal point for the followers of the prophet Mohammed.
The crucial issue at hand is the fundamental nature of Islam and that is where we must go to make our case. The first thing we need to do is eliminate all the talk of religion and religious expression. That is irrelevant and we need to move our argument elsewhere. Listening to some commentators, they make a big deal about how Islam is an all encompassing way of life as opposed to...what? Christianity? Does not Christianity have ritual, symbols, a calendar of festivals? Do you not hear your preacher exhort you to live a "holy life", making every decision in accordance with the teachings of Jesus? What about Judaism with its 613 commandments, the Mishnah and the teachings of the rabbis that deal with the most arcane and seemingly insignificant areas of life. The Amish and some communities of orthodox Jews live lives just as separate and are just as devoted to their way of life as are Muslims, radical or otherwise.
But Muslims want to take over the world. Oh? And Christians do not want to convert every soul to their religion? Isn’t Judaism to be a "light to all nations"? No, the argument cannot be made there either. Discussing this as a religious issue in the common parlance will get us nowhere. We must ask the more fundamental questions. What is the purpose of religion? It is to give the individual a connection with the divine and a context in which to apply the product of that connection in the everyday world. Because religion is such an transcendent individual experience, it is explained through symbol and analogy and these evolve into religious expressions and for the "unsophisticated", superstition. Because of the ecstatic nature of religious experiences, people who have had them desire to share them. If the individual’s experience is profound and powerful enough, they may start a new "religion."
This is where history comes in. Judaism began with Abraham, Christianity with Jesus, Buddhism with Siddharta Gautama. To become part of Judaism, in the days of Abraham and in the present, one has to be born into the clan or voluntarily convert. Jesus preached voluntary repentance as did his followers and if one wants to be a Christian today, one has to voluntarily convert. Buddhism is a voluntary commitment to seek enlightenment. In contrast to the origins of all these other major religions, Islam began as a political system. By that I mean that from the beginning Islam used physical force to convert and enforce its edicts. That is the fundamental difference between religion and politics. Religion uses persuasion to influence belief and behavior, politics uses physical force. Within our social system, religion is a matter of conscience, people involved in religion employ the power of persuasion to influence behavior and belief. Politics, on the other hand, is concerned with the proper application of force, the power of the state, to influence behavior and ideas. For a libertarian, the use of state power to "positively" influence behavior rather than "negatively" employ it to protect personal and property rights, is where all governments become tyrannical. Islam began with the assumption that it is proper, that it is "God’s will", to use force to make others believe and behave in certain ways and that makes it a political system and it needs to be treated as such. There is not freedom of conscience in an Islamic system. In an Islamic state on cannot choose certain personal behaviors or beliefs. A woman in a bikini would be stoned in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Men without beards were killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Converting to another religion is also punishable by death. Women and children are mere property to be bartered with, abused and discarded. While some may decry the desires of the "religious right" to use the power of the state to impose morality, I know of no preachers who advocate the death penalty for the violation of a dress code, promiscuous behavior or conversion.
Using the power of the state to enforce moral behavior that does not violate the rights of others is a bad idea and in direct contradiction to the founding principles of this country. That is what freedom of conscience is all about. If one chooses to be part of a religion, one can voluntarily accept restrictions on behavior but that religion does not have the right to force you to do so or punish you with fines, imprisonment or death for violations. When religion becomes entwined with the state, using the power of the state to enforce its edicts, it always ends badly. The inquisition and witch hunts are two examples of Christianity getting away from its roots and experimenting with political power. However, the roots of Christianity and the other major religions were not political so such things are the exception and not the rule. Because Islam began as a political ideology, its abuses are the rule rather than the exception. Even in places like America and Europe where Islam does not have control of the power of the state, its war against rival ideologies is apparent. Outright attacks are part of that. Honor killings are another. The murder of filmmakers and cartoonists. The desire to enforce sharia law in their communities is another even though such enforcement is in direct contradiction with constitutional law and our founding principles. Are there some Muslims in America that have made the ideological leap and view Islam as a religion and not as a political ideology? Yes, but they are the exception. Those few have, in reality, abandoned Islam as conceived by its founder and are making it something else and that takes courage and persistence. Until the majority of Muslims make that leap and stop cheering every successful terrorist attack, they must be viewed as members of a violent and destructive political group and not as part of the larger religious community.
Because of this, the construction of the mosque is not a "freedom of religion" issue because we are not dealing with a religion, we are dealing with a political ideology. Most Americans perceive Islam as a religion because in the United States, it does not have real political power although in our politically correct culture, they do have an inordinate amount of influence. It is perceived as a religion because we find common themes with Muslims-prayer, worship, morality. But beneath the veneer is a political ideology that desires to enslave as it has in just about every country where it has become dominant. If we as Americans refuse to accept and understand that truth, actual acts of violence will escalate in accordance with the rhetoric we already hear from most Imams. Islam must be treated not on par with Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism but as we once understood Communism or Fascism-ideologies incompatible with our founding principles and therefore direct threats to the country, our freedom and our way of life.
As Americans, we have the right of self preservation, individually and communally. We have a country based on certain principles and ideals and we enjoy their fruits. We do not have to tolerate an ideology that is in direct opposition to those ideals and has not hesitated to use violence to advance its cause. This is more than a national security issue, it is about preserving our basic freedoms for our posterity. We do not have to let the politically correct crowd’s view of constitutional liberty transform our founding document into a suicide pact. We have a right to our country and Muslims have plenty of other places in the world in which to live. Harsh words for some but we are talking about self preservation here. Immigration from Muslim countries should be stopped immediately. Imams or other Muslims who are not US citizens should be deported immediately if their rhetoric or behavior in any way advocates violence. There should be a moratorium on any mosque or "community center" construction. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed to build a monument to their greatest attack as of yet in New York. Sound ridiculous? Would we not do the same if some neo-nazi group started building "community centers" where they advocated the violent overthrow of the government? Didn’t we round up Germans, Japanese and Italians, most of whom were good Americans and posed no threat, when their counties went to war against us? When are we going to realize that Islam is at war with the west just as the communists of the Soviet Union were? Their war was mostly "cold" just as ours is, but the primary front is not only in a distant country like Vietnam or Iraq but in our own cities and towns. No one doubted the intentions of the communists to "bury us" and the rhetoric of most Muslim leaders is no less vehement in advocating our destruction. We are, after all, the Great Satan.
So why do so many on the "left" support the "right" of the Muslims to build the mosque? Because ideologically, there is no difference between liberals/progressives and Muslims. They both believe in using the power of the state to enforce their ideas of how every human being should live and believe. One wraps itself in the cloak of religion, the other in environmentalism or fairness or social justice. The result is the same. Those who are under such systems are slaves, under the threat of the whip or the sword of their masters, freedom a distant memory, fear a constant companion. If liberty is to survive, if future generations are going to enjoy the vision our founders had for the country, we must jealously and unapologetically guard what freedom remains and stop retreating under the onslaught of political correctness or under misconstrued arguments for religious tolerance. It is time to advance the cause of freedom before it disappears forever from our blessed land.
Comments