Posted under Christianity & Religion & Ron Paul
What to think about the “Ground Zero Mosque” (GZM)? So far I don’t think we have addressed it directly at this site, but it is now an impossible issue to ignore. My initial impression was that I, as a Christian, oppose a Mosque at Ground Zero as I would oppose a Mosque anywhere on American soil. Islam is a false religion, and is hostile to the West, what we used to quaintly call Christendom. Christians should oppose the construction of Mosques in their community and the immigration of Muslims into our ostensibly Christian country as well.
But I felt like the anti-Mosque forces might be overplaying their hand and a backlash was possible. What is being built is not technically a Mosque, it is a “cultural center”, and it is not really at Ground Zero, it is close to Ground Zero. But I think I might have overestimated the public’s capacity for nuance because opposition to the GZM seems to be increasing and hardening.
But regardless of what happened to the opposition, I always felt and still do that the GZM is VERY POOR PR for the Muslim community even (and maybe especially) if they end up prevailing. It has an “in your face” appearance about it that seems extremely provocative and ill-advised. So I could oppose the construction on Christian and preservation of America grounds and still think I was also helping the Muslim community out. Like you counsel your drunk friend who is contemplating something foolish. “Trust me, you REALLY do not want to do that.”
Of course the Libertarian reaction has been predictable, with the exception of Wayne Root and a few others. For the libertarian this is about abstract property rights and abstract religious freedom, as all arguments for libertarians are about abstractions. Unfortunately Ron Paul falls into this trap in the video posted below. I love Ron Paul and hope he runs for President again, but some issues should trump libertarian ideology and fidelity to your religion and the nature of your country should be one. Ron Paul is usually careful about not getting on the wrong side of issues like this. He could have easily just fallen back on his paleolibertarian stance and stated that this is not a federal issue and is up to the people of New York.
Discuss.
Trencherbone on 20 Aug 2010 at 7:04 pm #
As well as next month’s anniversary of 9/11, there’s a more imminent though lesser known Islamic anniversary – the murderous child-rape orgy at Beslan in early September 2004.
Muslim terrorists killed and tortured countless victims. Young girls were raped with gun barrels and other objects. Children were forced to drink their own urine before being executed. And to make matters worse, the MSM tried to cover up all Islamic involvement, and have done so ever since.
Both anniversaries provide grim but necessary ‘teaching moments’ to educate the American people about Islam. We owe it to the victims to tell the truth and clear through the Islamic lies.
The 9/11 attack wasn’t an abberation caused by ‘militants’ who had hijacked the ‘peaceful religion’ of Islam. The attack was a direct consequence of standard Islamic teaching on the need to kill Harbis.
Terrorism and intimidation are essential features of Islam without which it cannot survive.
Similarly, the sadism and pedophilia of Beslan stem directly from the example set by the ‘Perfect Man’, the murdering, child-raping false prophet Mohammed.
In commemorating these anniversaries, we need to avoid just preaching to choir. We need to copy the tactics of the jihadists with their mosques in every town and ‘Think Globally, Act Locally’.
The blogosphere is fine for communicating globally with other Islamically Aware bloggers, but to reach the bulk of the people we also need to use local forums, online local news media, social networks etc.
All necessary information is HERE – http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-islam.html – Go forth and multiply it!
Trencherbone on 20 Aug 2010 at 7:06 pm #
As well as next month’s anniversary of 9/11, there’s a more imminent though lesser known Islamic anniversary – the murderous child-rape orgy at Beslan in early September 2004.
Muslim terrorists killed and tortured countless victims. Young girls were raped with gun barrels and other objects. Children were forced to drink their own urine before being executed. And to make matters worse, the MSM tried to cover up all Islamic involvement, and have done so ever since.
Both anniversaries provide grim but necessary ‘teaching moments’ to educate the American people about Islam. We owe it to the victims to tell the truth and clear through the Islamic lies.
The 9/11 attack wasn’t an abberation caused by ‘militants’ who had hijacked the ‘peaceful religion’ of Islam. The attack was a direct consequence of standard Islamic teaching on the need to kill Harbis.
Terrorism and intimidation are essential features of Islam without which it cannot survive.
Similarly, the sadism and pedophilia of Beslan stem directly from the example set by the ‘Perfect Man’, the murdering, child-raping false prophet Mohammed.
In commemorating these anniversaries, we need to avoid just preaching to the choir. We need to copy the tactics of the jihadists with their mosques in every town and ‘Think Globally, Act Locally’.
The blogosphere is fine for communicating globally with other Islamically Aware bloggers, but to reach the bulk of the people we also need to use local forums, online local news media, social networks etc.
All necessary information is HERE – http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-islam.html – Go forth and multiply it!
Matt Weber on 20 Aug 2010 at 7:16 pm #
Not a federal issue and up to the people of New York. That pretty much settles it for me. I don’t think anyone needs to be happy that we’re getting a mega-Islamic-doohickey built near GZ, but if Bloomberg wants it and the people of NY don’t care then I don’t either.
The reaction of the American-hating left has been entertaining though.
stevew on 20 Aug 2010 at 8:49 pm #
Maybe the predictable ‘Libertarian reaction” is because libertarianism is strictly a political philosophy. In his book “Libertarianism Today, Jacob Herbert writes
“libertarianism is not a complete moral philosophy or a philosophy of life. It is just a political philosophy.”
Herbert goes on to quote Murray Rothbard
“Libertarianism per se does not offer a comprehensive way of life or system of ethics as do, say conservatism and Marxism. This does not mean in any sense that I am opposed to a comprehensive ethical system; quite the contrary. It simply means that libertarianism is strictly a political philosophy, confined to what the use of violence should be in social life.”
Applied to this situation it means that the libertarian concern is only the role of the government as it relates to the Mosque (I know it is technically not a Mosque but it is shorter to write than Muslim Community and Outreach Center). It does not address the question of whether or not the Mosque should be built. That is an ethical and moral question that should be decided by the peaceful exchange of ideas and beliefs. Therefor your comment “He could have easily just fallen back on his paleolibertarian stance and stated that this is not a federal issue and is up to the people of New York.” is not the paleolibertarian stance it is exactly the libertarian position. Being only a political philosophy though also means that I as a Christian (yes you can be a Christian and a libertarian just put down the Ayn Rand) can agree with you based on my religious convictions. I would come in conflict with libertarianism if I also called for the disregard of private property rights and the use of the government to forcibly stop construction of the Mosque.
I suspect you will not be pleased with what you may think of as a “reductionist” definition of libertarianism and one can certainly expect that adherence to libertarian ideals are not separate from ones ethics and morals, but it is not simply a matter of libertarians reducing everything down to abstracts. The fact that it is “just a political philosophy” allows for libertarians to take the side of Ron Paul (not opposed to building the Mosque) or Rand Paul (I believe Rand Paul has come out for not building the Mosque but has not called for the government to step in, though I may be wrong) and still be consistent with libertarian philosophy.
I have another solution though – why don’t we buy property about 2 doors down from the proposed Mosque and build a Christian Outreach Center. This would test the limits of Muslim tolerance. and just imagine bin Laden rotting away in some cave somewhere in Pakistan finding out that in the place of the twin towers is a Muslim Outreach Center just a few doors down from a Christian Outreach Center. Both teaching peace and tolerance.
Thank you for allowing me to comment.
Kirt Higdon on 20 Aug 2010 at 11:10 pm #
So no mosques or Moslems in the US because Islam is a “false religion”? I know Catholics who say that any Protestant sect is a false religion. Indeed Catholic thinkers from John of Damascus through Thomas Aquinas to Hilaire Belloc have considered Islam to be a Christian heresy, which is what Catholics consider the Protestant sects to be. And of course there are such “false religions” as Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Scientology and – well, the list goes on and on. Filmer is basically suggesting that the US become a Christian confessional state. This goes way beyond what most of the mosque opponents are proposing, other than Newt Gingrich, the recent Catholic convert who seems to think that the US should become a Christian confessional state for as long as Saudi Arabia is a Moslem one.
The mosque issue is being mainly pushed by Republican political opportunists like Palin and Gingrich who hope to ride it to the White House. But this and numerous other mosque controversies suddenly emerging throughout the country have resonance because it is dimly penetrating the consciousness of the American public that the ill-conceived efforts to impose “our values” on the Moslem world at gunpoint have been spectacularly unsuccessful and are impoverishing the country. Some wish to up the military ante by nuking Iran, while others vent their resentment by bullying local Moslems. Ron Paul is right on this as he has been right on so much else. I notice that rights get labelled “abstract” when someone wants to take them away from other people, but become very concrete when it’s our own rights which are threatened.
Bede on 21 Aug 2010 at 1:23 am #
Kirt, how about this: Islam is in no way Western and mosques should be banned from any Western nation. I have no problem with this.
RonL on 21 Aug 2010 at 7:50 am #
Filmer wrote:
“But I felt like the anti-Mosque forces might be overplaying their hand and a backlash was possible. What is being built is not technically a Mosque, it is a “cultural center”, and it is not really at Ground Zero, it is close to Ground Zero. But I think I might have overestimated the public’s capacity for nuance because opposition to the GZM seems to be increasing and hardening.”
The “cultural center” contains a mosque, and what is a mosque if not a religious and cultural center of Islam? Although Burlington Coat Factory/Park 51 is a block and a half from WTC #7, it was damaged by the attack on 9-11. In fact it was the damage from the landing gear that allowed the mosque builders to purchase it so cheaply.
“He could have easily just fallen back on his paleolibertarian stance and stated that this is not a federal issue and is up to the people of New York.”
The people of New York City and state have no voice. King Bloomberg is ignoring the wishes of a majority of New Yorkers on this issue, just as when he and the city council overturned term limits. As long as he can purchase idiot votes to get in with money made on such deals as the his with the Saudis and Emirities. http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/08/11/mayor-bloombergs-tearful-mosque-speech-thanks-for-not-screwing-up-my-saudi-investment-strategy/
stevew,
New York City and the MTA have prevented the REBUILDING of St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, which was destroyed on 9-11.
The simple fact is that property rights don’t really exist in NYC. Every building project is up to the discretion of the city. Variances must be passed and projects approved. Speaking of which, there are legal grounds to revoke the approval. It was made based on the statement by Rauf and the Cordoba Initianitive that they owned 45 Park Place as well as 51 Park Place. In fact, 45 Park Pl is owned by Con Edison and is being negotiated. Even if Con Ed sells 45 Park Place, the Cordoba Initiative backers committed fraud and perjury when they submitted false documents.
libhomo on 21 Aug 2010 at 11:12 am #
When I actually looked on a map, I found that the proposed mosque isn’t even at Ground Zero. It’s a couple of blocks away in Tribeca. (And, for the uninitiated, a couple of blocks is a huge deal in Manhattan.)
Kirt Higdon on 21 Aug 2010 at 12:40 pm #
“Kirt, how about this: Islam is in no way Western and mosques should be banned from any Western nation. I have no problem with this.”
OK, so should Eastern Orthodox Christianity be banned while such 100% “western” cults as Wicca, Mormonism, and Scientology be permitted?
Bede on 21 Aug 2010 at 1:37 pm #
Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy, or various forms of Slavic Orthodoxy would be acceptable. These are long-standing European religions. I’m more partial to the long-standing religions of Western Europe and European America, but the Eastern European churches are closely related and pose no threat.
Kirt Higdon on 21 Aug 2010 at 11:22 pm #
Actually Islam established itself in Western Europe before Christianity was established in Russia. And obviously on the human level, Christianity is of Middle Eastern origin and supplanted long standing European religions. Many people may follow a faith out of tradition but human beings have an obligation to follow what is true. Most religions contain some elements of truth and that is definitely the case with Islam considering that it is a Christian heresy.
It’s worth noting that the US does not have a tradition of legally establishing some religions and outlawing others. Some religious practices may be legally prohibited but not the religion itself. There have been occasional outbursts of religiously motivated mob violence in US history – most frequently directed against Catholics. A bad case scenario from the present mosque controversies is mob violence directed against Moslems in the US provoking retaliatory mob violence against Christians abroad. An even worse case scenario is either Palin or Gingrich getting elected president on a platform of doing something about Moslems.
Bede on 22 Aug 2010 at 1:13 pm #
Kirt, Everyone knows Islam was established in Spain. But, thanks to Charles Martel and other brave Europeans, its expansion was halted and it was eventually driven out of Spain entirely.
I don’t have anything against Muslims – provided they are not in the West. No mosque should be built on Western soil.
Kirt Higdon on 22 Aug 2010 at 2:27 pm #
The Moslems were never driven from Europe entirely; by the time they were expelled from Spain they were already well established in the Balkans. There have been mosques on western soil for the past 1200 or 1300 years or so. Good luck with getting rid of all of them. I’d rather concentrate on building up the Catholic Church, both locally and world-wide.
Mary on 22 Aug 2010 at 7:47 pm #
Instead of arguing back and forth over which religion originated where, how about looking at the facts? Radical muslims have a wide known history (current as well) for hate of the United States. The militants and radicals refer to israel as “little Satan” and the United States as “big Satan”, and they are determined to wipe both countries off the map. I see most of these mosques claiming to not be radical, an places for infiltrations for the radicals. We would never know unless we too were Muslim and attended the most inner circle of the mosque. When is the last time Christians or Catholics or other religions in the US were responsible for so many terrorist attacks against a nation?
“If Isalm is a peaceful religion, then why did Mohammed engage in 47 battles? Why, in every campaign the Muslim armies have fought throughout history, have they slaughtered men, women and children who did not bow their knees to the lordship of Islam? The reign of terror of men such as Saddam, Khomeini, Ghadafi, Idi Amin and manhy other mUslim dictator are modern examples. If Islam is so peaceful, why are there so many verses in the Koran about killing the infidels and those who resist Islam? If Islam is peaceful, why isn’t there even one Muslim country that WILL ALLOW FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND SPEECH? NOT ONE! If Islam is peaceful, who is imparting this awful violence to hundreds of Islamic groups throughout the world who kill innocent people in the name of Allah? But since the statehood of Israel…men such as Ghadafi and Osama bin Laden have been blowing the dust off the sword of a forceful world-invading religion.” – written by former radical Shi’ite Muslim Reza F. Safa
roho on 22 Aug 2010 at 9:08 pm #
Please return us to States Rights!……..The “Republic” was a great idea, inspite of Abraham Lincoln. I don’t care if Jews and Muslims kill each other in the “Big Bagel”, faggots marry each other in San Francisco, or Sarah Palin weds Newt?
When people of Municipalities and States create a living sewer environment, voters will move away! Businesses will pull back from doing business in these areas, and they will collapse!
Let the people VOTE!…..Instead, we have Activist Judges rulling from the bench, and a Liviathan Federal Government destroying what is left of states rights. (PEOPLE KNOW ON A LOCAL BASIS WHAT THEY WANT!)
“A man convinced against his will, is of the same oppinion still.”
When the last of this Republic comes falling down, people will realize that the “Confederacy” simply wished to exit the New England Thinking, and George Wallace was right from the beginning!
STATES RIGHTS!…….Move if you don’t like the one your in!
Bede on 23 Aug 2010 at 1:29 am #
“The militants and radicals refer to israel as “little Satan” ”
I couldn’t careless how they refer to Israel, as I am neither Jewish nor Israeli.
I am concerned with the survival of West – not Israel. Not that I have anything against Israel – I really don’t – I just don’t care one way or the other what is in the interest in Israel.
Mary on 23 Aug 2010 at 3:18 am #
Bede,
It was in comented to show the distinct comparison of what the US is thought of…and here they want to keep building here! I DO care how they refer to Israel and the US as well. IF you are concerned with the survival of the west, then you better read up on the end times prophecies in the bible. Israel is very much involved and if Muslims hate Israel so much, just know we are hated so much more.
Dylan Hales on 23 Aug 2010 at 11:34 pm #
I would like hear Bede and Filmer’s positions on Christian missionary work. Are those sort of cultural invasions acceptable? If so why?
Captainchaos on 24 Aug 2010 at 12:07 am #
“Are those sort of cultural invasions acceptable? If so why?”
It should be clear to all that the universalism intrinsic to Christianity is at permanent odds with the maintenance of ethnic/racial genetic particularity. If European Man had been inculcated to a religion which was by its nature for him alone, and excluding all others, he would not now be facing oblivion.
Christianity was the camel’s nose that opened the tent.
Bede on 24 Aug 2010 at 1:48 am #
At different times in history, certain aspects of religious texts are emphasized while others are de-emphasized. Missionary work is an aspect of Christianity that should be de-emphasized at this point in time. As a few right-wingers have said, it’s the “Achilles heal” of Western Christianity.
Filmer on 24 Aug 2010 at 1:58 pm #
Dylan, I disagree with Bede here although our end policies are similar. Christianity is not European. Europe is Christian, but Christianity is not European.
Christians have to support missionary work because we are commanded to. “Go yea into all the world and preach the Gospel to every people.” (Or something similar.) I would never disparage missionary work. What I would object to is the idea that we have an affirmative moral responsibility to invite non-Christians here for humanitarian and what is essentially reverse missionary work. “Invite them here and maybe we can save them.” The Christian should have an interest in keeping America particularly Christian. Invite in non-Christians and yes some of them might be influenced by the culture and saved, but others will influence and alter the culture. And you end up selling your future generations down the river, like Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
Christian parents send their kids to Christian schools in the hope that they will be around other Christians. Many Christian schools require parents (or at least one parent) to affirm a statement of faith. They don’t invite in Muslim kids or atheist kids to go to the school so they can witness to them. To do so would be to jeopardize the well being of their own children. Instead you should send people out to witness to Muslims and atheists. Immigration should be a similar concept if Christians were practicing rational self-protection. But they are, by and large, not (and when they are they weasel about admitting it). What they are doing is elevating abstract principles over self-preservation and the preservation of a stronghold of the Faith.
Filmer on 24 Aug 2010 at 2:15 pm #
“Filmer is basically suggesting that the US become a Christian confessional state.”
Kirt, what I was suggesting is that Christians should have an interest in keeping America particularly Christian. I would love for America to be a Christian confessional state, but that cat is, barring Divine intervention, way out of the bag. (Keeping America particularly Christian is probably out of the bag as well, but it would be nice if Christians at least made a go at it.)
Christians in America are not first and foremost answerable to the “Americanist” principles of freedom, pluralism, tolerance, etc. In fact one Pope called that the heresy of Americanism. They are first and foremost answerable to the Bible, and in the case of Catholics (falsely IMO) Church authority. So make your case from the Bible for the elevation of “Americanist” principles over the preservation of the Faith. Good luck with that.
Also, I strongly disagree that Islam is a Christian heresy. It is a made up religion with Christian and Jewish roots. But even if we grant that it is, to suggest that Protestantism (which leaves intact all the essentials of Creedal Christianity) is equal to Islam is both silly and offensive.
Also, I am confused by you putting scare quotes around “false religion.” Do you as a Catholic not believe that Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, etc. are false religions? That would be serious news to me.
Kirt Higdon on 24 Aug 2010 at 3:08 pm #
All religions that you mentioned contain elements of truth and Islam considerably more than the other three. St. Paul found elements of truth in Greek paganism which he used for evangelization and many other Christian evangelists have followed his example. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the doctors of the Church, incorporated pagan, Jewish and Islamic elements in his theology.
I did not suggest that Protestantism was equal to Islam, nor have I ever called any Protestant sect a false religion. I know people who do and I disagree with them for the same reason that I object to calling Islam a false religion. It’s a conversation stopper and a hindrance to evangelization. Much better to acknowledge the true elements and take it from there.
Nor is it “Americanist” to tolerate mosques. The Hapsburg empire, to a large extent a Catholic confessional state, tolerated mosques, not to mention synagogues and Protestant churches. So did and does Britain, an Anglican confessional state, Russia, an Orthodox Christian one, and Israel, a Jewish one.
Filmer on 24 Aug 2010 at 3:22 pm #
The issue I was raising was not so much tolerating mosques as it was inviting our own destruction and seeming to glory in our moral superiority for our willingness to do so.
Joe on 24 Aug 2010 at 3:56 pm #
And herein lays the problem: all these previous posts digress from the actual point of the GZM into whose “Religion is better” argument. The point is whether they have the right to build the mosque or not. If they filed all the proper paperwork with the City and they legally own the property then the answer is quite simply Yes. To turn this discussion into a religious one is what is causing a majority of the problems today; too much “Religion” and not enough “Spirituality.” Do we forget that America was founded on the principal of religious freedom? Those who came here early on, The Pilgrims, separated from the Church of England so they could practice how they saw fit without persecution. Then our Forefather who wrote the Constitution, made sure there would be no “Church of America.” Yes, the US is predominantly Christian, or at least most people pay lip service to being Christian, but we need to keep alive the Separation of Church and State! I personally believe that all religions have portions of their dogma that contradict (or can be twisted to contradict) the core beliefs, but that the core beliefs are essentially well meaning and boil down to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Now I even digress, our freedoms in this country apply to all, and if they followed all the rules they have as much right to build what they want on their own property as anyone else. Period.
stevew on 24 Aug 2010 at 4:00 pm #
RonL
The fact that NYC has been eroding property rights is not an excuse for Libertarians to disregard property rights in favor of state intervention. Constitutional Conservatives and Libertarians should be in agreement on this.
I do not want to respond to every accusation made against the Cordoba Initiative but rebuilding St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church does involve other issues. However, the Libertarian response would not be that the same disregard for property rights that the state is using against the Church should be used against the Cordoba Initiative.
As Father Alex Karloutsos (assistant to the Archbishop) stated:
“religious freedom” would allow a place of worship for any denomination to be built.” I would also include property rights in that statement.
I would prefer to see protests against the Port Authority and the state. The state has not only stopped the church from rebuilding, they have also delayed the building of any monument to the victims of 9-11.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the people associated with the Cordoba House offered part of the building to St Nichols Church.
Reddick on 24 Aug 2010 at 5:01 pm #
Follow the money trail
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html
Turns out, that proposed Mosque is being financed by Fox News owners. Yep, you read that right. Watch to see
Filmer on 24 Aug 2010 at 5:13 pm #
“Do we forget that America was founded on the principal of religious freedom?”
First of all Joe, America was not “founded ON” any principles. It was “founded” (actually colonized or established are probably more accurate words) BY particular people who brought with them certain general principles.
“Those who came here early on, The Pilgrims, separated from the Church of England so they could practice how they saw fit without persecution.”
There is an element of truth to this, but the overall implication is wrong. They separated from the Church of England because they thought the CoE was WRONG and they thought they were RIGHT. I know it is hard for a lot of moderns to grasp, but people back then actually took what they believed seriously and thought what they believed mattered. When they arrived in America they attempted to set up a colony along their own religious lines. Religious freedom as we understand it today was not guaranteed to anyone. This is even truer of the Puritans.
“Then our Forefather who wrote the Constitution, made sure there would be no “Church of America.””
Again there is an element of truth here but the overall implication is wrong. The Constitution allowed for no national church, but it left intact official churches, religious tests for office, etc. in many of the states.
Joe on 24 Aug 2010 at 7:39 pm #
Filmer, you are an astute and shrewd debater, I am not. The words I chose may not have been the most correct but my point still remain valid. This country, OUR country needs to maintain the separation of church and state and protect the constitutional rights that all its citizens have. So as long as the GZM developers have followed all the local ordinances and the land is legal theirs, they have a right to build what they want. Please remember that his country is today what it is (still number 1 in my book) because of all the immigrants, including your family and mine. And that these people all came here because of the protection of all these freedoms, and the idea that they will be allowed to do, say, believe, etc. what they want (within the confines of basic laws) and they would have a better life here for them and their family instead of where they were. I respect your points of view and the way you have expressed them, I just cannot stand the growing intolerance to “outsiders” that is growing exponentially in this country. Yes, be vigilant against “enemies of the state” but that includes extremists here who use violence against other American Citizens simply because they do not believe the same way. And I believe as stated in some earlier posts that this issue is being blown out of proportion by politicians who only want the press (even if it is the liberal media) and to tap into this growing intolerance. I thought it was sick how Newt likened the building of this mosque to a Nazi memorial going next to a Holocaust memorial. Like most politicians his use of logic is completely flawed, but close enough and bombastic enough to get people to think it’s right.