Ron Paul: Mosque opposition ‘all about hate and Islamaphobia’
While I’m no fan of Ron Paul’s politics, I confess I do admire the man’s willingness to speak truth to power, even on the many occasions when his version of the truth directly contradicts my own.
On the proposed Manhattan mosque, he doesn’t disappoint:
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 in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
The claim 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 (are) 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.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
623 comments Add your comment
stands for decibels
August 24th, 2010
7:34 am
And RW, I’ve already posted harsh assessments of Reid and Dean’s spineless (and politically foolish, IMHO) stances on this issue. If you want me to take the added step of calling them hatemongering jerks here in Jay’s blog, just ask. Happy to oblige.
stands for decibels
August 24th, 2010
7:35 am
woo-hoo! dead threaded!
Normal
August 24th, 2010
7:35 am
USinUK, I wonder if “Get Real” knew this. I looked it up yesterday.
Over 300 of the Islam faith were killed in the Twin Tower attacks. That’s over 10% of all deaths. Religious attack? Rigghhhttt…
Paul
August 24th, 2010
7:42 am
Finn McCool 7:23
Could you put that up over at Ms Tucker’s? It’d have more credibility if you do it. She thinks Libertarian and Conservative are pretty much synonymous. That she uses the terms in the ‘classical’ sense, not the modern ‘hijacked’ sense. I think that’s it. Kinda Alice in Wonderland-type definition.
I asked how many conservatives believe in, oh, decriminalizing lotsa drug laws, staying out of peoples’ bedrooms, whacking the Defense budget, and so on.
Now, if more conservatives had more libertarian leanings, we might just get somewhere….
Normal
That’s great news! One time I left a billfold on top of a gas pump at a busy station in Florida. Drove away, realized what I’d done (I was on a trip and thought “how’m I gonna fill the tank again?”) returned, and there it sat.
Someone/something looks out for small children and and adults who do dumb things.
stands for decibels
August 24th, 2010
7:45 am
Someone/something looks out for small children and and adults who do dumb things.
Which is really just another way of saying “God is great”, but if you are to utter those words in Arabic, a lot of people get all silly.
Paul
August 24th, 2010
7:47 am
USinUK
“whatever you do, don’t tell him about Abraham screwing his serving maid or Lot offering up his daughters to be raped …”
It ought to be pointed out that Abrabam was a biblical figure. Not Christian. Not Jewish. Just biblical. He was the great-granddaddy (at least that much, they lived a lonnnng time back then) of the guy from whom Jews descended and was the ancestor of the guy from whom Arabs descended.
So… if you’re making the point both Jews and Arabs/(Muslims?) have progenitors who were perverts….
Then that leads to the whole idea of imposing current Western morality on other cultures, current or thousands of years old, and…
I’m hungry. Time to fix some grits.
L Ron Hubbub
August 24th, 2010
7:51 am
I was thinking about building a landing platform on the old WTC site for our Martian friends. Some old friends of mine, including Ross Perot are ready to help fund it. Even my dear friend Rupert is ready to give it his blessing through FOX.
Saul Good
August 24th, 2010
8:05 am
Normal, Glad you found your wallet. When I was in NYC last month they never gave me back my credit card at the rental car counter…didn’t realize it until I got to the hotel and wanted to use that one to check in… at least you had an honest person… I’m almost thinking that the person working at hertz didn’t give it back to me intentionally and had “plans” in store for it…
David S
August 24th, 2010
8:09 am
Ron Paul is right on everything. Recently Joe Scarborogh was reviewing his incredibly accurate prediction back in 2003 of the upcoming housing collapse and financial collapse. Common sense and principles will always show the right direction to complex issues. That’s why the government can’t every get anything right.
SaveOurRepublic
August 24th, 2010
8:56 am
Dr.Paul is a REAL (paleo)conservative who stands for Constitutional adherence. Unlike the phony NeoCONs who were spawned from Machiavellian Trotskyites like Irving Kristol. The GOP & DNC “leadership” are 2 sides of the same (Globalist Elite controlled) coin. The 2 party/”Left vs. Right” paradigm is leveraged as a control mechanism over the sheeple (via the Globalist Elite puppet ma$ters).
http://www.infowars.com
Marine
August 24th, 2010
8:56 am
Have I missed something? Have all the major problems facing the U.S.A. been taken care of, must be if anyone has time for this drivel. A prayer room in an old coat factory next to a strip club, get over yourselves.
RW-(the original)
August 24th, 2010
9:01 am
And RW, I’ve already posted harsh assessments of Reid and Dean’s spineless (and politically foolish, IMHO) stances on this issue
sfb,
Actually you feigned cluelessness over Dean’s stance and gave Reid a pass for political reasons even though you did say you thought his political reason was wrong, but I already pointed out that 24 minutes earlier you said that there could be no other reason for opposition than hate and Islamaphobia.
John
August 24th, 2010
9:36 am
The US was founded on the principle that we are free to do and think as we please, but nothing is guaranteed. When did this change? When did we begin to aspire to be like Europe where the successful are demonized simply because they make a lot of money? When did we decide that the wealthy aren’t allowed to keep what they earn? When did we conclude that the feelings and opinions of the majority should simply be ignored. I understand and respect the concept that the rights of the minority cannot be trampled. And, I certainly concur with religious and property rights (which they do not enjoy in many countries – I’ve alwyas laughed at ignorant liberal columnist who praise Cuba but have no clue what it’s really like down there). Why does our press mislead us by claiming the wealthy don’t pay their “fair share” (whatever that is) when in fact everyone knows the wealthy pay an inordinate amount of taxes? Everyone knows that the bottom 47% of this country pay no income taxes.
And now this. With nearly 70% of the country opposed to this Mosque and the majority of liberal leaning NYC opposed to it, we still have to endure the harking of the liberal lemmings like Jay Bookman and Cynthia Tucker who ALWAYS know what’s right and what’s best for us all. Sometimes, when you’re legally right, you’re still morally or ethically wrong. Isn’ty this exactly what some liberals claim when they assert the wealthy take advantage of legal tax breaks? What’s the difference, Jay? As you know, this amnswer is there is no difference.
Why don’t the liberal elite, including Jay Bookman and Cynthia Tucker, simply donate all their money and effort to “the cause?” Seriously, with people like George Soros, Jon Stewart and the Hollywood trillionairs, the liberals could solve all of America’s problems simply by throwing ALL of their money into the pot. According to the liberals, money solves all problems. Funny, that you call the conservatives materialistic when in fact the liberals think of nothing but money. But, if you did something like this, you’d at least get my attention.
williebkind
August 24th, 2010
9:37 am
If it is vile and disgusting the progressive liberals are for it–enough said.
Saul Good
August 24th, 2010
9:59 am
John: “And now this. With nearly 70% of the country opposed to this Mosque and the majority of liberal leaning NYC opposed to it, we still have to endure the harking of the liberal lemmings like Jay Bookman and Cynthia Tucker who ALWAYS know what’s right and what’s best for us all. Sometimes, when you’re legally right, you’re still morally or ethically wrong. Isn’ty this exactly what some liberals claim when they assert the wealthy take advantage of legal tax breaks? What’s the difference, Jay? As you know, this amnswer is there is no difference.”
So John, you’re basically saying that MAJORITY opinion rules and trumps the law of the land…and because of that…they should not be able to build their community center. They have the “rights” provided by the laws of our nation and the laws of NYC to build. Approximately 90% of the population is heterosexual as well… so with your faulty logic… I’m guessing we should simply ban gays from being gay.
chuck
August 24th, 2010
10:05 am
It is a matter of respect to allow the building of the mosque, but also a matter of practicality. The builders and backers know full well, that this is going to cause a lot of friction among the “locals”, so is it “prudent” to build it, even if they have the right? What is the end they are serving, to provide a convenient place of worship? Or to create a a continuous source of turmoil among the “locals”, maybe even causing some rioting and religious-racial clashes? What end is being served?
Saul Good
August 24th, 2010
10:09 am
Actually Chuck… those that inhabit lower Manhattan are fine with it (being built)… there are many of ALL denominations/races/etc. who are looking forward to “hopefully” being able to get their children into the preschool that will be part of it…
chuck
August 24th, 2010
10:28 am
Out of “respect” for the “non-Mulsim” community, I would at least expect that the builders/owners not use the name “Cordoba House” (or similar) b/c of the reference – intentional or otherwise- to the mosque in Cordoba, Spain that was symbolic of the Muslim conquest and occupation of that area at the time. This is in the name of “keeping the peace” and maintaining a friendly relationship within the “extended” neighborhood. Is this too much to ask?
willie lynch
August 24th, 2010
10:33 am
If the majority rules, why are 90% of the elected officials in Washington and those trying to get there millionaires? We vote for which millionaire will represent us in congress the senate and so on.
The people are sheep given the opportunity to stray from “groupthink” they will run and tell the rulers that there is on amongst them who is leading the others astray. There is no majority rule in America. Nerver has been and most Americans don’t have the stones to make it a reality.
Charlesm49
August 24th, 2010
1:49 pm
Ron Paul is probably the only politician that does not follow the three maxims of politicis1) Do what is best for your party and the people and companies that pay your way; 2) do what screws the other party and makes it look bad; and last and above all least 3) what is good for this country. Ron Paul only follows the third maxim. Right on Ron!!!!!!
AmVet
August 27th, 2010
9:28 am
http://www.fotosearch.com/bigcomp.asp?path=UNX/UNX007/u20448868.jpg
Rick Griffith
August 28th, 2010
11:53 pm
People, Do your homework and find out what’s being proposed and by whom. Then go back and slowly read what Ron Paul said, then go to his web site and read his points of view on the issues and then if you agree or disagree post you arguments. Or be unreasonable.
RAM
September 12th, 2010
2:26 am
Even if it is agreed that a mosque should be built at that site, whos mosque that shall be. Sunni mosque, Shia mosque or a Ahamadiyya mosque? If a Shia mosque is built, Sunns shall destroy it as they are doing in Pakistan, Iraq and other places. If a Sunni mosque is bult, it may be destroyed by other faiths of Islam. It is important to verify this point before proceeding to build a mosque at that place.