I'm sure everyone knows there is a vocal debate going on about the mosque that is proposed to be built at ground zero in New York. I remember that after 9/11 it was very easy to hear widespread anti-Islamic sentiment in response to the attacks, just as response to Pearl Harbor was internment camps for Japanese, or WWI was internment for Germans. I also remember the noble attempts by many to make sure everyone understood that it wasn't Islam that attacked America, but terrorists.
My own father and grandfather still hold this illogical fear of Islam the religion (and I argue with them about it all the time) and, unfortunately, I can't say I'm certain if the sentiment has changed much since 9/11. Maybe unfortunate is too soft a word. Accordingly, I have to say I find the fact that those opposed to the mosque are opposed on the grounds of "respect for the victims of 9/11" is, well, atrocious. That very argument, taken to its logical end, means that Islam the religion promotes the murder of thousands of people. It seems to me to be an example of the work that needs to be done to educate people on the effects of our foreign policy and how it is not directly the religion that promotes so much destruction, but merely is a medium for those who have lost so much from the interference of our war machine in their lives.
And, because I can't help but see the economics in everything, if New Yorkers do not want a mosque, than either 1. no mosque would be built or 2. it'll go under after it is, unless there is some secret conspiracy by the international Al Qaeda network to use it as a headquarters in their US operations (sarcasm intended). It makes me wonder exactly who is doing the complaining -- New York or elsewhere. Either way, when looked at from the point of view of freedom, as I do with every issue, who is anyone else to say they can't use their own property to promote their owns beliefs to those willing to listen?
Freedom requires responsibility, and part of responsibility is tolerance.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
Bravo.
Why is it ALWAYS Islamist that is doing the Jihad thing DUH? muslim extreamist..ONLY! Muslims no one else, well right now anyway...Because of their religion of beliving they have a responsiblity to ISLAM through the teaching of the koran to kill infidels..Arn't they my enemy?
This is your brain on Bill O'Reilly, kids. Don't touch the stuff, or it could be you!
I've included quotes from the Koran that may be interpreted as violent (by anyone with common sense). Yes, Muslim Extremists are your enemy. They are the purveyors of the most hideous forms of government. Muslim extremists practice Sharia Law and have a religious duty to bind government and holy scripture. Virtually no Muslim states protect what we believe are the most menial civil liberties. Is this not the Young Americans for Liberty? In order to promote liberty effectively, one must antagonize tyranny, make tyrants enemies, and fight against tyrants. This is not your brain on Bill O'Reilly. This is your brain after having read the Surah:
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)
You have proof that the folks wanting to build the mosque near ground zero are extremists?
The Bible also calls for violence. Nearly all religions can and will be taken by extreme elements to violent levels in belief of their scriptures. Sikh and Hindu and Muslim and Christian and Jew, all religions use violence against one another. Christians are and have been just as violent - such as almost the entirety of the "War on Terror" which has really been no more than another Crusade - Christian leaders sending Christian Soldiers to the middle east, pointing out the innate evils of Islam.
Before they were mostly phased out among our culture, Christian states did little-to-nothing to protect what we believe are the most menial of civil liberties, either. Infidels were tortured and killed, women knew their place, the outspoken were whipped publicly and denounced by God.
An upswing in more conservative theocratic governments exist overseas, yes. Many of them because their secular and liberal governments were too independant after long-time Western control found themselves at the hands of "Regime Change" by the US and UK to new tyrants, and religious leaders were most effective there at rallying the population against them.
Not every revolution has the benefit of well-read leaders in European Liberal thought. When a bad guy is propped by the west, the people want him gone, and depending on the zeitgeist there, it'll go several ways. Sure, the US had Liberal thought, and had a Liberal revolution. In Central America, South America, and Cuba, there was populist or communist thought to fight the dictators, and in the middle east, it was religious.
So, they get in place, and they're pissed off at us. It's not just what the holy book says - if we were friendly to them like we were with Christian nations, they'd likely have continued their secular paths and be friendly to us, rather than entrenched in religious warfare. Instead, we bomb them and kill their popular leaders and expect them to thank us.
On a further note, as said in the other reply, if we are to protect liberty, we cannot be against the idea of a Mosque at ground zero unless they intend to do extremest harm. Do they intend to initiate force? Then we cannot condone the use of force against them to stop them if they wish to use their money to purchase the land and build the Mosque. We have no rights, under the Natural Law of God, to use force against them to stop them. That is the very most basic tenant of Liberty.
Creighton, I have had the same issue trying to explain the issue in a free-market fashion. Thank you for articulating it as such. I now can change my approach to these main points. Great post dude!