Decius wrote: Shannon wrote:
The moderates usually stay out of the debate.
The ones I quoted are visible moderates. Unfortunately, the Canadian has been subjected to physical violence for taking the stand he has taken. This reminds me of the violence faced by people in the south who stood up against segregation a generation ago. The KKK did not use the democratic process. The ideas they promoted were marginalized within an environment in which they could be freely expressed. We don't need to censor these people. We cannot lower ourselves to their level and begin using force to attack the expression of ideas that we do not like! The whole problem with the way that Conservatives are going about this is that they are targeting muslims - they are targeting islam. Muslims are not the problem. Islam is not the problem. You can worship Allah and be perfectly peaceful.
George Friedman once said something to the effect of the nature of Islamic beliefs makes them an enemy. While most Muslims lead peaceful lives, I think Ayaan Hirsi does a good job of explaining how the political and social elements to Islam are quite different than the religion itself. Putting a mosque at ground zero is not about propagating the spirituality of Islam, and I think it's foolish to see it as something more than a political move. Unfortunately, Islam forces you to draw a line. I think it's better to force that line now, rather than waiting for it to get to here. Islam as a political movement seeks world domination through intimidation, subjugation and bullying rather than creating peace through discussion. The problem is religious statism. The whole purpose of a state is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. The state is inherently about violence. A religious state is inherently about religious violence. If violence has no place in religion than the state can have no place in religion either. At this point it ought to be just as clear to us that the idea of religious statism is wrong as it is that racism is wrong. Unfortunately, it isn't. Republicans are unclear on this point, and they have cultivated this idea within their community, so they are ill equipped to go after it, and the left doesn't seem to have the guts to call a spade a spade anymore. If the problem is religious statism we must, as a first principal, uphold the right to freedom of religion. We cannot use the government to shut this mosque down. Doing so compromises the core of our argument. It would be totally hypocritical, and they would not hesitate to call us on it.
I've mostly heard muslims explain free speech as a weakness in western culture, and this is how they exploit it. A mosque at ground zero is a symbol that they are winning this war to all those who are exposed to the "muslim street" propaganda. For the good of everyone, I think Islam needs to reform to the modern world not the other way around. If neo-nazis had bombed a holocaust museum, I think allowing them to build a Nazi memorial center over that ground would legitimize the act of violence. Desecrating a grave should not be tolerated as free speech even if it's under the guise of religion. Allowing a mosque there will show muslims that America admits defeat to totalitarian Islam. It is a purposeful act against what freedoms would allow it to exist. The message sent to muslims is that they are right, and American freedoms will eventually break to the will of Islam. If we don't allow it, political muslims will not cry about their freedom of speech. They will argue about the west being wrong about everything, but they do this anyway. They will gain ground (as they have in europe) if we allow this. RE: At Ramadan Iftar dinner, Obama supports new mosque on private property near Ground Zero | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times | 
