Getty Images
Representative Ron Paul is the latest national figure to weigh in on the Ground Zero mosque debate. In a statement posted at Taylor Marsh and RonPaul.com, Rep. Paul strongly criticizes the opposition to the mosque and says that many on the Right have missed a golden opportunity to expose the hypocrisies of the Left regarding property rights. Have a look.
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. 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 is 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. [...]
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.
[...] Ron Paul Takes Firm Position on Ground Zero Mosque Opposition [...]
I think Ron Paul is completely missing the point about the opposition to the mosque. It has nothing to do with property rights or hatred of Islam, but it does have something to do with a little respect being shown to those who died on that day.
Im not usually one to defend Ron Paul as he is the epitome of a true libertarian and accordingly he finds himself in positions such as this in opposition to much of the Right. That said, I do believe his message was that this could have been a golden opportunity for those of us on the Right to claim the ideological high ground while still opposing the mosque in principle rather than legal terms as this controversy began. I think his property rights argument is a bit overstated, but I do find it strikingly odd how the usual roles have been reversed between and among the Left and the Right regarding the First Amendment. As someone who tends to be of the mindset that the Right is usually wrong on the First Amendment in that it overstates the role of religion in government, I have been blown away by the reversal.
In the bigger picture… do I agree with Paul? Of course not. Having lived in New York City for most of this decade, I certainly understand the gravity of the decision to place this mosque near Ground Zero. I would very much like to see it relocated and hope that if it is not New Yorkers exercise that other prong of the First Amendment and protest, rally, gather, and picket the place for long as its doors are open.
[...] Ron Paul Takes Firm Position on Ground Zero Mosque Opposition [...]
[...] is a matter of common sense and common decency. The First Amendment gives all Americans the right to worship as they choose and to construct places of worship accordingly. Nestled in the power of that same [...]
I disagree with the Pauls on their view that property rights trump human dignity. If there is any case of property rights vs. human dignity, the Pauls will argue that property rights rule. The Republican Party was founded on principles related to human dignity. We fought the Civil War over that issue….and the North won, thank the Lord.
I believe this is a human dignity issue because it’s basically a gravesite for the 9/11 victims.
I would also argue that a decision whether or not a whorehouse should be next to a nursery school is a human dignity issue. Some things just “should not” be done, and there should be laws against things that “should not be done”. But political correctness and secularism has so overwhelmed this country, we’ve been lowered to making legalistic arguments from the Constitution (and in the Pauls’ case, one that doesn’t include the Fourteenth Amendment) in the absence of right conscience. Sad.
Paul and Paul are rigid libertarians. Accordingly, human dignity – or principle, morality, and virtue for that matter – does not factor into the equation. I agree with them that they are over-relied upon many times at the federal level, but I am a firm believer that the 10th Amendment preserves for the States a fair amount of room to deal in human dignity to promote the social mores that shape their societies. I am confident that the Pauls would disagree with me.