You guys aren’t going to like to hear this, but it needs to be said. There is no legal legislative basis by which the Ground Zero Mosque can be denied a permit to build. What is more, I am specifically against any attempts by any governmental agency or bureau to stop its construction by legislative fiat.
Before you get out your flame throwers, let me tell you why.
1.) Private property is necessary, and private property can only exist via property rights that are strictly defended against public intrusion or dictate. Strong private property rights are an absolute necessity to preserve our resources and facilities, and were created specifically for that purpose (read “the Tragedy of the Commons” for more on this, I won’t belabor it any further).
2.) The land on which the mosque is planned to be built is owned by the people planning to build the mosque. It is not public property in any way, shape, or form.
3.) There are no pre-existing laws by which we can deny the construction of the mosque without cheating or bending the rule of law to our favor.
4.) America is a country of men constrained and protected by laws, and our nations’ charter specifically states that all men are to be granted equal protection of the law.
IF one were to deny the construction of the mosque based upon the fact that the mosque is Islamic, then you are denying equal protection of the law, because no such law exists to ban the construction of places of worship.
IF you change our laws to fit this special circumstance, you essentially chalk up a win for the opposing team, because one of their major goals is to get us to turn against our laws and values out of fear. Our love of freedom, equal rights, and property protections is one of the reasons that hard-core islamists hate us, because all of those things are, to their perverted views of islam, anti-islamic.
IF you allow this this time, you create a massively slippery slope by which you have now given the government the precedent that it can bar the construction of anything, anytime, and for any reason, and essentially, you have then made private property an obsolete memory. (Even more so than it already is.
That being said, I am all for grass-roots rebellion against this, such as the workers in New York refusing to build it (and if that happens, it simply won’t be built, plain and simple). The reason that I am for it is because I do not believe that this mosque has any other purpose than as a victory shrine for Islam celebrating 9/11. I have come to that conclusion by logical means, by which I examine the reasons that have been given for it’s construction.
1.) It is to “bridge gaps and create dialogue between the world’s religions” (Specifically the USA and Islam, however, as was later clarified). To which I respond BULLSHIT. You don’t bridge gaps and create dialogue by poking someone in the eye first, and there is no possible reason to build the mosque there other than to poke us in the eye. If they really gave a damn about bridging gaps and all that crap, they would long ago have volunteered to move the mosque, as soon as they realized how sensitive the situation was.
2.) Muslims in New York do not have any place to worship, and you will be denying them this if you do not allow this building to be built. This is also a lie. There are hundreds of mosques in the New York area. Many are even within walking distance of this one.
3.) The mosque is not being constructed as a “victory mosque” and the people involved are not radicals who would even consider such a thing. Okay, I disagree with both statements there, but lets start with the fact that it doesn’t matter what the intent of the people building the thing is. What matters is perception. The perception of the public at large is that it is being built as a symbol of victory for islam, specifically their great “victory” of 9/11. The other perception that matters is that no matter what the builders think, Muslims the world over are going to consider it a victory mosque, even if the actual builders have no such intent. You and I both know it, and I think for the minor inconvenience of moving it (a straight up trade for a similarly valued piece of proerty somewhere, as has been offered?) that they could bridge a lot of gaps and change a lot of perceptions, and in fact, earn the gratitude of many people.
That being said, if they won’t move it, and they can find someone to build it, I am against the government doing anything to stop them. We can deal with 3rd world Neanderthals easily, but a massive, unstoppable government with no regard for private property rights? Not so much