Religious Tolerance and the Ground Zero Mosque

The controversy of the day is the construction of a mosque in the shadow of the "ground zero" site. The talk shows are afire with all the reasons why it should not be built. Is it insensitive on the part of Muslims-certainly. Is it an exercise of freedom of religion and private property rights to build it-yes. Does it make most of us angry-oh yeah. But why? Why do seventy percent of us oppose the construction of this mosque? Is it fair to "profile" all Muslims for the actions of a few? Why are we reluctant to believe the statements of its organizers who assure us that the Muslim center is meant to be a bridge between the Muslim community and all Americans, a vehicle for healing and peace?

As a "radical" libertarian, it would seem impossible to come to the conclusion that the mosque should not be built even on the "sacred" site itself. After all, if the only purpose of government is to protect our rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and private property, how can we legitimately use the power of government to prevent this free exercise of religious expression? If it was a church, cathedral, synagogue, Hindu temple, Shinto shrine or Buddhist monastery, it would be nigh impossible. But it is not; it is a mosque, the symbol and center of the Muslim community, the focal point for the followers of the prophet Mohammed.

The crucial issue at hand is the fundamental nature of Islam and that is where we must go to make our case. The first thing we need to do is eliminate all the talk of religion and religious expression. That is irrelevant and we need to move our argument elsewhere. Listening to some commentators, they make a big deal about how Islam is an all encompassing way of life as opposed to...what? Christianity? Does not Christianity have ritual, symbols, a calendar of festivals? Do you not hear your preacher exhort you to live a "holy life", making every decision in accordance with the teachings of Jesus? What about Judaism with its 613 commandments, the Mishnah and the teachings of the rabbis that deal with the most arcane and seemingly insignificant areas of life. The Amish and some communities of orthodox Jews live lives just as separate and are just as devoted to their way of life as are Muslims, radical or otherwise.

But Muslims want to take over the world. Oh? And Christians do not want to convert every soul to their religion? Isn’t Judaism to be a "light to all nations"? No, the argument cannot be made there either. Discussing this as a religious issue in the common parlance will get us nowhere. We must ask the more fundamental questions. What is the purpose of religion? It is to give the individual a connection with the divine and a context in which to apply the product of that connection in the everyday world. Because religion is such an transcendent individual experience, it is explained through symbol and analogy and these evolve into religious expressions and for the "unsophisticated", superstition. Because of the ecstatic nature of religious experiences, people who have had them desire to share them. If the individual’s experience is profound and powerful enough, they may start a new "religion."

This is where history comes in. Judaism began with Abraham, Christianity with Jesus, Buddhism with Siddharta Gautama. To become part of Judaism, in the days of Abraham and in the present, one has to be born into the clan or voluntarily convert. Jesus preached voluntary repentance as did his followers and if one wants to be a Christian today, one has to voluntarily convert. Buddhism is a voluntary commitment to seek enlightenment. In contrast to the origins of all these other major religions, Islam began as a political system. By that I mean that from the beginning Islam used physical force to convert and enforce its edicts. That is the fundamental difference between religion and politics. Religion uses persuasion to influence belief and behavior, politics uses physical force. Within our social system, religion is a matter of conscience, people involved in religion employ the power of persuasion to influence behavior and belief. Politics, on the other hand, is concerned with the proper application of force, the power of the state, to influence behavior and ideas. For a libertarian, the use of state power to "positively" influence behavior rather than "negatively" employ it to protect personal and property rights, is where all governments become tyrannical. Islam began with the assumption that it is proper, that it is "God’s will", to use force to make others believe and behave in certain ways and that makes it a political system and it needs to be treated as such. There is not freedom of conscience in an Islamic system. In an Islamic state on cannot choose certain personal behaviors or beliefs. A woman in a bikini would be stoned in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Men without beards were killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Converting to another religion is also punishable by death. Women and children are mere property to be bartered with, abused and discarded. While some may decry the desires of the "religious right" to use the power of the state to impose morality, I know of no preachers who advocate the death penalty for the violation of a dress code, promiscuous behavior or conversion.

Using the power of the state to enforce moral behavior that does not violate the rights of others is a bad idea and in direct contradiction to the founding principles of this country. That is what freedom of conscience is all about. If one chooses to be part of a religion, one can voluntarily accept restrictions on behavior but that religion does not have the right to force you to do so or punish you with fines, imprisonment or death for violations. When religion becomes entwined with the state, using the power of the state to enforce its edicts, it always ends badly. The inquisition and witch hunts are two examples of Christianity getting away from its roots and experimenting with political power. However, the roots of Christianity and the other major religions were not political so such things are the exception and not the rule. Because Islam began as a political ideology, its abuses are the rule rather than the exception. Even in places like America and Europe where Islam does not have control of the power of the state, its war against rival ideologies is apparent. Outright attacks are part of that. Honor killings are another. The murder of filmmakers and cartoonists. The desire to enforce sharia law in their communities is another even though such enforcement is in direct contradiction with constitutional law and our founding principles. Are there some Muslims in America that have made the ideological leap and view Islam as a religion and not as a political ideology? Yes, but they are the exception. Those few have, in reality, abandoned Islam as conceived by its founder and are making it something else and that takes courage and persistence. Until the majority of Muslims make that leap and stop cheering every successful terrorist attack, they must be viewed as members of a violent and destructive political group and not as part of the larger religious community.

Because of this, the construction of the mosque is not a "freedom of religion" issue because we are not dealing with a religion, we are dealing with a political ideology. Most Americans perceive Islam as a religion because in the United States, it does not have real political power although in our politically correct culture, they do have an inordinate amount of influence. It is perceived as a religion because we find common themes with Muslims-prayer, worship, morality. But beneath the veneer is a political ideology that desires to enslave as it has in just about every country where it has become dominant. If we as Americans refuse to accept and understand that truth, actual acts of violence will escalate in accordance with the rhetoric we already hear from most Imams. Islam must be treated not on par with Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism but as we once understood Communism or Fascism-ideologies incompatible with our founding principles and therefore direct threats to the country, our freedom and our way of life.

As Americans, we have the right of self preservation, individually and communally. We have a country based on certain principles and ideals and we enjoy their fruits. We do not have to tolerate an ideology that is in direct opposition to those ideals and has not hesitated to use violence to advance its cause. This is more than a national security issue, it is about preserving our basic freedoms for our posterity. We do not have to let the politically correct crowd’s view of constitutional liberty transform our founding document into a suicide pact. We have a right to our country and Muslims have plenty of other places in the world in which to live. Harsh words for some but we are talking about self preservation here. Immigration from Muslim countries should be stopped immediately. Imams or other Muslims who are not US citizens should be deported immediately if their rhetoric or behavior in any way advocates violence. There should be a moratorium on any mosque or "community center" construction. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed to build a monument to their greatest attack as of yet in New York. Sound ridiculous? Would we not do the same if some neo-nazi group started building "community centers" where they advocated the violent overthrow of the government? Didn’t we round up Germans, Japanese and Italians, most of whom were good Americans and posed no threat, when their counties went to war against us? When are we going to realize that Islam is at war with the west just as the communists of the Soviet Union were? Their war was mostly "cold" just as ours is, but the primary front is not only in a distant country like Vietnam or Iraq but in our own cities and towns. No one doubted the intentions of the communists to "bury us" and the rhetoric of most Muslim leaders is no less vehement in advocating our destruction. We are, after all, the Great Satan.

So why do so many on the "left" support the "right" of the Muslims to build the mosque? Because ideologically, there is no difference between liberals/progressives and Muslims. They both believe in using the power of the state to enforce their ideas of how every human being should live and believe. One wraps itself in the cloak of religion, the other in environmentalism or fairness or social justice. The result is the same. Those who are under such systems are slaves, under the threat of the whip or the sword of their masters, freedom a distant memory, fear a constant companion. If liberty is to survive, if future generations are going to enjoy the vision our founders had for the country, we must jealously and unapologetically guard what freedom remains and stop retreating under the onslaught of political correctness or under misconstrued arguments for religious tolerance. It is time to advance the cause of freedom before it disappears forever from our blessed land.

A New Label

I am not a joiner. I don’t like to be pegged by group labels because there have been very few groups with whom I share enough in common that I have felt comfortable being a part of, or even associated with. In politics, labels become very important because politics is all about language and ideas. One can be labeled as part of a certain political party, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Constitutional, Green. Once you are part of that party, everything that party does and believes, good and bad, becomes attached to you. I have a fellow tea party friend who decided to run as a Democrat because he believes, as I do, in Thomas Jefferson’s ideals. People he meets, however, assume he is a proponent of redistributive socialism, gay marriage and gun control. Regardless of his personal beliefs, people make assumptions about him based on his label. Republicans are the party of the rich and support big business over the working man. Libertarians just want to legalize drugs. Political parties become identified with certain issues and policies, often as a result of their opponent’s efforts, and an individual shares in that identification by joining that group. The growth of those identifying themselves as independents, rejecting the perceived baggage of established parties, is indicative of how fewer and fewer of the American people feel represented by the two major parties.

In addition to party labels, there are ideological labels; liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian. While often identified with political parties, there are conservative democrats and liberal or progressive republicans. Then there are the even broader labels of left, right and center or moderate. All of these labels are almost always associated with policy issues. Those issues can be general-bigger or smaller government, or specific-gun control, prayer in schools. While I certainly have opinions on policy issues, I disagree with the assumption that underlies all of these positions for ninety-nine percent of the people and an even higher percentage among the political class. Every one of them assumes that in our representative republic, all issues can or should be the concern of government. Liberals and Conservatives may disagree on gay marriage but each accepts the government's authority to make a decision on it. Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the role of government in education but they both agree that government should have a role. The left and the right disagree on the extent of socialism in our country but neither rejects the government’s social safety net. Each side argues about how government power should be applied in so many areas, not whether or not government power should be applied at all.

That is where the argument needs to be made. What should the role of government be? This is where I have a problem with conservatives. I have been a proud participant in the tea party movement and most tea party people identify themselves with conservatism. This is the question I pose to them. What are you trying to conserve? Conservatives say they want smaller government-how small should it be? Do we go back to Reagan, Johnson, FDR, Lincoln, Jackson or Washington or the Articles of Confederation? Are we willing to live without the EPA, Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Reserve? Where along the spectrum of socialism do you stop? Do we reject Obamacare but keep Medicare? Do we repeal the recent financial overhaul but keep the FDIC? How much regulation is too much, how high a tax is too high, how big a government is too big?

For me, it all comes down to this. Once we accept the idea that government should solve some problem, it is hard then to argue against the application of government to some other problem. If government provides health care for some, why not all? If it provides housing for some, why not all? If it provides food for some, why not all? If it protects bank deposits, why not mortgages? If it can tell you what drugs are acceptable, why not what food you eat? If it has the right to take some of your money, why not all of it? The idea that government exists to solve problems and meet needs leads the people, us, into servitude. When the government solves a problem the people must conform to the solution and pay for it. When the government meets a need the recipient must comply with the government’s requirements and someone else needs to pay for it. The more problems the government tries to solve, the less freedom the people have and the more expensive it becomes.

The purpose of government is not to solve problems. Individuals solve problems. All the great innovations and inventions in history have been the product of the mind of some individual man applied to a problem. The wheel, cooking over a fire, musical instruments, medical advances, cast iron stoves, light bulbs, radios, televisions, automobiles, airplanes, computers and cell phones were not the product of government programs but the imagination and genius of men. The only time government improves technology is through the destructive act of war. Government destroys, it does not create. Government consumes, it does not produce. Government restricts, it does not free. If everything was controlled by government, as it was in the Soviet Union, choices would be limited, expensive and of poor quality. Every individual is unique, with different wants, tastes and needs. No government bureaucrat is wise enough to come up with a product or service that meets those divergent wants, needs and desires. The free market is designed to create products to conform to individual needs. When a government solution is created, the individual is forced to conform to the product.

So what is the purpose of government? Allow me to quote our foundational document which states it so eloquently. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all me are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Government exists only to secure the fundamental rights of every man and woman who chooses to consent to its authority for their protection. The only just powers a government has are derived from this principle function. Every man has a right to exist-his life, to the products of the effort he makes to sustain his life, the liberty required to make that effort and the right to pursue that which makes him happy as an individual as long as that pursuit does not violate the fundamental rights of another. The only way a man’s rights can be violated is through physical coercion, force. He must be forced to give up his life, his liberty, the products of his labor or the dictates of his conscience. Any person or any institution that coerces a man to give up any of these things on pain of death or imprisonment is criminal. That criminal can be an individual in a dark alley, a gang or a legal mob, i.e. government.

The genius of the American Experiment as it was originally conceived was that government was no longer supposed to be a legal mob. Government had specific and limited powers designed for the purpose of protecting individual rights. Individuals were to be protected from other citizens, their government and foreign powers. Otherwise men were to be free to pursue their dreams as they saw fit, entering freely into associations and contracts, secure in their property and the fruits of their labor. It was as close to capitalism as any nation has come, capitalism being defined so ably by Ayn Rand as "a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." It is a system in which each man’s life and the products of his labor are his own, in which his only limitations are the ones he places on himself, where all associations are voluntary and, by extension, honesty and morality are required.

As soon as the power of government is used for anything other than the protection of rights, no rights are protected. As soon as the coercive power of government is used to solve a problem or meet a need, the life of every citizen becomes subject to the claims of others through the vehicle of government. No longer is your life and the products of your labor yours, they belong to everyone. Anyone can make a claim of need through the government and the government can take the property of one and give it to another. It is a conflict of absolutes. There cannot be a mix of capitalism and collectivism or socialism. That is the problem with conservatives. Any conservative who accepts the premise that government can run any social program or meet some individual need or solve some problem accepts the premise of the collectivist that it is right to take the fruits of one person’s labor and give it to someone else, that our property ultimately does not belong to us and that the value of our life resides only in our ability to contribute to the whole. The reason that our country continues its march into totalitarianism is because conservatives only desire to slow the train, or maybe back it up a bit, on a collectivist track. You cannot win the argument against Obamacare if you accept the collectivist premise upon which Medicare is based. Both are consistent within collectivism and the most consistent argument will win. The arguments cannot be between degrees of socialism but between slavery and freedom, capitalism and collectivism, liberty and totalitarianism. If we are going to save our country for ourselves and our children we must come to the point where no degree of slavery or totalitarianism is acceptable.

We now return to labels. If I see conservatives as lacking, do not want to be identified with modern liberals or progressives and believe libertarians often lack the courage of their convictions or the ability to articulate them, with what are we left? What is it we want to do? Conservatives want to conserve some current or past social or political state. Liberals are identified with a word whose meaning they have hijacked and twisted to mean the opposite of its original meaning. Progressives want progress toward total state control. What do I want? I want to restore the principles upon which our nation was conceived, those contained in the Declaration of Independence. I want a government that protects my rights and my property and otherwise leaves me alone. I don’t want my charity to be forced, I don’t want to be provided for, I don’t want to be forced into a regulatory bubble that protects me from all risk, I don’t want my money confiscated to support a class that somehow feels entitled, I want to live as an adult, as a citizen, not as a subject or dependent child. I want to go back to the time in our country’s history when a man stood or fell on his own and when he fell he relied on himself and, if necessary, the voluntary assistance of his family and friends to stand again. I want to see a restoration of the principles and ideals that made this country the wealthiest, freest, most innovative, and moral the world has ever seen. With that as the goal, I believe the proper label would be "Restorationist."