Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[sjw]

You claim he claims it's a virtue when people fly airplanes into buildings? For the record, I didn't read the article extremely closely, I just posted it because I subscribe to LewRockwell and it came in and was relevant to this thread, but I'm pretty sure he didn't say that.

[sjw]

Now what do Nazi-Islamist thugs do in today's world? They destroy others and seek power by force.

Americans do this too. Just try doing something exceedingly innocuous. Try to build a little house on the prairie. See what happens to you.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You claim he claims it's a virtue when people fly airplanes into buildings?

Shayne,

That's not what I said, but I am glad you brought it up.

Sure, flying airplanes into skyscrapers is a virtue being practiced by Islamist terrorists according to Margolis. It's their right to self-defense.

He doesn't say it in those words, but it's there.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

Sure, flying airplanes into skyscrapers is a virtue being practiced by Islamist terrorists according to Margolis. It's their right to self-defense.

He doesn't say it in those words, but it's there.

Michael

Well for the record, I don't regard it as a virtue. Nor do I regard it as a virtue for America to take little regard for civilian casualties when occupying foreign lands. On some level, what the terrorists did on 9/11 would represent the same kind of nationalistic war ethic that I think many Objectivists approve of when their own side does it. I don't approve of it regardless of what side does it.

LewRockwell tends to be rabidly anti-government, and I disagree with that, but I don't think they are bigots. I think you are reading something into the article that wasn't there.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think you are reading something into the article that wasn't there.

Shayne,

That's an opinion, I suppose. A little short on specifics.

I stand by what I wrote.

I despise bigotry and rationalizations for bigotry.

(btw - You quoted my post as I was fixing it. I changed it in your post to suit the correct text, but only included a partial quote so your meaning would not be changed.)

Michael

[sjw]

That's an opinion, I suppose. A little short on specifics.

Yes, I mean it as an opinion, I didn't want to dissect your case in detail.

I despise bigotry and rationalizations for bigotry.

I despise rights violations. Bigotry I don't care nearly so much about, unless it's associated with rights violations, and then it's the rights violations that matter, not the bigotry. Bigotry (minus rights violations) is a character flaw, not a crime. You might argue that it causes crime, but many things cause crime, bigotry isn't a special source of it, people have many rationalizations for wanting to smash the rights of others.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne, that was a terrible article by Margolis. Thanks for posting it for I'd not have seen it otherwise.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

Well, then, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc., are all illegitimate regimes that do not protect individual rights.

Such as the United States for example.

Are you putting the U.S. in the same category as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc.? The U.S. has veered perilously close to the boundary between legitimacy and illegitimacy. Our mixed economy is not nearly as free as it could be and if there were some country in the world that did a better job of protecting individual rights than the U.S., I would absolutely support its right to prohibit U.S. involvement in its internal affairs. In the mean time, it is very much the right of the U.S. to instigate regime change in any blatantly oppressive country or take any other appropriate action to protect the rights of the people living in those countries and/or our own interests.

Therefore, as a matter of foreign policy, the U.S. government need not allow them or their surrogates to spend money in this country. The absense of their right to spend money in this country is a consequence of their illegitimate nature.

As a matter of foreign policy, the US should confiscate funds from rights-violators and use it to repay those whose rights were violated.

So what if the funding came from inside the US? Would you legally allow the non-mosque be built then? I'm not asking if you'd like it.

If the mosque project were completely free from the taint of illegitimate foreign involvement, then, in my view, it should be allowed to go forward, despite my strong distaste for it. Illegitimate foreign involvement would include any person involved in the project in an influential capacity with ties to terrorist organizations or illegitimate foreign governments or any funds from such sources, whether direct or indirect (i.e. laundered funds).

As for whether the U.S. should confiscate funds from rights-violators, that sounds like a knee-jerk approach to foreign policy. We should weigh all our options and choose those that best promote our foreign and domestic policy objectives. If seizing funds from a country such as Saudi Arabia would cause a dramatic drop in the availability of oil, seriously harming both our economy and the economies of our allies, then I would not suggest that as the best approach to our foreign policy. However, in my view, we should not allow Saudi Arabia or any other country to fund the building of any mosque, madrassa, or other organization that promotes Sharia law or intolerance for other religions or ideologies in this country as such organizations are fundamentally hostile to the defense of individual rights. Note that I'm not saying that such organizations should not be allowed if they are completely funded by purely domestic sources just as I would not oppose the existence of Neo-Nazi or Communist organizations so long as they did not derive their funding from foreign sources and did not become involved in any attempt or conspiracy to subvert or overthrow the government of this country.

Darrell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I despise rights violations. Bigotry I don't care nearly so much about, unless it's associated with rights violations, and then it's the rights violations that matter, not the bigotry. Bigotry (minus rights violations) is a character flaw, not a crime. You might argue that it causes crime, but many things cause crime, bigotry isn't a special source of it, people have many rationalizations for wanting to smash the rights of others.

Shayne,

I'm glad you mentioned this because property rights are not the only rights that exist. (I know you know that, but I wanted to say it anyway.)

Our Constitution does not present a closed-off bill of rights. On the contrary, it presents an open-ended one (see the Tenth Amendment). I see too many Objectivists and libertarians think NIOF is the be-all and end-all of all rights.

Even our judicial system recognizes some of these non-mentioned rights--for example, the right to be recognized in terms of your mental state when being judged for a crime--and that is for the perpetrator. Say, temporary insanity.

Rights are for human beings, not Vulcans. When a person gets into a murderous rage or becomes overcome by fear, he is not acting in the same manner as when premeditating and objectively carrying out a murder. The violation to the right to life of the victim is punished in both cases, but the punishments vary depending on intent. This is due to the perpetrator's right to be recognized in terms of his mental state (or whatever else you want to call it). Fully choosing evil is a far worse crime than being overwhelmed so much you can't see straight and committing an act you would not normally do.

Your arguments on this thread about the mosque have been focusing almost solely on property rights. But I don't know of a single Objectivist or libertarian who is against property rights--not even the property rights of the developers to build the mosque at Ground Zero.

People are struggling to identify other rights and trying to figure out if a danger exists with this project. And, of course, trying to avoid a situation where murderous rage very likely will result--in both project opponents as well as project defenders.

It would be good to avoid that if we can.

Michael

[sjw]

Are you putting the U.S. in the same category as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc.? The U.S. has veered perilously close to the boundary between legitimacy and illegitimacy. Our mixed economy is not nearly as free as it could be and if there were some country in the world that did a better job of protecting individual rights than the U.S., I would absolutely support its right to prohibit U.S. involvement in its internal affairs. In the mean time, it is very much the right of the U.S. to instigate regime change in any blatantly oppressive country or take any other appropriate action to protect the rights of the people living in those countries and/or our own interests.

Frankly, I do not know enough to make an overall assessment. I certainly do not trust the information given to me by politicians, historians, and the mass media. But I don't think it's necessary to make one. All I need to know is that I can't build my little house on the prairie without thugs breaking down my door. Something has viciously gone wrong in the United States, it is not nearly as liberty-oriented as many would like to believe. So we live in a nation of hypocrites. On the one hand they bandy about terms like "liberty" "freedom" etc. but what they practice is far from it in most areas. Thankfully we still seem to have the right to express ourselves politically to a large degree (even though we are herded like cattle in almost every other respect), but I worry about losing that last shred of liberty. The countries you list don't seem to have this kind of freedom, and on that count alone one might make an overall assessment, but I'm loath to do it without knowing the whole picture, and I simply don't. As I said earlier I'm not an expert on Islam, nor am I one on the Middle East. To me it seems that the US seems to have set up its own little theocracy in the middle of a bunch of others in order to create some kind of turmoil. Then Americans are surprised when there is blowback.

If the mosque project were completely free from the taint of illegitimate foreign involvement, then, in my view, it should be allowed to go forward, despite my strong distaste for it. Illegitimate foreign involvement would include any person involved in the project in an influential capacity with ties to terrorist organizations or illegitimate foreign governments or any funds from such sources, whether direct or indirect (i.e. laundered funds).

This is where I think you are hypocritical. The issue is not about the funding for the mosque, it is about the rights violations that came before that you are justifying blocking it for. If those happened, then there should be retribution now and before now. Yet you aren't advocating any. This is hypocritical. It makes it look like you're just biased and touchy about this mystical "ground zero" just like politicians want you to be. It looks to me like you are being led by your nose.

As for whether the U.S. should confiscate funds from rights-violators, that sounds like a knee-jerk approach to foreign policy...

Letting crime run amok is a recipe for it to multiply. If you think a crime has happened, then you need to advocate for some kind of retribution and compensation for victims. I mean you were the one who posted the Hitler video, right? Look what appeasement gets you. Don't let criminals get away with stuff.

The situation in the Middle East is only complicated because of the things we have been doing wrong. If we were totally innocent, and then some of this stuff was going on, then we'd have every right to escalate force even to the point of nukes to rectify ongoing criminal activity. But we have no right to do this now, not given what we have done and continue to do.

[sjw]

Shayne, that was a terrible article by Margolis. Thanks for posting it for I'd not have seen it otherwise.

--Brant

Everyone has their own opinion about which part of what is terrible,

might be interesting to find out what you found terrible. I thought

the opening remarks were good "At a time when the US is mired in two

lost wars, running a $1.4 trillion deficit, and trapped in economic

stagnation, a bitter but trivial public controversy over a Muslim

social center in downtown New York seems absurd."

Yeah, I think the non-mosque issue is absurd. There are mosques all

over the place, it's no skin off my nose if they add another one at a

coat factory. Some perceive this as Islam declaring some kind of

victory over the West, a symbolic "f*** you!" I don't know whether

that is the case, but if it is, I don't care about symbolic gestures,

that is freedom of speech, just like cartoon pictures of Mohamed. You

don't like the non-mosque? Put up a billboard of Mohamed next door. As

a true defender of Western values I'd support your rights as well as

the rights of Muslims to their symbolic gestures.

What I care about are real rights violations. So if a case were made

that this were some kind of real hotbed of terrorism, then put it into

the form of a lawsuit and throw the alleged bastards in jail for

inciting crime.

[Darrell Hougen]

Are you putting the U.S. in the same category as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc.? The U.S. has veered perilously close to the boundary between legitimacy and illegitimacy. Our mixed economy is not nearly as free as it could be and if there were some country in the world that did a better job of protecting individual rights than the U.S., I would absolutely support its right to prohibit U.S. involvement in its internal affairs. In the mean time, it is very much the right of the U.S. to instigate regime change in any blatantly oppressive country or take any other appropriate action to protect the rights of the people living in those countries and/or our own interests.

Frankly, I do not know enough to make an overall assessment. I certainly do not trust the information given to me by politicians, historians, and the mass media. But I don't think it's necessary to make one. All I need to know is that I can't build my little house on the prairie without thugs breaking down my door. Something has viciously gone wrong in the United States, it is not nearly as liberty-oriented as many would like to believe. So we live in a nation of hypocrites. On the one hand they bandy about terms like "liberty" "freedom" etc. but what they practice is far from it in most areas. Thankfully we still seem to have the right to express ourselves politically to a large degree (even though we are herded like cattle in almost every other respect), but I worry about losing that last shred of liberty. The countries you list don't seem to have this kind of freedom, and on that count alone one might make an overall assessment, but I'm loath to do it without knowing the whole picture, and I simply don't. As I said earlier I'm not an expert on Islam, nor am I one on the Middle East. To me it seems that the US seems to have set up its own little theocracy in the middle of a bunch of others in order to create some kind of turmoil. Then Americans are surprised when there is blowback.

The U.S. is not nearly as free as I would like it to be, but, quite frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean by saying that you can't build your "little house on the prairie?" People build houses all the time. If you acquire a piece of land zoned residential and file the requisite paperwork, you can build. Ok, perhaps you don't think you should have any restrictions on where you can build and shouldn't be required to file any paperwork or pay any fees, but the burdens are not so onerous as to prevent people from building. Marginally, there might be a few people who can't afford the extra expenses and therefore don't build a house and can't afford to buy one, but you make it sound like it is categorically impossible.

I'm also confused about your comments about America's "little theocracy." Are you suggesting that this country is a theocracy? That hardly seems like a fitting description.

Perhaps you should work on illustrating your vacuous platitudes with concrete examples.

If the mosque project were completely free from the taint of illegitimate foreign involvement, then, in my view, it should be allowed to go forward, despite my strong distaste for it. Illegitimate foreign involvement would include any person involved in the project in an influential capacity with ties to terrorist organizations or illegitimate foreign governments or any funds from such sources, whether direct or indirect (i.e. laundered funds).

This is where I think you are hypocritical. The issue is not about the funding for the mosque, it is about the rights violations that came before that you are justifying blocking it for. If those happened, then there should be retribution now and before now. Yet you aren't advocating any. This is hypocritical. It makes it look like you're just biased and touchy about this mystical "ground zero" just like politicians want you to be. It looks to me like you are being led by your nose.

I started questioning the mosque project before it became a well-known political issue.

The critical issue is how closely tied the people in charge of building the mosque are to the perpetrators of 9/11 and how much weight we should put on those ties. If Rauf and Khan had been directly involved in 9/11, that would have been a very close tie. The fact that Rauf and Khan are Muslim ties them weakly to the 9/11 attackers as the latter were Muslim and acting in the name of Islam. Moreover, they share a common goal of spreading Sharia law. An in-between tie is the funding. Both are receiving or have received funds from foreign sources dedicated to the spreading of Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia.

I have decided to draw the line where I have because, in my view, the simple fact that both are Muslim and dedicated to the spreading of Sharia is not a sufficiently strong tie. This country should and does protect religious freedom and freedom of expression, especially in the political realm. So, if people wish to advocate the adoption of Sharia law or Communism with their own money on their own time, they should be allowed to do so.

However, I draw the line at foreign involvement. I have explained above why the U.S. is fully justified in prohibiting foreign funding of this particular project and other projects. However, I am trying to explain why I think it is important to draw the line there. The goal should be to prevent negative foreign influence on this country.

As for retribution, there has already been retribution. We participated in the overthrow of Taliban and killed thousands of Al Qaeda fighters. However, going forward, we should look for ways to prevent future attacks and retard foreign influence.

As for whether the U.S. should confiscate funds from rights-violators, that sounds like a knee-jerk approach to foreign policy...

Letting crime run amok is a recipe for it to multiply. If you think a crime has happened, then you need to advocate for some kind of retribution and compensation for victims. I mean you were the one who posted the Hitler video, right? Look what appeasement gets you. Don't let criminals get away with stuff.

The situation in the Middle East is only complicated because of the things we have been doing wrong. If we were totally innocent, and then some of this stuff was going on, then we'd have every right to escalate force even to the point of nukes to rectify ongoing criminal activity. But we have no right to do this now, not given what we have done and continue to do.

All I can say is that that is a simplistic approach to the problem. No one is talking about, "letting crime run amok." However, I have been addressing what our response should be to the Ground Zero Mosque, not how to run a complete foreign policy. In that domain, I think we should do our utmost to spread our values and replace hostile regimes with friendly governments. That could involve anything from campaigns to protect women's rights in foreign countries to U.S. funded insurgencies and even war if justified by our foreign and domestic policy objectives. But, this idea that we are required to seek vengence for every victim of some injustice is nuts. Under that theory, we'd be required to attack almost every country in the world since most governments don't recognize the concept of individual rights.

Dictatorships, kings, despots, and other thugs have been the bane of mankind for millenia and aren't going to go away overnight, no matter what we do. A more intelligent and thoughtful foreign policy would work to gradually move the world in the direction of greater respect for freedom and individual rights.

BTW, I was not the one that posted the Hitler video and I'm not what you're talking about as I am unable to watch videos in my current location.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

You

don't like the non-mosque? Put up a billboard of Mohamed next door. As

a true defender of Western values I'd support your rights as well as

the rights of Muslims to their symbolic gestures.

You'd support my rights, but I doubt that in our politcally correct culture, I would be allowed to erect such a billboard. And, if I was, I'd probably be endangering my life.

Actually, I like the picture with Muhammad's head and turban made to look like a bomb, complete with fuse. I'd like to see that within a couple blocks of the (soon-to-be) mosque.

Darrell

[sjw]

You'd support my rights, but I doubt that in our politcally correct culture, I would be allowed to erect such a billboard. And, if I was, I'd probably be endangering my life.

We can only be accountable for our own views, it's not my fault that there are so many touchy morons running things.

Shayne

[sjw]

The U.S. is not nearly as free as I would like it to be, but, quite frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

What do you mean by saying that you can't build your "little house on the prairie?" People build houses all the time. If you acquire a piece of land zoned residential and file the requisite paperwork, you can build. Ok, perhaps you don't think you should have any restrictions on where you can build and shouldn't be required to file any paperwork or pay any fees, but the burdens are not so onerous as to prevent people from building. Marginally, there might be a few people who can't afford the extra expenses and therefore don't build a house and can't afford to buy one, but you make it sound like it is categorically impossible.

I think you're probably a basically good person. But you're relatively insensitive to how insidiously your rights are violated in this country given how sensitive you are to rights violations abroad. You're being a good little Patriot, just like you were taught to be in school. Until people like you wake up we're all screwed. The way for all the problems you are worried about to get fixed is to start worrying about the problems you are unaware of.

I'm also confused about your comments about America's "little theocracy." Are you suggesting that this country is a theocracy? That hardly seems like a fitting description.

I'm talking about Israel.

Perhaps you should work on illustrating your vacuous platitudes with concrete examples.

Is this a trick taught in public school? It's like religion: you've been inoculated from learning more when someone says something you don't understand. You call it "vacuous platitudes" even though you do not know whether or not it in fact is one, on the mere grounds that in your head, it is a platitude. I guess I should learn to laugh. George Carlin has a lot of wisdom -- mock and laugh at the incredibly stupid. But I guess he never fully learned either because he sure was pissed off a lot of the time.

[sjw]

All I can say is that that is a simplistic approach to the problem. No one is talking about, "letting crime run amok." However, I have been addressing what our response should be to the Ground Zero Mosque, not how to run a complete foreign policy. In that domain, I think we should do our utmost to spread our values and replace hostile regimes with friendly governments. That could involve anything from campaigns to protect women's rights in foreign countries to U.S. funded insurgencies and even war if justified by our foreign and domestic policy objectives. But, this idea that we are required to seek vengence for every victim of some injustice is nuts. Under that theory, we'd be required to attack almost every country in the world since most governments don't recognize the concept of individual rights.

Dictatorships, kings, despots, and other thugs have been the bane of mankind for millenia and aren't going to go away overnight, no matter what we do. A more intelligent and thoughtful foreign policy would work to gradually move the world in the direction of greater respect for freedom and individual rights.

BTW, I was not the one that posted the Hitler video and I'm not what you're talking about as I am unable to watch videos in my current location.

This is all off track from a miscommunication. I was referring to rights violations in the United States, that if you have cases of those then pursue them relentlessly. That is what our government is here to protect. What you are talking about is charity work, and you want to put a gun to my head to fund your charity around the world. I don't object to charity in principle, but I do object to forcing me to pay for it, and my sons to die for it.

Shayne

[sjw]

Michael,

I don't know that I'm specifically referring to only property rights, I don't mean to. My main thought is that if we are going to legally bar someone from exercising their property/freedom of speech rights then there should be due process. It shouldn't just be a bunch of hysteria, it should be a case. And the burden is on those advocating for stripping of *any* rights to make their case.

If someone connected to this non-mosque committed a crime then prosecute him. Otherwise leave him alone.

If someone wants to argue that it's tasteless or offensive to build the non-mosque, then they need to look closer at how governments are formed, because the way this particular one is formed makes them morally bound and restricted to natural law, they have no entitlement to enforce arbitrary man-made laws on people without their consent.

Shayne

[Darrell Hougen]

I think you're probably a basically good person. But you're relatively insensitive to how insidiously your rights are violated in this country given how sensitive you are to rights violations abroad. You're being a good little Patriot, just like you were taught to be in school. Until people like you wake up we're all screwed. The way for all the problems you are worried about to get fixed is to start worrying about the problems you are unaware of.

Thanks for the left-handed compliment. I'm plenty sensitive to and concerned with the problems in this country which is why I fought Obamacare. We weren't entirely successful and I played only a tiny role, but we prevented the public option from becoming law. What have you done lately?

What I don't like is people who constantly run down this country. Yes, we have problems, but you sound a lot like part of the Hate America First crowd.

Perhaps you should work on illustrating your vacuous platitudes with concrete examples.

Is this a trick taught in public school? It's like religion: you've been inoculated from learning more when someone says something you don't understand. You call it "vacuous platitudes" even though you do not know whether or not it in fact is one, on the mere grounds that in your head, it is a platitude. I guess I should learn to laugh. George Carlin has a lot of wisdom -- mock and laugh at the incredibly stupid. But I guess he never fully learned either because he sure was pissed off a lot of the time.

I know plenty of little tricks.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

This is all off track from a miscommunication. I was referring to rights violations in the United States, that if you have cases of those then pursue them relentlessly. That is what our government is here to protect. What you are talking about is charity work, and you want to put a gun to my head to fund your charity around the world. I don't object to charity in principle, but I do object to forcing me to pay for it, and my sons to die for it.

The purpose of the government is to defend us from all foes of liberty, foreign and domestic. Yes, we should put our domestic house in order, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the rest of the world. I want some place to move if this country goes south, so to speak.

Darrell

[sjw]

Thanks for the left-handed compliment. I'm plenty sensitive to and concerned with the problems in this country which is why I fought Obamacare. We weren't entirely successful and I played only a tiny role, but we prevented the public option from becoming law. What have you done lately?

As a left-handed (well, ambidextrous) person I take offense at that. I think you mean to say back-handed.

I've been known to do some things here and there.

What I don't like is people who constantly run down this country. Yes, we have problems, but you sound a lot like part of the Hate America First crowd.

Well until you face your problems you're stuck with them. And the rest of the world is probably stuck -- abject unapologetic hypocrites don't have the credibility required to be a force for positive change.

I know plenty of little tricks.

That's the thing about irrationalism, I can never get anyone to explain how it works or why the party is engaging in it. Expecting the irrational to explain is a bit irrational I suppose, but when you have people allegedly in favor of reason it's certainly perplexing.

Shayne

[sjw]

The purpose of the government is to defend us from all foes of liberty, foreign and domestic. Yes, we should put our domestic house in order, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the rest of the world. I want some place to move if this country goes south, so to speak.

Darrell

I think you just forgot how we got here.

[Darrell Hougen]

Well until you face your problems you're stuck with them. And the rest of the world is probably stuck -- abject unapologetic hypocrites don't have the credibility required to be a force for positive change.

I see that I was right. If you honestly think this country is as bad as every two-bit dictatorship, you need to provide some evidence. Otherwise, this conversation is going nowhere and, quite frankly, I'm a little tired of your insults. You may just have to continue your ramblings without me.

Darrell

[sjw]

Well until you face your problems you're stuck with them. And the rest of the world is probably stuck -- abject unapologetic hypocrites don't have the credibility required to be a force for positive change.

I see that I was right. If you honestly think this country is as bad as every two-bit dictatorship, you need to provide some evidence. Otherwise, this conversation is going nowhere and, quite frankly, I'm a little tired of your insults. You may just have to continue your ramblings without me.

Darrell

Imagine if you applied your philosophy to your personal life. Your neighbor is a mass-murderer, but you're only a thief. You're way better than he is. So you can be all puffed up with your false pride and refuse to reform yourself. That is *exactly* how you treat the US. The fact is, the ARE thieves. They take over half of your earnings, they regulate us into oblivion, they are murdering people for doing pot, the list goes on and on. And you're all puffed up in pride because we don't fly airplanes into buildings.

You need to grow up and get a dose of reality. That's not an insult. That's a fact.

Shayne

[sjw]

You're a decent person Darrell, I'm sure. Ever see High Noon? Lots of decent people in that movie.

[Brant Gaede]

You're a decent person Darrell, I'm sure. Ever see High Noon? Lots of decent people in that movie.

You just called him a coward and in a cowardly way.

--Brant