Another Voice of Reason

Anonymous Guest's picture
Submitted by Anonymous Guest on Sun, 2010-11-07 21:59

"If the insulting nature of a building is taken as legitimate grounds for government to ban its construction, what is to stop government from banning the construction of churches or synagogues, which insult not only (true) Muslims but also many atheists? If the symbolic location of a building is taken as legitimate grounds for government action against such a project, what is to stop government from shutting down the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, which is four blocks from the White House and engaged in an effort to substantially change our culture and our laws in ways quite contrary to the agenda of the White House? If the fact that an organization advances Islam in America is taken as legitimate grounds for government action against the organization, what is to stop government from taking action against organizations that advance other religions whose scriptures also call for violence? And if the fact that an organization accepts and disseminates unpopular radical ideas intended to cause sweeping changes in American culture and politics is taken as legitimate grounds for government action against the organization, what is to stop government from banning The Objective Standard, practically every word of which undermines the goals and efforts of the status quo?

One important element of thinking in principles is identifying the fundamental principles that govern a given situation. In political matters, those principles are always (properly) individual rights, the rights to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech. These rights protect people’s freedom to take the actions they must take in order to live as human beings: acting as one’s life requires (the right to life), acting on one’s rational judgment (liberty), using the product of one’s effort (property), pursuing one’s chosen goals (pursuit of happiness), expressing one’s views (freedom of speech). These principles should not be applied as contextless absolutes; rather, they should be applied, as indicated earlier, with respect to the purpose and limits of rights and with respect to the relevant facts of the matter in question. But with that purpose, those limits, and the relevant context in mind, individual rights govern all political matters.14

Another important aspect of thinking in principles is acknowledging the implications of the ideas one accepts and the policies one advocates. One must ask: What would a given idea or policy mean if applied consistently—not only to the immediate issue at hand, but to all similar situations now and in the future? For the government to employ force against a person or group in the absence of evidence that he or they have engaged or plan to engage in criminal or enemy activity is to violate rights and thus to set a precedent for more such violations in the future. (And, as history demonstrates in spades, once a rights-violating legal precedent is set, government will act on it thereafter.)

In order for the government to justifiably use force, it must have evidence of criminal or enemy activity. Is there evidence that a particular Muslim or mosque or Islamic organization is receiving money from Iran, or sending money to Al Qaeda, or receiving phone calls or emails from known terrorists, or giving speeches in other lands or languages calling for jihadist attacks on America, or otherwise issuing threats or incitements to enemy attacks? If there is evidence of such activity on the part of a Muslim or an organization, then that Muslim or the members of the organization should be prosecuted in a criminal court or military tribunal (depending on the details). But in the absence of such evidence, government cannot legitimately use force against them.15

Violating the very principles we seek to defend is no way to defend those principles. In fact, doing so actually advances the enemy’s stated goal of “eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within.” Stealth jihad is real, and the last thing Americans should do is aid the jihadists.

If we want to protect civilized society, we must unwaveringly uphold the principles of civilized society—no matter how justifiably outraged we may become about the irrationalities and injustices perpetrated by our enemies. If, in an effort to stop Muslims from destroying America, we trample individual rights and the rule of law, we will have surrendered the very thing we were supposed to be fighting to protect...

The cultural war against Islam is not and cannot be against Islam alone; it is and must be against faith in general. If Americans want to save this country and live their lives in peace and security, they must summon the courage to condemn religion across the board and embrace a philosophy of reason. "

By Craig Biddle

Read the full article

http://www.theobjectivestandar...


( categories: )

Good Muslim = Bad Muslim

Richard Wiig's picture

For those who have the time and interest. Robert Spencer takes the affirmative and Peter Kreeft the negative. The debate starts from about 8.50

All the evidence that's

Richard Wiig's picture

All the evidence that's needed is that they are part of the same Shari'ah movement as the perpretrators of 9/11. You need go no further than Imam Rauf's publicly proclaimed support for Shari'ah.

As I've said repeatedly:

gregster's picture

"In order for the government to justifiably use force, it must have evidence of criminal or enemy activity. Is there evidence that a particular Muslim or mosque or Islamic organization is receiving money from Iran, or sending money to Al Qaeda, or receiving phone calls or emails from known terrorists, or giving speeches in other lands or languages calling for jihadist attacks on America, or otherwise issuing threats or incitements to enemy attacks? If there is evidence of such activity on the part of a Muslim or an organization, then that Muslim or the members of the organization should be prosecuted in a criminal court or military tribunal (depending on the details). But in the absence of such evidence, government cannot legitimately use force against them."

The last sentence I disagree with. Some of them declared war. That changes the context to one of wartime caution. Pre-emptive self defense.

If the insulting nature of a

Richard Wiig's picture

If the insulting nature of a building is taken as legitimate grounds for government to ban its construction,

It isn't legitimate grounds, and that isn't the grounds that opponents of the mosque stand on.

If the symbolic location of a building is taken as legitimate grounds for government action against such a project,

It isn't legitimate grounds, and once again, it isn't the grounds that oppenents of the mosque stand on.

If the fact that an organization advances Islam in America is taken as legitimate grounds for government action against the organization,

It isn't legitimate grounds, and, you guessed it, it isn't the grounds that opponents of the mosque stand on.

And if the fact that an organization accepts and disseminates unpopular radical ideas intended to cause sweeping changes in American culture and politics is taken as legitimate grounds for government action

Ditto!

The grounds for stopping the building of the mosque is that the builders are part of a movement that is at active war against the US and all other Kaffir countries.

I suggest you go tell your voice of reason, Mr Craig Biddle, to check his premises and stop misrepresenting the anti-jihad movement.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.