Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque!

Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

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.

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.

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-conservatives’ 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.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

  • Matt

    Making sense of things. Generally Americans don’t go for that kind of thing.

    I’ve never in my life seen such disrespect and disdain towards private property rights and 1st amendment rights in my LIFE. And it’s coming from both sides of the aisle and quite frankly it scares the crap out of me when Constitutional positions are met with contempt and controversy.

    What’s happening to America? Is it partisanship? Is it the left? Is it the right? Is it the wars? Is it the media? Something is eating away at our high principles of human life and liberty, and is the Constitution even the law anymore? Because it doesn’t look like it.

    The American people are asleep at the wheel, and until they wake up America’s future sure looks shaddy…

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2

  • Pete

    I speak from a unique perspective on this. My wife’s brother was on the first plane. My family was deeply affected and always will be.

    A religion did not kill Americans on that day. 19 individuals did. A religion does not threaten us, but religious and political zealots do, irrespective of their theology. Is this a rude and insensitive slap in the face? Probably so. Is it a bad symbol? Absolutely. Do I like it? Hell no.

    But the fact remains, it is legal, and just because a group of people do not like it, does not make it any less legal. People are prosecuted by their actions not their belief system in this country (theoretically anyway). You either agree with the Bill of Rights in its entirety or you don’t. The tenets of the Constitution are not something you can agree with when its convenient and when it benefits you.

    Do we undermine the Bill of Rights over this one issue? Definitely not. You stand tall, you be proud, suck it up, and get on with it. Life goes on, realizing that there are bigger mountains, and this is a molehill.

    99.9% of all the people in the world are just like you and I, peaceful, law abiding, and just trying to make life better for their families and find a modicum of happiness along the way. Our way of life is being insidiously attacked everyday by the power brokers and war mongers in Washington, who stand directly at the root cause of the 9-11 tragedy, plus many more that are much less publicized and visible. It is their infiltration into our daily lives, that is of the most danger.
    They attack their own people, with much more subtle means, at their whim daily to further their own self interest and spew propaganda from a controlled media to backup their lies and deceptions which most people buy hook, line, and sinker. Before you start slinging arrows, make sure they are pointed in the right direction.

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 57 Thumb down 2

    • LibertyLovinTexan

      There is no doubt that our way of life is being attacked by elected officials in Washington, just as our way of life was hijacked by terrorists as well. But that is, unfortunately, not the issue at hand.

      I agree with what you have written, and your words are accurate and make sense if we needed to make a one-size-fits-all decision on a national level. But instead, as I wrote before, this is a local level decision and as such they can make a decision that neither contradicts the Constitution nor discounts the actual experience and feelings of all those involved.

      Just because something is legal does not mean it is necessary. And just because something is legal does not mean common sense, common courteousy, and common decency cannot rule judgement.

      Though I understand these examples do not compare, some find “adult entertainment” highly offensive. It is legal but not neccessary and therefore it is not permissable in any part of town. The same is true of “buildings of religious institutions” – they are legal but not necessary. As a practicing follower of Jesus Christ, I know first-hand that a building does not validate my faith. Though I enjoy meeting with other believers in a common place, one particular building site over another is certainly not neccessary to continue my journey of faith.

      It is for this reason that I believe common sense, common courteousy, and common decency can help the local people and local government to come to the best decision. Of course all freedom-loving Americans realize it is legal for this mosque to be built near ground zero. But my question is… is it necessary? Will it actually encourage and promote American/Muslim relationships or is it going to harbor ill-will and bitterness?

      There are many buildings of worship in NYC. To my knowledge, no religious group has been denied any ability to build a place of worship. (Well, except maybe the Greek Orthodox Church who has desired to rebuild on their actual original site at ground zero. But I understand their are two conflicting sides to that story.)

      But this is not a question of legality. It is a question of propriety. And again I say, just because something is legal does not make it necessary. We are Americans, and it is possible to use our brains and our hearts at the same time.

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 22

  • fred the protectionist

    Why is it called the “Cordoba House”? What does a Iberian city have to do with New York?

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 17

  • CJ Coates

    I agree with Dr Paul. Allow this Mosque to be built, if they have all the required authorizations, just like anyone else.
    What I would like in the future, if not for this case, that at least 50% or all of the calls to prayer, and the prayer sessions be held in English, not in Arabic.
    If it is in English, okay we run the risk of more people attending mosques…that is the down side…but, we also., understand more what they are preaching. Which will lead to greater understand of this religion.
    One thing about Mosques that make me uneasy about the Muslim religon, is that there are not any weddings in Mosques. This makes a mosque to me seems like no place for rejoicing, love and a future to share with your community.
    But that is just my opinon.
    Allow this mosque to be built, but require something unique for the betterment of the religon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18

    • y

      It’s true that usually weddings are not held at the mosques. But there is no religious rule against weddings at mosques. It’s usually because people want weddings to be huge, and mosques are not usually big enough for them. I know that sounds kind of dumb, but that’s how it is.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  • LibertyLovinTexan

    Why is there even controversy about building a mosque near ground zero? What American of sober mind does not understand this is about respect for our country’s tragic loss and not about denying property rights? (As if property is more important than people.) Scott, you are right ~ there is no doubt ~ it is incredibly poor taste to even suggest building a mosque close to ground zero. What on earth would motivate this endeavor, to build a mosque close to the graves of thousands of innocent Americans who lost their lives in the name of Islam? (Radical Islam, perhaps, but Islam nonetheless.) My heart goes out to each of you who have been grieving since 9/11 2001. How tragic that the memory of your loved ones should be dredged up in such a disrespectful way.

    This really serves as an example of why “big government” is not a good idea. A constitution-based federal republic governs our country, and it is priceless and unparalleled for many reasons, one being that it has laws that protect the minority opinion. And these laws (the U.S. Constitution) have to be bigger than our emotions to be fair. (Though I would never presume to speak for him, I believe that is what Dr. Paul is getting at.) At the same time, it does not mean that the minority opinion will triumph; it just means that their voice will be heard and their rights will be protected. The problem with the issue at hand is that it should be handled on the local level, where Constitution-governing principles are actually easier to carry out. Sadly the media has once again provided an outlet for our elected officials to turn this into a national public debate, treating this as a federal decision, and I’m sure more time in the “limelight” for them.

    I actually agree with most of what Dr. Paul has written, though it does come across as unfeeling. Scott, again you are right ~ “It [Dr. Paul’s opinion] takes a high level look at a down to earth human problem.” To me, that sums up the problem of “big government.” The only way to govern something massive is to take a high level look. That is exactly why this issue should be settled on the local level.

    Ty, you made a great point, “I think this is just another example of how balanced and consistent Dr. Paul is regarding our freedom. Those opposed to the mosque will read this article and claim that Ron is being “insensitive” himself by sticking to his principles of following the constitution on the matter. He has never said he “supports” building the mosque, he supports American rights.” We should all be grateful that there is one man in Washington that will allow his political views to be governed by the U.S. Constitution. However, what I believe Dr. Paul left unsaid in his unapologetic bashing of both right and left “opportunists,” is that this is a local level decision. And while the Constitution still presides over the local government without partiality or emotion, it does not in any way diminish the right of individuals to speak up for what they believe in or oppose what they do not agree with.

    Dr. Paul stated, “The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.” Actually, I believe it should have provided conservatives the perfect opportunity to defend “small, local government” and just stay out of the debate altogether. Dr. Paul then turns his thoughts toward “ill conceived preventative wars.” That is fine, and I am sure that there is a lot of truth to what he says. Sadly, his response ignores the very understandable gut-wrenching emotions felt by all who experienced this tragedy and instead focuses on the few “elite” elected officials who really should have no say on the matter. I am sure that most everyone who opposes the building of a mosque by ground zero (barring politicians) has no thought of supporting wars. They simply have no desire to add insult to injury. William, I couldn’t agree more with your first comment.

    So, to label those who oppose the building of a mosque near ground zero as “Islamaphobic” is narrow at best. Sure, that is probably true of some, but I would bet that most of us who oppose it just simply have respect for the tragically lost lives of our fellow citizens and a deep sense of loss for those who continue to grieve.

    The bottom line is that our Declaration of Independence still rings true… “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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.” It certainly would not interfere with the rights of any Americans in New York City practicing Islam to reject the request of a mosque near ground zero, because they have many other mosques in which they could practice their faith. On the other hand, for those whose lives have forever been altered by this senseless act of terrorism, for those who live, work, and play near ground zero, I would argue that the building of a mosque near this sacred site would absolutely impede their right to the pursuit of Happiness.

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 22

    • Scott Brown

      I think you said it much more eloquently than I did. Thanks for your comments. It is comforting to know that others in the Revolution understand this point of view. Please know, I still love and respect Dr. Paul. I just think he, like all of us from time to time, missed the point on this. I’m grateful for your comments and wish you and yours all my best.

      In Liberty,
      Scott Brown

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12

    • Ty

      In my original post, I just wanted to share my opinion that opposing the mosque purely on religious bias and fear of an Islamic takeover is a ridiculous and lazy way to base an opposing argument. It may seem unneccessary to make a post, as most Americans who oppose have the common sense to know that not all muslims are terrorist. However, in my part of the country (south), you would think that this current event parallels the Islamic imperialistic world take over attempt in 630.

      I enjoyed reading your post though.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

    • Samih

      Perhaps being in their shoes might help a little..

      KKK (Christians in some perverted way) in the south hang black people from trees and drags black men from trucks. Does this mean that we need to prevent churches from being built next to trees or that we shoudn’t allow trucks to be parked next to churches? NO! America has been smart enought to distinguish between KKK ( radical christian theology) and moderate Christians who desire freedom and peace. Now suddenly, it seems that Americans cannot distinguish between radical muslims and the roughly 7 million who live here peacfully and enjoy freedom. How convenient!!

      I agree, that learning who is funding it maybe necessary, but America needs to ask itself…….Is it an Al Qaeda mosque or an Islamic Mosque? If they cant tell the difference between the two, then Americans have bigger problems than a mosque!!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  • william ridenour

    Finally, as a libertarian I pose the following concern deeply related to the issues under discussion here.

    Can we hope to preserve Liberty when we, due to blind and slavish conformity to some set of ideological abstractions, insist upon extending all the rights, blessings and benefits of liberty to any and all, including those whose true intent in coming here is to game the system to ultimately distort and weaken the system to the point they can establish and impose their draconian ideology by force upon all?
    In short, can we hope to preserve tolerance when we indiscriminately and unreservedly extend full rights to those who are intolerant to tolerance and who intend to use those rights to destroy tolerance and establish their pet form of intolerance? (PS they’ll use the courts)
    Put another way:
    Can an ideology be preserved if those who hold it refuse to deal with hostile and hegemonic points of view and take the common sense steps needed for defense–even if some of those steps are beyond the parameters of the strict ideology?

    And, please, don’t respond to me with some stupidity like, “No such individuals, ideologies or groups exist here.”

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 17

    • fred the protectionist

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

    • Ty

      I could be missing your point here and I apologize if I am…I think your insinuating that the Muslims that want to build the mosque/community center/whatever, want to build it on the grounds of establishing a foothole in America in order to continue their “radical” islamic takeover of our country. First, there are Muslim Americans who have the same rights you and I do and to think that, after all the decades of non-violent relations between muslims and any other religious group in America, they choose this time to start their “takeover” is absurd. I believe it to be impossible for the Imam and organization to build the mosque in order gain what you percieve as momentum in order to take advantage of our “weak” system. We make our system weak by continuing to allow corrupt politicians do their bidding for their own personal gain rather than serving the people. We the people have the power and if your fear of a planned Islamic rule of America comes to fruition, then that is the appropriate time to step up and defend OUR rights, OUR America. I have my money on American will, regardless of religion, that NO ONE can or will take our country from us. I happen to think that this whole issue is just a fog to mask a greater problem, our economy. Its really quiet simple, if your a American you have American rights given to you through our constitution. If you break the law, those rights are taken from you. There is no proof that these people are intending to build this mosque to recruit terrorists and destroy America. Its “innocent until proven guilty” not “guilty until proven innocent.”

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  • william ridenour

    Dr. Paul, I just read your reply to Scott’s response–with which I agree and which made my point better than I did.
    In your response to him you wrote:
    “But I disagree with you that building a mosque there is insensitive. I don’t believe the people building the mosque are responsible for what happened there, and I’m sure they oppose such terrorist actions as well. ”

    The issue here is not your perception of whether building is sensitive or insensitive; it is about the perception of those who suffered direct loss; their perception is not ideologically informed–it takes no solace or comfort in abstractions or political theories–it is deeply human and visceral.

    Further, I am not so sure those who propose building the Mosque are so lilly white and innocent. For instance, I would not say someone who refuses to say Hamas is a terrorist organization is categorically opposed to terrorist acts.

    I, like Scott, see you as a guiding light on so many issues of enormous importance to America, and for that you have my highest respect––your example gives us hope rooted in real substance. But I sharply depart from your position on this particular issue.

    I am in the same relation with Judge Napolitano, who enthusiastically supported the two recent judicial decisions in Arizona and California. As a Libertarian and one who is devoted to the Jeffersonian model of government of, for and by the people, I vigorously and unrelentingly object to a system that allows the prejudicial ruling and limited perspective of one unelected, unaccountable individual, appointed for partisan reasons in most cases, to nullify the will of We the People with the flourish of a pen.
    Supporting such an absurdity is nothing but slavishly conforming to ideological idiocy.
    In addition, from a practical standpoint, the power of Federal judges to override the will of the People and impose a monolithic law upon all is destructive of the whole experiment in democratic government our Founders intended the states to be. Possession of such power is antithetical to freedom, oppressive and despotic. It is nothing less than “one ring that rules them all and in the dark it binds them.”
    Slavishly following judicial theories like “judicial review” and “the theory of limited incorporation” is both unconstitutional and tyrannical. No Federal judicial power should be able to trump state judiciaries on issues particular to that state. Doing so spits in the faces of “We the People” and establishes judicial tyranny as the ultimate ruling power.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6

    • Scott Brown

      Thank you. And to be clear, I respect all points of view on this. But the emotions of that event are so hard to contain, I may have been too hard on the others. Your response is what mine should have been.

      All my best,
      Scott B

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  • william ridenour

    “What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? ”

    I think we have to argue apples to apples. No one is saying no more Mosques in New York City. They’re just saying no Mosque in that spot––please. They’re not saying there’s no property right or no constitutional right to build. They’re saying it is offensive to many people and building there does not improve Muslim/American relations or foster good will of any kind but increases the acrimony and dredges up all too fresh and painful memories and suffering.
    Just how damned hard is that to understand, for God’s sake!?!

    JPII acquiesced to the Jews who asked that Catholics not build near a Nazi concentration camp–even though Catholics had nothing to do with those camps, many Catholics suffered there as well, and Pius XII was instrumental in saving thousands of Jews and helping them escape the Nazis. Never the less, the pope was sensitive to their feelings.

    The request of these Muslims not to build has nothing to do with Neocon aggression or speculation about the various events and actions that may or may not have contributed to the events of 9/11.

    Most who object and are deeply upset about the proposed Mosque see its building as an hegemonic and triumphalist act and are convinced (rightly I think) that radicals all over the world will see it in that light as well. They believe its construction to be an act that adds brazen insult to the painful injury of having lost love ones on that horrible day. There is some justification there, for the project is not being driven by “peaceful” Muslims seeking some point of conciliation but by those who are on record supporting radical elements within Islam.

    Trying to make a distinction between radicals who happen to be Muslims and Islam itself, as Dr. Paul does, is absurd. Islam teaches the sacred/secular western paradigm is unknown to Muslims, who see Islam as a total way of life, saturating and controlling every aspect of the society. With them “separation of church and state” is an absurdity. Ergo, these craven bombers were not mass murderers who coincidentally happened to be Muslims. They were bombers in large part because they were Muslims and they were fighting to spread Islam and to give Allah a great victory over infidels.

    As a Libertarian I believe we are making too much of this in proportion to what else is happening in America. (It well could be diversionary. If so, it is harmful, at least politically, to Obama. If I were his “handlers” I’d try to look for some other kind of diversion without the ill effects upon his popularity.) None the less, I think few of us know how painful and how deep the suffering of those who lost love ones on 9/11 has been and continues to be. And, in sympathy, I believe it’s our duty as Americans to support them.

    Finally, with all due respect to Dr. Paul, whom I both admire enormously and respect, I think it can easily be perceived as demagogic to some degree to use this debate as an opportunity to once again vilify the Neocons–right as it is to do so. I think if we’re going to contribute anything to the debate we should limit our discussion to the real points of contention and friction, none of which has anything to do with free speech or property rights or the Constitution, but a lot to do with simple human kindness and sensitivity—two qualities these Muslims seem to be lacking. But why allow mere human compassion cause one to to abandon raising a monument to Islamic triumph erecting it on the very rubble of the site of the victory. They did it centuries ago in Cordoba, Spain–and now they’re hoping to do it with their proposed Cordoba house.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12

    • http://none ProudTEX

      william ridenour you wrote;

      “I think we have to argue apples to apples. No one is saying no more Mosques in New York City. They’re just saying no Mosque in that spot––please. They’re not saying there’s no property right or no constitutional right to build. They’re saying it is offensive to many people and building there does not improve Muslim/American relations or foster good will of any kind but increases the acrimony and dredges up all too fresh and painful memories and suffering.
      Just how damned hard is that to understand, for God’s sake!?!”

      I can play it ignorant as you and I want you to tell me what you think,

      I think we have to argue apple to apple. No one is saying no more CHURCHES for our communities. They’re just saying no Churches inside our communities-Please. They’re not saying there’s no property right or no constitutional right to build. They are saying it is offensive to many people and having these Churches does not improve cleric/worshipers relations or foster good will of any kind but increases CHILD MOLESTATION and dredges up all too fresh and painful memories children whom were sexually abused and still suffering from the ordeal in the past.

      Just how damned hard is that to understand, for God’s sake!?!”

      -End of my (trying to be) ignorant-

      Sorry, I had copy and replicate your exact words in most part and that is because I have rough time being an ignorant.

      I suggest you strongly to wake up

      It is time to wake up and leave the thoughts of hatred towards Muslim, Jews, Christian etc.. It is time to wake up and listen to Dr. Paul constitutional thought rather than the hyped-up hate/wars media which want our attention/supports.
      It is time to wake up and find out who is making money over this controversies and who is making money over these immoral wars that is created out of thin air like Federal Reserve money.It is time for you to wake up my friend.


      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

  • http://none ProudTEX

    Sometime I wish I lived in the past when our founding fathers were in-charge of this great nation. Now that I read most of Dr. Paul’s statements, I am glad I live in the present time.

    I believe Dr. Paul is the founding father of this great nation in the current time; In a time when our economy is about to collapse, in a time when we are duped into multi-fronts wars, in a time when we can no longer believe our own government, in a time when hatred among culture/religion has hit the highest point.

    May god bless you Dr. Paul.

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

  • Nicholas Luciano

    It really doesn’t matter if the construction of the mosque is insensitive or not. If the people building the mosque own the property,and can acquire the proper permits from the city, I see no reason why this mosque should be denied. I don’t necessarily agree with there being an islamic cultural center near the WTC complex, but who am I? This is becoming very trivial.

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3

  • fred the protectionist

    Ron Paul is a neoconservative, all Libertarians are.

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 22

  • Chris

    I think everyone should read this twice.

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3

  • Ty

    I think this is just another example of how balanced and consistent Dr. Paul is regarding our freedom. Those opposed to the mosque will read this article and claim that Ron is being “insensitive” himself by sticking to his principles of following the constitution on the matter. He has never said he “supports” building the mosque, he supports American rights. In my opinion, I feel that it is lazy and uneducated to be against the mosque purely on religious bias. Have any of these “Islamaphobes” actually read into the religion? Isn’t it stupid to be afraid of something you know nothing about? Rather than believing what the mass-media puts on our televisions, how about developing your own opinion based on your own research? Sure, you can look at the history of islam and say this and that, but you can easily do that same for christianity. Its just more proof of how far we have selfishly grown further from our religious foundations, regardless of what you may believe. By the way, I am a christian.

    Fear tactics have played a big part in our involvement in the middle-east, even throughout American history, and look at some of the outcomes..I think Vietnam was a big one. Fear is oppressive. I dont know about my fellow American, but I think its time we stop falling into this trap and start taking our country back so we can truly live free in a true America.

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 5

  • Scott Brown

    Sorry Dr. Paul. I think you’re WAY off on this. You’re head’s in the ideology and you’re not thinking in terms of the effect this has on the families of those who died. I’m a strong supporter, Campaign for Liberty member and staunch Libertarian and I agree with you most of the time. NOT THIS TIME.

    I’m offended by this post. It takes a high level look at a down to earth human problem. This is where Americans tell me they can’t vote for Ron Paul. And now I understand. The fact is, NONE of those people or their families were involved with making foreign policy. That was YOUR job Dr. Paul. They were just going to work that day. If my twin hadn’t been late for work, he’d have been killed by these murderers too. The fact that few bodies were recovered means that this is more than some plot of land with jingoistic meaning attached. This is a grave for many and sacred ground for many more. The building of this mosque IS insensitive, as are your comments and many of the comments of my fellow Libertarians. We concede, those who oppose, that they have the right to build there, but that it is in poor taste. Do you, or any of you on this site, want to tell the families of my friends who died to “get over it?” You want to volunteer for that job? See how far it gets you. As for your assumption we are Islamaphobic, you are DEAD WRONG. My family is part muslim and they too oppose this mosque’s location. You’re calling us racist is ignorant. I’m stunned by your nonchalance. The truth is you don’t know why we oppose it and you assume it’s racist. It’s about the effects of the project on those who still mourn. If they had been Norwegians we wouldn’t want their building there either.

    Along with freedom of religion comes the freedom to petition our government for grievances. What you call ‘public pressure.’ Just because you don’t drive past the memorials every day on your way to work and you have the capacity to make this some argument of ideology complete with historical and geopolitical references doesn’t give you the right to forget the suffering of the people you serve Dr. Paul.

    Again, you are my hero, check prior posts. But today, after reading this, you’re just another flawed man like the rest of us. I guess our only hope is with Rand. Or perhaps there is none. This post has crushed me.

    Scott Brown
    Dover, NJ

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 24

    • y

      Greetings Scott:

      First of all, i mean no disrespect to you, and I feel for the pain of those who lost people on 9/11, as well as for you, since you said you had a twin who was almost killed that day as well. But I disagree with you that building a mosque there is insensitive. I don’t believe the people building the mosque are responsible for what happened there, and I’m sure they oppose such terrorist actions as well. If Osama bin laden wanted to build a mosque there and preach terrorism, I’d be opposed to it as well. But the people who want to build the mosque there aren’t terrorists, nor do they support bin Laden’s agenda. Inside the mosque/center that they are planning to build is actually a memorial to the 9/11 victims.

      Again, I mean no disrespect, and if I have misinterpreted anything you said, feel free to respond.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  • David Lee

    Happy Birthday to:
    Great hero of the Century.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  • Rick Fisk

    “I think that the belief that some people share about Islamic forces building Mosques on conquered land is credible in this case. ”

    We’ve created more “ground zeros” next to mosques in the middle east. And this isn’t a mosque and it isn’t next to ground zero.

    And these people are no more “Islamic forces” than you are part of some “Christian force”.

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6

  • James

    Isn’t his son one of these very “sunshine patriots” guilty of opposing the development out of “sensitivity?”

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

    • y

      This just goes to show, once again, that Rand Paul is no Ron Paul. I’m more convinced then ever that there’s only Ron Paul, atleast for the foreseeable future.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

  • John

    Jeremiah, first of all, if you were deployed in 2003 then thank you very much for your service and sacrifice, and God bless you. I think that we are not a conquered land so opposing the mosque for that reason does not make sense to me. I believe Dr. Paul is right that the media and the politicians are making this an issue to fuel hatred and to distract us from their disastrous policies. Let’s also remember that Bin Laden’s messages following 9/11 demanded that the US withdraw their military from Saudi Arabia. I don’t believe he ever mentioned killing in the name of his religion. This in no way condones the actions of 9/11 but I think an argument can be made that our foreign policies created the hatred that led to the attacks.

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4

    • Libertarian777

      is this any different than the US having hundreds of bases in it’s ‘conquered’ lands?

      Not just iraq and afghanistan, but hundreds of bases in japan, south korea, africa, europe etc.

      If we are so opposed to having muslims build a mosque here, why are we so surprised when they are opposed to having US military bases in their country (e.g. japan recently)?

      we’re there for their good?
      can ‘they’ not say the same about their mosque being here for ‘our’ good?

      just playing devil’s advocate. don’t forget the crusades, when Christians went around slaughtering muslims in the name of Jesus.

      It’s not the religion per se, it’s the fundamentalists (for every Bin Laden, there’s a David Koresh; even Buddhists have extremists who bomb temples/civilians)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7

      • Steve Head

        A fair analogy I suppose. So you want to admit defeat to Islam? Are you ready for the entire muslum to know they defeated and conquered the United States? That building is not close to ground zero, it is ground zero. That building was damaged and amost destroyed by parts of the first aircraft that struck the towers.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15

        • Libertarian777

          if everyone is really so opposed to this mosque, why don’t we start a fund, until we raise a couple million and just buy the place from them.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • April Greene

    I believe that the towers should have been built back the way they were, as a statement of “we will rebuild, you will not defeat us.” And yeah an in your face kind of thing. From what I understand, the Mosque is to be built several blocks from ground zero. To me that is ok, it cannot be that much of an issue, not when on the few days after and every year, people set up stands selling souviners for people to buy things. To me that is a greater show of disrespect. WE have got to all get on the important issues here. Our country is going down in flames, no jobs, no money, all our soldiers are ov er seas fighting in other countries. Our money is being shipped out every second of every day to foreign countries with no hope of getting it back. Our government officials are as corrupt as ever, spending and spending and spending all the while having the nerve to call those of us now out of a job, as lazy, like Rush Limbaugh, telling us he will teach us how to live from a dumpster?? And we take that kind of thing?Has anyone ever noticed how the Irish handle corrupt government officials? hehe they go in the capital and physically throw them out. Why are we just laying down and taking this? 9/11 was a terrifying and horrible thing, many people died that day, many of us lost loved ones. However, many of us continue to lose loved ones in wars, and in the deterioration of health because they and we simply could not afford to feed all, we are quickly turning into a third world country, allowing our people to starve and die off because of inability to get medications and food while our government keeps getting fatter and fatter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  • Jeremiah

    I was under the impression that the Speaker of the House wanted to initiate an investigation into who was organizing the opposition to the Mosque being built.
    It comes as news to me after having read the statement by the Honorable Mr. Paul.
    In regard to my opinion on the mosque being built, I do not believe it should be built. After having read up on the history of Islam prior to my deployment to the middle east in 2003, it is my personal belief that the purpose of the mosque is not as a symbol of peace. Rather I think that the belief that some people share about Islamic forces building Mosques on conquered land is credible in this case. This is not a half baked assumption. Anyone can look back throughout the history of Islamic imperial conquest in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Southern Europe. It was a common practice to evict the existing religions from their temples and churches and convert the buildings to Mosques as well as erecting Mosques on conquered sights.
    One place where this is most evident is in Jerusalem.
    However, the Honorable Mr. Paul is entitled to his beliefs just as all supporters and detractors of the Mosque are entitled to their beliefs.

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 13