Al-Qaeda seeks to combat the idea that people of different religions can live harmoniously together in the same society. The anti-mosqueteers are certainly doing their best to combat this idea as well.
Al-Qaeda seeks to subordinate private property rights to religious law. This is exactly what the anti-mosqueteers do when they declare other people’s property “sacred ground” and propose on this basis to interfere with their peaceful use of it.
Al-Qaeda seeks to position itself as the representative of the entire Muslim community. The whole anti-mosqueteer position makes sense only on the assumption that they support al-Qaeda’s claim on this point – since otherwise banning an Islamic cultural center because the 9/11 highjackers were Muslim would be no more salient than banning a YMCA because the highjackers were male. (“A young woman said to me: ‘I have had the most horrible experiences with furriers; they robbed me, they burned the fur I entrusted to them. Well, they were all Jews.’ But why did she choose to hate Jews rather than furriers?” – Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew.)
Al-Qaeda employs a double standard, condemning its enemies for killing innocents but excusing its own similar actions. This approach too gets its stamp of approval from the anti-mosqueteers, who express far more concern about what might be built near the site of the 9/11 bombings than about what might be built near the sites of American bombings of Muslims.
Al-Qaeda seeks to intimidate its opponents into appeasing its irrational demands. What are the anti-mosqueteers doing if not endorsing this tactic when they suggest that the Islamic Center should cave in and “compromise” out of concern for the anti-mosqueteeers’ “feelings,” regardless of the merits of those feelings? (Likewise, why couldn’t southern blacks compromise with the KKK? Sure, maybe legally the blacks were in the right, but the KKK’s bigoted feelings were strong and sincere and deserved respect, no?)
I’m not saying that the anti-mosqueteers are literally in the pay of al-Qaeda. But they might as well be.
People need to chill down.
Brandon, is there a way you could put a ‘like’ or a ‘recommend’ button at the bottom of Roderick’s posts?
Probably, but that has not been approved by my Red Chinese masters.
How exactly are al-Qaeda’s demands irrational? As per Michael Sheuer:
“Our leaders say he and his followers hate us because of who we are, because we have early primaries in Iowa every four years and allow women in the workplace. That’s nonsense. I don’t think he would have those things in his country. But that’s not why he opposes us. I read bin Laden’s writings and I take him at his word. He and his followers hate us because of specific aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Bin Laden lays them out for anyone to read. Six elements: our unqualified support for Israel; our presence on the Arabian peninsula, which is land they deem holy; our military presence in other Islamic countries; our support of foreign states that oppress Muslims, especially Russia, China and India; our long-term policy of keeping oil prices artificially low to the benefit of Western consumers but the detriment of the Arab people; and our support for Arab tyrannies who will do that.”
As for your other points, you would do well to read up on the Shari’a . You will find that the it is very much in favor of the free market, property rights, and respect for other religions, among other things that libertarians claim to favor. Al-Qaeda’s battle with the US is religious because, for Muslims, every aspect of life is governed by Islam; any physical attack on Muslims and their properties, whether a direct attact on Islam or not, is cause for a call to arms of all Muslims, the universally dreaded jihad.
I was referring primarily to al-Qaeda’s demands on other Muslims, not to its demands on the u.s. Of course I agree with you about the u.s.’s wretched foreign policy.
I’m aware of that (are you familiar with the Minaret of Freedom?), though I think Islamic law was more libertarian before taqlid largely replaced ijtihad. But the fact that Islamic law has strong libertarian elements doesn’t mean that al-Qaeda does so; its interpretation of Shari’a and its proposed policies are not very libertarian.
Using the positive aspects of Islam to make al-Qaeda look good is just as dubious as the anti-mosqueteers’ practice of using the negative aspects of al-Qaeda to make Islam look bad. Al-Qaeda is not the same thing as Islam.
Fine. But it’s wicked for al-Qaeda to kill innocent u.s. civilians just because it has a grievance against the u.s. government — just as it’s wicked for the u.s. government to kill innocent Muslims just because it has a beef with al-Qaeda. Response to aggression has to target the aggressors, not innocent third parties. (See my piece on Terrorist Logic.)
Really? Al Qaeda intimidates people by beheading them and blowing up buildings. Maybe those against the mosque are wrong to be offended, but they aren’t blowing up buildings to get what they want. In fact, I’m not sure how they are “intimidating” anyone, unless you consider any passionate expression against a use of property “intimidation.”
Well, some of them are advocating blowing up the Islamic Center.
Most of them are advocating using the violence of the state to restrict the Center’s expansion; how is that not intimidation? (To say nothing of encouraging a climate that’s likely to lead to private violence against Muslims.)
There may be a difference of degree, but the principle is the same.
Given the recent attacks against Latinos on Staten Island and the spray painting of swastikas on Long Island, violence against Muslims in and around NYC is a legitimate concern.
What’s most ridiculous about this controversy is that there already is a mosque (and not merely a community center) four small blocks north of the WTC. I guess the presence of a non-mosque two blocks closer makes all the difference.
I love the phrase “anti-mousqueteers”, though at first I thought it was “anti-mouseketeers.” Now there’s a bandwagon I could jump on–I find the Mickey Mouse Club deeply offensive.
BTW, Pamela Geller is a f***ing insane hyperparanoid lunatic.
This is a great post, and is right on the money.
What strikes me as sad and amusing at the same time is this – I’m fairly sure that many of those opposed to the Park 51 project admire Ayn Rand…and yet Ayn had some unambiguous statements on the subject of racism and the fallacy of collective guilt. Has anyone brought this up to Pam Gellar and other opponents of the mosque/cultural center?
The people philosophically closest to Ayn Rand have advocated blowing the thing up. I doubt she’d think much differently; she was on record saying that anything Israelis did to Palestinians, for instance, was justified (because they were religious hunter-gatherer cannibals or something).
We’re talking about a woman who thought that European settlers and the US government were if anything too nice to the native American tribes, for crissakes. Purely intellectual anti-racism and anti-collectivism is only worth so much.
“BTW, Pamela Geller is a f***ing insane hyperparanoid lunatic.”
That’s because she’s one of those Peikoff-esque Randroids. They’re all like that. They hate Islam and muslims more than the Christian loonies do.
Because blaming furriers lacked explanatory depth?
I’m just posting to see what it says for my OS & browser.
I would put a “like” on this if I could. I’m pretty sure that iOS doesn’t get anything but a question mark, but I haven’t tested it yet.
The mosque up by City Hall is no more. The Muslims who went there are going to the old Burlington Coat Factory, where the new one is. By the way, it’s not two blocks from “ground zero,” which I take to mean one of the two impact sites, but from the WTC property line. And don’t get me off on what the government has done to prevent the Christian church at “ground zero” — across from the South Tower and crushed by it — from rebuilding.
What the government did was make St. Nicholas Church move to another location because, you know, it was on “hallowed ground” according the religion of Americanism. The church is having trouble precisely because it was in the zone taken over by the Port Authority. The Burlington Coat Factory was not, and so its owners could sell their property freely (which they did). You would be right to say that the government is playing favorites with religion and St. Nicholas Church is coming out on the losing end, but it’s not Islam trumping Christianity here. It’s the church of the USA that always comes out on top, and you’ll know it when you see its Cordoba House go up on the site of a former Greek Orthodox church.
Anti-mosqueteers remind me of Lennie in Of Mice and Men. An ogre-like man seeks to express his affection for fragile spirits and yet crushes them because he lacks the requisite logic to apply affection.
On the Rand connection: Not that I’m some Rand scholar, but I have come across contradictory remarks by her. On the one hand, I have seen where she explicitly condemned racist collectivism, but then I’ve seen other writings where she collectively described Africans and Indians as “savages,” and then there’s her bizarre (f0r a supposed “individualist”) claim on Donahue’s show back in the late 70s/early 80s where she claimed that “we” all in the West “owned” the oil fields of Iran “by contract right.”
Roderick, could you elaborate on this? Or have you blogged previously on this, and if so, would you mind posting those links here?
I suppose Rand would say that the groups she criticises are inferior culturally rather than racially. But it’s hard to avoid suspecting that implicit racism might have motivated the sweeping collectivist claims she makes. I haven’t written about it per se, but I’ve written about her inconsistent application of military ethics to different groups (here and here) and about more recent Randians’ nonsense about American Indians (here).
I don’t know why people expect a pulp fiction writer and borderline pamphleteer to be consistent. Her whole worldview is wonky; and this is coming from an egoistic elitist pro-marketeer.
I think she did some pretty good philosophy whenever she stifled her impatience long enough.
She said things I agree with; her analysis of the argument from intimidation (which, ironically, she was wont to use). But I think her unwillingness to really study economics and philosophy crippled her in some areas.
Okay, Islam is the best thing ever, and Ayn Rand is a evil witch. Okay.
Who is that a reply to?
Is that a non sequitor ? Because, MagnusGoddmunson, (unless you are trolling), no one here said Islam was the best thing ever – neither did anyone say she was an evil witch. What I and a few other people are pointing out was that Ayn Rand didn’t always abide by the philosophy she claimed was the fundamental philosophy all humans were meant to live by. Ayn wasn’t perfect – no one is, of course – but it’s really pathetic to see people who can’t rise above their IRRATIONAL hate for humans they feel are inferior to them.
I would just say “check your premises.”
I don’t think Rand was being inconsistent with her principles, exactly (rather I think her principles were inconsistent with each other, so she’s always being inconsistent with her principles, especially when she’s being consistent with them). I also don’t think she was racist, exactly – rather her philosophy indulges in presumptuous bigotry towards everyone who isn’t a projection or useful tool of the Randian Hero. For Rand and Randians, the only true individuals are the ubermensch (who, if they exist in real life, are probably dictators in various basket case countries); everyone else is just a representation of one amorphous collective or another, some of them more immediately useful (and thus sympathetic) than others to the only people who count as “real individuals”. Race is incidental.
Well, the position you attribute to her is the one she explicitly attacks both in The Fountainhead (through the character of Gail Wynand) and in Atlas Shrugged (through the character of Robert Stadler).
Well yeah, but in her fiction she’s all over the place too. Atlas Shrugged, at least, ends up as an exercise in fantasy where the ubermensch really are the sole driving force behind everything civilized. In the real world, the ubermensch really do need everyone else, so when applying her ethics in real life Randians tend to sound more like Randian villains than Randian heroes.
I’m always skeptical of attempts to brush off some thinker’s nasty episodes as products of their personality, apart from their ideas. To whatever extent that’s true, more often than not their personal flaws have something very important to do with something in their ideas and in the way they think about other people. When Aristotle defended slavery, he wasn’t just failing to apply his ethics because of some sentimental or cultural bias. He was applying something horrifyingly stupid built into his ethics.
How so? What was the stupid thing he was applying? (I would say he was applying something nonstupid — the distinction between instrumental and substantive rationality — but applying it stupidly.)
You know, when I said this –
– it was a joke! A snarky joke! I didn’t mean to turn you on.
Looks like the Mises Institute should more thoroughly vet their mystery speakers. Maybe next years’ won’t be employed by an al qaeda-owned organization.
That is quite funny, like one of the commenters said, he’s starting to call it the Fox News Mosque.