Mosque at ground zero

For the last few days I've been collecting my thoughts on the issue of building a mosque near ground zero. My position on the issue has been consistent, but I've been trying to find a good way to lay it out. So here goes:

I do oppose the building of a mosque that close to ground zero. I feel it's a slap in the face to the citizens of New York and to Americans in general. I'm offended at the thought that an Imam would think that a mosque that close to where some radical Muslims slew 3,000 people would be a good idea. It's just plain bad form.

However, from a legal / political standpoint, I don't see a problem with it........WHAT!? No problem with a mosque at ground zero? I can hear some people screaming at their computer screens, "What's wrong with you!? You un-American explicative! How dare you bend to the terrorists will!! How can you claim to be a conservative and say you support this crap!"

Before you decide to never speak to me again or resolve to set my house on fire, allow me to explain myself.

I have a pretty strong libertarian streak. What that means, in the simplest of terms, is I don't support the attitude that says, "I like this, so the government should make everybody do that." And conversely, and especially relative to the case of this mosque, I oppose the view that says, "This offends me, so it should be illegal." I don't turn to the government to solve all my problems. Nor do I want government to force my will on others. The fact that Islamic extremists killed people nearby does not mean that we should outlaw the construction of a mosque in the vicinity of the site. Hitler was Roman Catholic. So a cathedral in Auschwitz should be outlawed as well, right?

Asking the city, state, or federal government to do or stop something just because you do or don't like it is called political activism. It's the political equivalent of demanding that all businesses have special rooms for breastfeeding mothers or that schools serve a vegetarian selection with school lunch.

"But building a mosque there will only create more terrorists!"

Many claim that allowing a mosque near ground zero is conceding victory to the terrorists who masterminded the 9/11 plot and will result in increased terrorist recruiting. For one thing, the Islamic faith didn't attack us on 9/11. An Islamic extremist terrorist cell did. "Muslim" does not equal "Islamic extremist terrorist". In geometric terms, squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. The argument that a mosque will just be a terrorist recruiting tool is irrational and, honestly, Islamophobic. In my time fighting Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, I learned two things. First, Muslims are people too (okay, I already knew that, but it seems that some have forgotten it). But above that, most Muslims want peace and quiet just as much as Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, and Sikhs want it. Second, Islamic extremists hate you - period. It doesn't matter if you try to appease them, ignore them, or kill them. They'll still hate you.

Extremism is just that - extreme. It's illogical and stupid. If you do what an extremist demands, then you are a pushover and must be killed. If you ignore him, you are stupid and must be killed. If you oppose him, you are an enemy and must be killed. If you join him, you are less than pure and must be killed. All your decisions end in your death being required. Any argument stating that choice x, y, or z will result in less or more terrorism is null. So, if we can't base our decision on how the terrorist will react, perhaps we should base it on what our own constitution and laws dictate.

Last time I checked, we live in a country that upholds the freedom of religion. That means you can subscribe to any religion and worship, who, what, and where you want as long as your acts don't infringe on the safety or freedom of others. Building a mosque near ground zero does not infringe on the safety or freedom of anybody. It's rude and offensive, but feelings aren't protected by the constitution.

"But Glenn Beck said that this guy has ties to Hamas!"

From what I can tell, this guy knows a guy who donated to a group that's affiliated with Hamas. Where I come from (America), that's circumstantial evidence and is invalid. I'm pretty sure I probably know a guy or two that donated to a group that's affiliated with some questionable organization, too. Should I be investigated?

"He and the sources of his funding should at least be investigated!"

If we investigate him, then it's only fair that sources of funding for all religious buildings in the U.S. be investigated as well. Additionally, investigating the sources of his funding would require due process, which requires reasonable suspicion. "He knows a guy who donated to a group that's affiliated with a terrorist group" is not reasonable suspicion.

"But you said you oppose the mosque. Then you defended it. You're a hypocrite!"

I do oppose the mosque on principle. But principle does not equal law. Nor should it.

"If you really oppose the mosque, then you'll at least tell me how to stop them from building it!"

Okay. Here's how. You protest. The same amendment that protects this Imam's right to have a mosque protects your right to freedom of expression. You boycott the companies supplying the mosque's building materials. You boycott the construction companies. You do some research and let any company that does any work on that mosque know that you will ensure that it's current and prospective customers know that it helped build the mosque at ground zero. You get up and go stand in front of the building and protest. You cancel your membership to any organization that supports the mosque, etc, etc, etc. And the day there is real evidence that this Imam is actually recruiting, supporting, or training terrorists, you demand that he be investigated.

"But that's hard!"

So was gaining our independence from England and creating a republic that defends individual freedoms. Including religious freedom.