Controversy over proposed ‘Ground Zero’ Mosque [update 3]

In his latest podcast, Leonard Peikoff comes out swinging against allowing the “give America the finger” Mosque to be built just three blocks or so from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, where more than 3000 people were killed in the name of Islam less than ten years ago.  But he’s not just objecting to its construction, he’s calling for government action to destroy it altogether. Asked “isn’t it private property and therefore protected by individual rights?” Peikoff says no, emphatically not, and further …

In regard to this issue, I would say, any way possible, permission should be refused; and, if they go ahead and build it, the government should bomb it out of existence. Evacuating it first, with no compensation to any of the property owners involved in this monstrosity.”

Trouble is (well, there’s several causes for trouble, really), his argument applies to every mosque built in every street in every city in the west. Which is no better than what Roosevelt did when he locked up every Japanese-American he could find right after the attack on Pearl Harbor.  As Ari Armstrong said last week:

If there is real evidence that the builders of the mosque actively plan to forcibly overthrow the United States government or harm its citizens, then they should be prosecuted and imprisoned by the government. I have seen no such evidence.”

Yes, Islam is at war with the west.  And yes, those who’ve committed acts of war should be treated as casualties, not as defendants.  But as far as those building the mosque are concerned, any guilt must first be proven, not just assumed.

If not,  seems to me that objecting to this mosque is simply a proxy for objecting to what’s not being done to hunt down and kill those responsible for terrorism and for supporting terrorists —in other words, objecting to the foolish war that is being waged against a tactic instead of against the real enemy, a failing war that has left the real enemies to haunt failed states like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan and hostile states like Iran in the same way that a vampire haunts darkness. Or in Diana Hsieh’s succinct words:

Totalitarian Islam is a major threat, but that threat needs to be fought by the military -- by destroying the states that sponsor terrorism -- not by violating private property rights in order to prevent a mosque from being built.”

On this then, Trey Given’s carefully considered words speak for mine:

Dr. Peikoff says in his comment that if I disagree, then I don’t understand Objectivism.  I’m fine with that. I do not subscribe to Objectivism so that I might call myself an Objectivist.  I call myself an Objectivist because I agree with all that I know and understand about Objectivism.  Part of that understanding is that I make up my own mind about these things.  Dr. Peikoff can think whatever he likes about things, but his thoughts are not mine.  I will not accept an argument from authority.
    “All I can say is that I will re-listen to the podcast and re-consider what he says and see if I agree.  At present, I do not.”

Me either.

RELATED POSTS:

• Leonard Peikoff on the NYC Mosque – Diana Hsieh, NOODLE FOOD
• Steve Simpson: Rule of Law in the Case of the NYC Mosque – Steve Simpson, NOODLE FOOD
• Dr. Peikoff on the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque: Bomb It Out of Existence! – THE VINCENTON POST
• War Powers Without War – Robert Tracinski, Dec 2001

UPDATE 1: Amit Ghate at the Thrutch blog posts this telling excerpt from Steve Simpson’s piece, making the case against ad hoc government action against the proposed mosque:

It doesn't help that the cause may be moral. Morality is necessary to objective law, but it is far from sufficient. Objective law also requires, well, that we actually have objective laws and processes on the books and that we use them. It is not enough--it is never, ever enough--to say that it would be morally appropriate to proceed against someone if we only had the laws to do it, but since we lack the laws or the political will, our ends justify whatever means we decide to use under the circumstances.”

UPDATE 2: Ari Armstrong asks five excellent (im)pertinent questions about the proposed mosque, and makes this equally excellent final point:

 

Final thought: I can think of little that would make more of a mockery of the United States than to fight Islamist terrorism with zoning laws. ‘You better stop killing us, or we'll zone your asses!’ We cannot fight a war with zoning laws, and the attempt is both futile and embarrassing.”

Read his whole post here asking What About the Forty Other Islamic Centers?.

UPDATE 3: Just to clarify, what Dr Peikoff says of the govt allowing the construction of the mosque:

 

If you can even conceive of that as justified because of ‘property rights, then I say you haven't a clue what property rights or individualism or Objectivism is saying, because what permitting that amounts to is ‘roll over, kick me, kill me, I have nothing to say.’"