Re: "Cordoba House"
Over in the comments section, Ricochet member Jim Chase writes this:
The current political class notwithstanding, we are a nation founded on the rule of law. If the Cordoba bunch has legally acquired property/zoning permissions, and if there is no direct tie (financial) to groups formally designated as terrorist by the State Dept., then they have the right to build wherever they want. Our laws protect such activity, be it religious, economic and/or assembly.
I don't like it. I can protest against it. I can ignore their propaganda. As citizens, we can keep an eye on them to a point. But I cannot take away their right, nor would I advocate such.
I myself haven't yet thought this all the way through--there is, after all, a well-established principle that, in the old phrase, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact--but Jim's statement here strikes me as a wonderful expression of decency, patriotism, and common sense. Worse affronts than the construction of "Cordoba House" will no doubt come. But at least for now, I'm standing with Jim.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
Peter, I believe you had this right in the previous post about Cordoba House and wouldn't we all love to go along with the statement Jim Chase makes about, '... a nation founded on the rule of law'. Except the rule of law is being bent in every direction, if not directly distorted and broken by our own government everyday. This list is becoming long and distinguished daily including the New Black Panther voter intimidation, suing the state of Arizona over the right to protect itself from illegals from another country, to the 'openess' of the White House to practically every request made to honor their claim of transparency... and the DOJ is standing right behind thes actions on all fronts. In this situation this resembles a suicide pact.
May '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
Not hard to support that statement, and the way he says it, "settled law," for a long time it would seem. Would be interesting to hear what Richard and John have to say on it.
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
Welcome back, F. L. Booth!
May '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
Peter, ever since this first surfaced I have thought the same as Jim Chase. It pains me, it makes me nauseous, but it can't be stopped. Robb, just because the government bends and distorts the law doesn't make it right. If "we" do the same we lose all credibility. Protest every day (like the old Cuban UN mission), continue to investigate. I hope people will go into the place, attend the classes, mingle with the people, find out what's really happening there.
Naming it Cordoba House was truly insulting. Do they really think that every American is ignorant of history? No one will ever convince me that wasn't done deliberately to insult Western civilization.
Jul '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
I agree once it's up, assuming it's built in a lawful way and the inhabitants don't engage in any terrorist incitement or fundraising, we must accept, and even defend, the presence of the ground zero mosque. But it ain't built 'til it's built. Until the first shovelful of dirt is lifted, those of us who oppose it are entitled to express our full-throated disapproval. Imagine if the backers announced that they accepted the justice of the protests, that the wound is still too raw, and they canceled the project or moved it to another site. Wouldn't that be wonderful, in the truest sense of that word? Imagine how much that would contribute to interfaith trust and reconciliation. How very much closer we would then be to a world where a mosque at ground zero would truly be "small potatoes".
Jun '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
I need to summon my inner Margaret Thatcher for this, which might take some brown liquor before I'm done, but I'll give it a shot.
The good gentleman from Alabama makes the case for a mosque at ground zero based on the rule of law. His arguments are compelling and his logic is sound. The man speaks as a patriot, and I would never question his loyalty or his motives. Nevertheless, he is wrong. Mr. Chase is terribly wrong.
The rule of law was invented by civilized peoples to establish and maintain a way of life beyond the short, nasty, and brutish. Our enemies are not civilized. They are nihilists who reject the rule of law in favor of random violence that includes the murder of women and children. By their actions they have forfeited all appeals based on the rule of law.
Our enemies are clever savages. They know how to turn our best and most noble sentiments against us. We must deny them. Until they recognize and willingly abide by a code of law, they should have no standing whatever in the courts of law. Law is for the civilized. Let our enemies rot.
Jun '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
Paules, I remain fully open to the possibility that I may be "wrong." I am wrong quite frequently. I've wrestled with this all day. I do want to be clear that although I've made an argument here, that should not be construed as being in favor of the enterprise. Quite the contrary, I abhor the idea of the GZM and what it represents.
However, I find myself resistant to the idea of applying a summary judgment in this specific issue. If the CI can be shown as somehow undeserving of legal standing and not entitled to due process, then great. But I don't know that to be true, based on information available to date.
You suggest that we deny legal standing to a group of people, some of whom are American citizens. I don't know how you accomplish that as a practical matter. Unless of course we change the law - recognizing that such a law could then be used as precedent and extended against any group perceived as a threat.
The day may come when we have to take such action. I'm not convinced that would be a good day.
Jun '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
One addendum, before I sign off for the night. With respect to my statement about the idea of denying legal standing to groups of people: I'm speaking here of American citizens, born or naturalized, who currently have standing under our Constitution. I do not apply this argument to enemy combatants or any who take up arms against the United States, who in my opinion are not entitled to the rights and privileges afforded us.
A good evening to all.
Jul '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
The argument is always the same, if we do the same as our 'enemies' then we are no different than our enemies. This is an intellectual cul-de-sac that generally ends most discussions with the moral trump.
Jim Chase's statement 'The day may come'... is compelling but that argument must have been made hundreds of times whether to commit treason and act against the crown at the founding of this country, but some actions have greater moral consequences than the reciprocity of the law for all.
In a recent 'Uncommon Knowledge' series Peter had Mark Steyn and Rob Long on to discuss 'The Gipper Then and Now'. Ronald Reagan from 1964: 'We're at war with the most dangerous enemies that has ever faced mankind in his long drive from the swamps. And its been said if we lose that war, and so doing lose this way of freedom of ours; history will record with the greatest astonishment of those who had the most to lose, give the least to prevent its happening.' When are those freedoms and rights going to 'trump' the individual assumptive rights and allow for a longer view of what we are protecting.
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
Of course Jim is right. Paules, I'm not sure what you're saying. You say, "Until they recognize and willingly abide by a code of law, they should have no standing whatever in the courts of law." Jim is saying, "So long as they abide by the law, they have the right to build." Where's the contradiction? We all agree: If they abide by the law, they can do what they want. If they don't, they can't. As I understood it, this debate was not about whether they have a legal right to build the mosque, so long as they comply with the law. Of course they do. It's about whether we should be enthusiastic about it.
May '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
I think a lot of the commentary here is missing the point. We've been talking about the legality of the structure, the rights of its builders, the rights of Americans to protest it, and the supposed irrationality of those who oppose it. This has nothing to do with rights, rationality, or legality. It's a matter of honor. They are deliberately insulting us. When we allow the Cordoba House's construction, they won't see us as tolerant; they will see us as cowards.
May '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
I want to say thanks again for a great discussion on all this. It's inspired an idea that I'd like to run by everyone. A Muslim group founds a community center, saying one of their express intentions is opposing radicals. Some people like me are inclined to trust them (in the present case, anyway). And others like Peter see this as deliberate provocation, but believe the rule of law requires that they be allowed to build.
Time will tell RE their intentions, but meanwhile, maybe the best strategy is calling their bluff. Identify the most useful things an Islamic mosque and community center could do to discourage radical Islam. Statements, specific programs, whatever. Approach the folks who run it in friendly spirit. Say, "Hey, my group wants to discourage radical Islam too. How about we partner to do these things."
And voila. If they're genuinely anti-radical, you'd be helping their efforts, and if not, you'd be exposing their true behavior.
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
Yep, good idea. I'm with you.
Jun '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
We need to come to grips with the reality we are facing regarding the GZM. The structure is in part a beachhead from which radical Islam will spread its malicious influence. The mosque is a symbol to radicals worldwide that ground zero is conquered territory.
If our laws are insufficient to defend us, then the law must be fortified. We could start with legislation targeting the funding of this and other mosques. Keep in mind that Wahhabism is being deliberately exported from Saudi Arabia. Most likely the money has been well laundered for this project through various front organizations, but if so much as a dollar can be traced to a terrorist organization, then that should be legal grounds to deny a permit.
No one wants to deny legal standing to Americans, but what sort of American would use his citizenship as a proxy for overseas terrorists? We already know that groups like CAIR are being funded from overseas. We know that CAIR in particular is an Islamist front organization. Why hasn't it been shut down? The law can be a sticky wicket, but it's time for some common sense.
Jul '10
Re: Re: "Cordoba House"
A little late into the fray here. I think we face a difficult distinction here. The Cordoba House issue is not fundamentally an issue of law. It is an issue of culture. Our culture is under deliberate assault by radical Islamism. Our laws depend on an assumption of shared cultural values to work. To write off the issue as one of "well, they didn't break the law" is to whistle past the issue. We all understand the notion of the the Constitution not being a "suicide pact". This is the cultural equivalent.
That doesn't mean I know the answer. Except that the correct response demands a vigorous cultural response. Analagous to the French banning the public wearing of the burqua. At one level that feels creepy to Americans. At another we want to cheer at their effort to avoind cultural surrender.