Ground Zero mosque is moving forward
It would appear that the Ground Zero mosque is well on its way toward being built, as it passes a major legal challenge. The fact of the matter is that the opponents of the mosque have no real grounds for opposing the mosque, as observed last year by conservative writer Mark Hackard at Alternative Right:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 17, 2011 07:25 PM | Send
Despite historical context, opponents of the mosque have been reduced to arguing that building it so close to Ground Zero would be insensitive to the victims of 9/11. That is their central premise, one heavily conditioned by the shallow sentimentalism that grips public discussion. Mere feelings cannot form a sound basis for counteraction.
On the other hand, the Muslims and their leftist allies can appeal to the principles of the Open Society:
Supporters of the Park Place mosque, on the other hand, have the doctrines of American civic religion on their side. New York’s mayor Mike Bloomberg presents the entire episode as an opportunity to showcase the spirit of pluralism, as enshrined at the nation’s founding, in action. John Adams stated quite explicitly in the 1797 U.S. Treaty with Tripoli that the United States was “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” And the mosque’s defenders are correct—Muslims can build a place of congregation or worship anywhere legally feasible. The same goes for Moonies and Scientologists; it’s a fact of the Open Society.
As devout believers in the Open Society the assorted opponents have no solid philosophical ground to challenge the mosque beyond mere emotionalism. Even anti-jihad activists like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller will not oppose the mosque on the grounds that mosques and Muslims by their very nature do not belong in the West. Hackard continues:
Given this, Americans who sense that something is inherently wrong with the situation have nowhere to turn within the framework of today’s cultural and political discourse. The clash over the mosque is being fought entirely under the strictures of liberal ideology—everything is subjected to the leveling, atomizing power of the egalitarian ideal. Despite the undeniable symbolism involved, as long as the liberal dynamic prevails, the Cordoba House affair will just be one of many distractions brought to you by Rupert Murdoch and his competitors.
As long as conservative opponents operate within the boundaries set by liberalism they will ultimately not be able to challenge the Ground Zero mosque and other mosques and acts of Islamization in the future. But there is hope:
To revolt against a refined and effective system of social control like pluralism would entail a hierarchy of principles radically at odds with the values held by contemporary man. This would mean a return to traditional conceptions of authority and freedom, deriving from the Transcendent, and rejecting the materialization of life. Only at such a moment could an intellectually and spiritually prepared opposition rise against the inverted vision of society that has prevailed since the Enlightenment.
I do hope and pray, for the sake of my country, and for the sake of the thousands of innocents so brutally murdered by Muslim terrorists, that this act of Islamic hegemonic aggression is thwarted. The first step in doing so is to abandon the ideas and language of liberalism and return to the tradition that protected our ancestors from perpetual Islamic aggression for centuries.