A couple weeks ago, some friends and I had a collective discussion about Ron Paul's comments on the location of a Ground Zero mosque. It was interesting to me because we are normally in agreement on many political issues. I have published the email conversation below with the permission of the participants. -----
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Tyler Haney wrote:
Ron Paul: Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam
From: Zach Bahorik
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:27 AM
To: Tyler Haney
Cc: Swartzentruber, Grant; Tim Brunk
Subject: Re: Ron Paul: Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam Business Wire
I read this on Monday.
I think this is where I tend to part ways with pure libertarian doctrine. You all know me, I'm certainly not a member of the PC police, but I do tend to agree with Dr. Martin's philosophy on the free market: "capitalism tempered with grace." In other words, especially in light of my faith, I find that certain institutions and/or commodities have deeper significance than a simple utilitarian construct. This is the reason, I suppose, that many Christians may identify themselves as social conservatives, yet fiscally libertarian. I hesitate to lock myself in, but that's the lion's share of my political makeup.
For instance, Ron Paul claims the following:
"The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer"
I can see how Ron would make this claim. To Ron, a sport and a religion are interchangeable in the sense that neither is anything more or less than a societal construct. Some Notre Dame fans also see sports and religion as interchangeable, but that is for entirely different and much more disturbing reasons (joking).
My point would be that, while I'm all for property rights and all those other libertarian wet dreams, a mosque represents an ideology that inspired those people to fly planes into the iconic buildings that once stood at that spot. Take away those men's religion, and that catastrophe never happens. Take away soccer, and, well, European men would have to find other reasons to roll around on the ground and make blood-curdling noises for fake injuries.
It may seem like I'm taking just this one sentence and disagreeing with Paul's whole premise on that basis, but I think this sentence best represents the philosophical differences I have with him and his statement.
If it makes a difference, I also disagree with his thesis that this whole debate is based in "Islamaphobia" to stir up continued support for the wars in the Middle East. If the men on the planes wearing turbans were not Islamic, and we've just been saying that for all these years, then I will be the first to apologize. If those men committed this terroristic act not on the basis of their religion but because they didn't like the food in the WTC cafeteria, then I will be the first to say "my bad, the mosque is fine."
But I don't think I'm wrong, and I think Mr. Paul mentions the anti-war sentiment to stir up the same emotions FOR this project that he accuses politicos of stirring up AGAINST this project. Same blade, two edges, Mr. Paul.
Ron Paul's a good dude, and a brilliant thinker, but I have to politely disagree here.
Zach Bahorik
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Swartzentruber, Grant wrote:
I politely disagree with you, Zach. I will save most of my thoughts for an in-person opportunity. I have not read the article but my general sentiment is “bigger fish to fry.” Who cares where mosques are built? I do not attend and it’s not as if one mosque at ground zero makes us more or less safe [as a nation], better or worse at soccer, more or less Christian as a nation, more or less Muslim as a nation. It means nothing to me.
The whole mosque debate is silly. For or against. If I am for it, I would choose a cheaper place to build a mosque. If I am against it, I say probably a bad location but who cares.
And on a side note, I respect that you have created a religion-sports straw man argument which you unfairly attribute to Ron and then you refute the this invented argument. Relatively easy to debate yourself. I respect it because while this tactic is persuasive on its face, this is not his position and I do not think it even captures the sentiment of his position. But it is sort of funny-and the primary truthiness here lies in the comparison to Notre Dame fans. “Am I going to mass or to the USC game? Was Joe Montana actually Pope John Paul?” and so on and so on… the Papist’s confusion is both nauseating and expected. Some of this paragraph was in jest. I will let you boyz sort it out.
A second side note- the one thing I really take issue with is that you make fun of Euro men and football, or as you call it “soccer.” If you want to make me REALLY mad, keep with your ethnocentristic emails.
Grant E. Swartzentruber
From: Zach Bahorik
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:10 AM
To: Swartzentruber, Grant
Cc: Tyler Haney; Tim Brunk
The sports-religion comments I made represented "the philosophical differences I have with him and his statement." It was more a preface to why I disagree with Paul on this topic. I did not claim that Paul was arguing that soccer and religion are the same, I simply deduced from his paradigm that he would hold such, and identified a comment in context to support it.
I posed the point of his statement, and addressed it directly, in the latter paragraphs of my comments. I identified the central point to be the following: Making this mosque debate an issue is posturing by politicians to stir up emotional sentiment in support of the wars in the Middle East.
I always respect your point of view, Grant. I must have read the statement and incorrectly identified the point he was making. If you could help me identify the correct central point of his statement, I would be happy to respond
Zach Bahorik
Thur, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Swartzentruber, Grant wrote:
Re: soccer religion, I understand that you are aiming to point out “philosophical differences”, but on religion I don’t think this is Paul’s philosophy nor his paradigm- its only hyperbole. “The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.” Although his logic does not follow, I believe he is simply saying “it is unimportant to debate over where mosques are built.” He is not saying “I have little regard for religion and sports and to me they are basically the same.” To sum, you have correctly pointed out a statement made by Paul, but it seems to be an exaggerated statement, it is not his philosophy.
After reading the article, I do agree the central point of the entire article is as you state below. I do not agree with this statement per se, but I do agree with “Making this mosque debate an issue is posturing by politicians”.
Grant E. Swartzentruber
From: Tyler Haney
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:53 AM
To: Swartzentruber, Grant
Cc: Zach Bahorik; Tim Brunk
How did I know this would happen.....
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Swartzentruber, Grant wrote:
Nothing is happening – on this issue, I think Zach is a sentimentalist and he probably thinks I am at best godless and irresponsible, and at worst an Islamophile. That’s the rub. Just a friendly exchange on a topic we should not even be talking about.
And Zach, I take issue with you thinking I am godless and irresponsible or in the alternative, an Islamophile. See how I did that?
Grant E. Swartzentruber
From: Zach Bahorik
To: Swartzentruber, Grant
Cc: Tyler Haney; Tim Brunk
Haha, oh Grant. How I miss our chats in the G-unit.
Here's the thing, if this mosque gets built, I won't lose sleep. I agree that it's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme, and I also agree that politicians should have better things to spend time and resources on.
That being said, Grant, I think in your analysis of my argument style, you neglect to dig deeper into Ron Paul's statement. You assert that Ron's simple point is that "it is an unimportant debate over where mosques are built." Let's explore those two issues.
To your assertion that the debate is "unimportant" to Ron Paul, it's interesting that he would issue such a lengthy statement to comment on a debate he deemed "unimportant." What part of this debate is of enough significance to Mr. Paul that he felt the need to issue a statement in the first place? I really don't know.
It is also interesting that Mr. Paul, in his statement on the "unimportant" debate that is simply about where mosques should be built, makes statements such as these:
"The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11."
"If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible."
Seems silly to talk about the war and foreign policy issues if the only argument you're making is just "who cares where you build mosques?"
But, for the sake of argument, let's say that you're correct and that Ron Paul was only making a point that the debate itself doesn't matter. You still fail to address the basis for Ron Paul's stance. Why is the location of a mosque unimportant to Ron Paul?
I directly addressed this question in my initial response, and you called it a straw man or "debating myself." But we'll try this again.
The reason it doesn't matter to Ron Paul where mosques are built is that that a mosque has the same value and effect as a soccer field. A mosque's religious significance is arbitrary, and so is its location. As a libertarian, there is no inherent, non-economic meaning to either use of land so long as individual liberties are protected - to each his own. Paul makes that abundantly clear in his discussion of property rights early on in his statement, and via "hyperbole" with the soccer analogy.
That's fine, I just think it's a bit unrealistic, it doesn't take various aspects of human nature into account - like perhaps emotion or, yes, sentimentality.
It may be that I'm misrepresenting the libertarian philosophy, and if so, I'll be happy to reset the issues. The purpose of this response is to correct Grant's critique of my argument style by showing how I addressed the issues. If my premise on his philosophy was wrong, I'll certainly admit it, but I was not being unfair to the essence of Mr. Paul's statement with my comments, nor committing a logical fallacy in my response. You simply looked for one aspect of the statement, and didn't dig deep enough to see what I was getting at.
Again, whether or not the mosque goes in, I won't lose sleep. I just think if there's more than one place to put a mosque, put it somewhere else and save us all the headache.
Zach Bahorik
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Swartzentruber, Grant wrote:
You better not be billing me for this. And please stop calling me godless.
Grant E. Swartzentruber
From Zach Bahorik
To: Swartzentruber, Grant
Cc: Tyler Haney; Tim Brunk
I'm billing [your employer]. They need to pay for hiring such a godless deviant.
Zach Bahorik, Islamaphobe
No comments:
Post a Comment