- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Only Bigots Oppose the Mosque!

“Where are the Republican leaders who will reject pandering and prejudice?” wailed The Washington Post in its most recent editorial in support of Cordoba House mosque near Ground Zero.

Like the controversy over the mosque, the Post editorial reveals the two Americas we have become, uncomprehending of and hostile to each other, even as we drift apart.

To the Post, opposition boils down to three arguments, all of them “objectionable.” The first is a wrong-headed belief “that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and killed almost 3,000 people there in 2001 really did represent Islam.”

The second is that, as many families of 9/11 victims associate the terrorists with Islam, to build a mosque near the scene of the massacre would be sacrilegious and wounding.

The third is cynical politics. As two-in-three Americans oppose the mosque, siding with them and savaging supporters of Cordoba House is to run unconscionably with the crowd.

None of these arguments is acceptable, says the Post, for they represent misunderstanding, prejudice or “repugnant” politics.

What the Post is saying is that opponents of the mosque are all either bigoted ignoramuses or political panderers.

Quite a statement, when a Time poll finds that 61 percent of Americans oppose the mosque and 70 percent believe that to build it near Ground Zero would defile hallowed ground.

“(T)he right response to misunderstanding and prejudice,” said the Post, “is education, not appeasement.”

In short, rather than yield to ignorance, bigotry and demagoguery, the Post will undertake to tutor us on how to think correctly.

This is a pure extract of liberal ideology. Few better examples of faculty-lounge obtuseness to the feelings of the people among whom they live are to be found. Yet, the editorial has a point.

For, in Webster’s, there are several definitions of “prejudice.”

The most pejorative one is “an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race.” Another definition, however, is simply a “preconceived judgment or opinion.”

It is this idea of prejudice that Edmund Burke endorsed:

“Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it most wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but the naked reason.”

“Naked reason,” pure rationalism, permeates the Post editorial, which ignores that vast realm of sentiments, such as patriotism and love, that reside in the terrain between thought and feeling.

“The heart has reasons that the mind knows not,” said Pascal.

True conservatives are people of the heart who use the weapons of the mind to defend the things of the heart.

Why would Americans be reflexively skeptical and wary of Islam?

We were born a Christian nation, an extension of Christendom. For most of us, it is part of our DNA. And for a thousand years, our ancestors fought a war of civilizations with Islam.

In the name of Islam, Muslim fanatics massacred 3,000 of us. In our media, the names commonly associated with Islam are al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

What are sins in Christianity — adultery and homosexuality — are capital crimes in Islamic countries. From the Copts in Egypt to the Chaldeans of Iraq, Christians are persecuted and purged in the Middle East. Few remain in the old Christian towns of Jerusalem, Nazareth and Bethlehem. Christian missionaries in Islamic countries risk stonings and beheading. Muslims are attacking Christians in Nigeria, Sudan, the Caucasus, Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Are there scores of thousands of patriotic American Muslims, hundreds of millions of decent, peace-loving Muslims around the world?

Undeniably true.

Yet one would have to be obtuse not to understand that a Western nation that opens its doors to mass migration from the Islamic world is taking a grave risk with its unity and identity.

An apprehension about that is what Burke called the “latent wisdom” of a people.

This is not an argument for war with Islam, but for recognition that “East is East and West is West” and America cannot absorb and assimilate all the creeds of mankind without ceasing to be who we are.

Prejudice is prejudgment. And if prejudgment is rooted in the history and traditions of a people, and what life has taught us, it is a shield that protects. Only a fool would reject the inherited wisdom of his kind because it fails to comport with the ideology of the moment.

“Prejudice,” wrote Burke, “is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled and unresolved.”

Without prejudice, we are tabula rasa, blank slates, upon which any ideology may be written, including what James Burnham called the ideology of Western suicide — liberalism.

Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "Only Bigots Oppose the Mosque!"

#1 Comment By Ken Hoop On August 25, 2010 @ 11:05 am

Jim Evans writes

“Pat specifically rejects the Neocon, “invite the world, invade the world”, mentality. This post is consistent with Pat’s philosophical framework.”

No it isn’t, Jim, because Buchanan did not balance a perhaps justified ultimate call for the mosque not to be located as planned with any criticisms of US “invade the world” ongoing foreign policy placing in ethical/geopolitical context all the relevant concerns.

That’s why a “Nate Weinstein” can applaud.

#2 Comment By Jbraunstein On August 25, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

From this point forth, I’m going to refer to anybody who spouts platitudinous and discredited neo-conservative talking points as “Nate Weinstein”.

#3 Comment By Aldendeshe On August 25, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

There is no problem in building a Mosque and cultural center, sort of a (Y) complex, as Cordoba Institute is billing it, near the site where 19 Saudi Moslem terrorists slammed hijacked planes and atrociously murdered perhaps as many as 6000 innocent, hard working Americans who loved life and loved others. But considering the fact that a clear two third majority of Americans (include Moslems) in adamant objection to this Peace project, which it’s builders and developers, headed by Walid Bin Talal maintains the same nationality of the Saudi Terrorists that carried out the 911 attack on America. It would be appropriate to negotiate thru cultural and diplomatic means an exchange of complexes that signify true tolerance and peace. That is Americans will welcome the Mosque complex building near the Saudi Terrorists devastated WTC site, in exchange for Saudi ruling family welcoming the construction of a Church and Christian complex, as well as a Synagogue and Jewish studies complex, in Madina and in proximity to the Kaabba. Preferably, and significantly, at the same distance the Mosque in New York will be erected away from WTC site. This will truly be a genuine symbol of a “Peace Deal” and a fair one. Otherwise, should the Saudi refuse the exchange, you will know that the Mosque is nothing more than a Moslem occupation site and a forceful rude intrusion on American culture and dignity.

#4 Comment By Jane Marple On August 25, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

Norman Ravitch veritably shrieked: “I CANNOT UNDERSTAND DEFENDERS OF A RELIGION BORN IN HATRED OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.”

Norman, were you there at the inception of Islam?

9/11 was comitted by 19 out of 1.5 billion Muslims. If we’re to blackguard all 1.5 billion for the deeds of 19, then isn’t it acceptable to blackguard all Jews for the atrocities comitted by the Irgun and the Stern Gang committed at Israel’s founding?

#5 Comment By Jim Evans On August 25, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

Ken Hoop:

A columnist generally covers only one topic in each article. Clearly, over the span of many opinion pieces and books, Pat Buchanan has spelled out his rejection of the Neocon, “invite the world, invade the world”, mentality.

#6 Comment By Nergol On August 25, 2010 @ 6:31 pm

The bottom line, a clear two third majority of Americans are objecting to the Mosque and the majority right should be respected.

No, it shouldn’t. If ever there was a graphic demonstration of why the founding fathers, in crafting the Bill Of Rights, made some things so insanely hard to change that it effectively put them beyond the caprices of the mob, this is it. If racist neocon crazies want to get freedom of religion repealed, they can try passing a Constitutional Amendment. Until then it’s the law of the land.

Also, I’m not sure why I’m under any obligation to “respect” racist hysteria or an attempt to take away one of this country’s basic freedoms. Once again, neocon fascists prove that the likes of Osama bin Laden are pikers compared to them in the area of hating our freedoms.

tbraton;

Obviously, you missed an important part of American history.

Interesting. I’m not sure where it has ever been the case that any credible person has argued that, for example, it would be perfectly legally acceptable for the Philadelphia police to torture a confession out of a suspect, or New Jersey to allow its prosecutors to open someone’s mail without a warrant.

And even if that was the case once (which I’m not convinced of), it’s irrelevant now. And dangerous. Do conservatives really want to open the door for San Francisco to bar the Catholic church from its boundaries for being an “anti-gay hate group”? For Massachusetts to outright prohibit private ownership of firearms? Is that really where you want to go with this – just to save the precious “feelings” of people who are being entirely unreasonable in the first place?

Count me out of that.

#7 Comment By norman ravitch On August 26, 2010 @ 9:16 am

miss marple: yes I was there. I have read extrensively about the origins of this hatreful excuse for a religion. Have you?

#8 Comment By Jim Evans On August 26, 2010 @ 11:11 am

Nergol wrote: “If racist neocon crazies want to get freedom of religion repealed, they can try passing a Constitutional Amendment…I’m not sure why I’m under any obligation to ‘respect’ racist hysteria or an attempt to take away one of this country’s basic freedoms. Once again, neocon fascists prove that the likes of Osama bin Laden are pikers compared to them in the area of hating our freedoms.”

You are engaging in “hysteria”, yourself, with these over-the-top declarations of Constitutional doom.

And, worse, you are being used & manipulated (playing into their hands) by a faction that has the same goals as the people you claim to despise: The Neocons.

The Neocons are a faction or have similar goals as the elite/Globalists.

The elite/Globalists share the same Neocon mentality: “Invite the world, invade the world (so we can more easily control the world)”.

And, it is the elite/Globalists, who are behind Imam Rauf and are at least partially financing the proposed Ground Zero mosque.

See:

“It was previously reported that the ‘Ground Zero Mosque,’ officially known as the Cordoba House, is the vision of “Imam” Faisal Abdul Rauf, a member of the Council on Foreign Relation’s Religious Advisory Committee.”

It has also been revealed that Imam Rauf is a globalist stooge/minion, who receives financial support from various Globalist foundations:

“It was also reported that the dual organizations Rauf is using to promote and fund his activities are the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA). ASMA had listed several large globalist foundations as its supporters including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Rockefeller Brothers, Rockefeller Philanthropy, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.”

[1]

(Supporting documentation/authority links are within the above linked post.)

These Globalists want to promote division within America, so America can’t stand against the Globalist visions (America needs to be united as much as possible to reject the Globalist vision of a U.S. deprived of sovereignty/independence), which one vision is “invite the world, invade the world”.

Promotion of Shiria Law, which Rauf is engaged in is a way to divide America. Shiria Law has no place in America (because it is a combination of religion & government, government enforcing religous edicts, in a specific framework set out by Islamic scholars & religious leaders, Imams, by reference to specific passages of the Koran).

Nergol, you, and others with similar opinions, are being played like a fiddle by elite/Globalists.

This mosque simply should not be built at this location (somewhere else in Manhattan would be fine).

#9 Comment By Chick Dante On August 26, 2010 @ 11:22 am

28 Muslim Americans were victims of the extremist terrorist attacks in New York. If a Mosque were actually being built near ground zero, it would be more than an appropriate way to honor some of our fellow Americans. If all they can get is an Islamic Cultrual Center being built in New York City, two blocks away from the hole in the ground that was the World Trade Center, then so be it. The City has approved it. They have the legal right. What’s the issue?

But, Pat Buchanan has gone off the rails in this article, choosing to demagogue the “non-issue” for reasons I cannot fathom thereby giving in to the terrorists who, among other reasons, attacked us because they believed the West was at war against Islam. Buchanan’s article will be widely circulated in the East as proof they were right and used to justify the next series of attacks.

Whatever happened to the Home of the Brave, I wonder?

#10 Comment By Jane Marple On August 26, 2010 @ 11:22 am

Norman Ravitch sniffed: “miss marple: yes I was there. I have read extrensively about the origins of this hatreful excuse for a religion. Have you?”

No doubt you also believe in genies and flying saucers.

Take your meds, Norman. You need them.

#11 Comment By C Bowen On August 26, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

I apologize beforehand, but if the tee-vee or radio tells them to go send their boys and tax dollars off to revenge 9/11, and then tells them that a mosque is being built at ground zero, setting the nonsense aside which we all agree on, someone should speak for their people, such as they are.

#12 Comment By pb On August 27, 2010 @ 1:25 am

Nergol:
That may all be true, but my point was that it is simply bizarre for someone (especially a conservative) to all of a sudden come up with the idea that the Bill of Rights does not apply to actions undertaken by state or local governments. That has never been understood to be the case, and God help us the day it is, because your “inalienable rights” will shift every time you cross a town line to go to the grocery store.

My point is that conservatives seem awfully selective about when they think the Constitution applies, and who it applies to. Of course, it’s no worse a thing ethically than liberals who demand “power to the people” and “democracy now” and then scurry off to have an unelected, unaccountable judge overturn every free and fair vote that doesn’t go their way, but one side being unprincipled and hypocritical doesn’t excuse the other side being so.

So the bottom line is this: Either the Constitution applies at all level of governments, which means that both guns and mosques are protected, or it does not, which means that neither are. Which? Conservatives cannot have it both ways.

Apparently you don’t really understand what CDK wrote. “That has never been understood to be the case.” Actually it was. Your brand of conservatism, if that is really what you are supporting, is ahistorical.

#13 Comment By norman ravitch On August 27, 2010 @ 5:49 am

There is no absolute freedom of religion. We forbid Mormons from practising polygamy; we prohibit illegal drugs as part of religious ritual. We would prosecute any Jews or Muslims who stoned women to death. Female circumcision is illegal. Hindus are not ALLOWED TO BURN WIDOWS ALIVE,. PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE EVEN MORE PROHIBITIONS VS. PRIMITIVE RELIGION. ISLAM IS PRETTY PRIMITIVE.

#14 Comment By Paata Chkheidze On August 27, 2010 @ 6:55 am

Great article. Thank You Mr. Buchanan. Yes, we should follow our “latent wisdom”. Yes, “East is East, and West is West”. Conservatives should understand that; and these guys who are attacking you are suicides, liberals.

#15 Comment By Jane Marple On August 28, 2010 @ 10:32 am

Norman ravitch whined: “There is no absolute freedom of religion. We forbid Mormons from practising polygamy; we prohibit illegal drugs as part of religious ritual. We would prosecute any Jews or Muslims who stoned women to death.”

None of which means we should prohibit Muslim houses of worship.

Your same arguments could be used to shut down synagogues. To some people, new born circumcision is a cruel and bloody rite. Should government power be used to close synagogues because the people who worship there adhere to a primitive, bloody, painful and barbaric rite?

#16 Comment By Bigmo On August 28, 2010 @ 12:11 pm

Not a great article.

Pat’s problem is he has a problem with islam when its Muslim immigration. As long as Muslims are overseas Islam is hip.

If he is against non White immigration to America then say so like many Nationalist in America do.

But Pat can’t say that. So when it comes to Islamic issues INSIDE America he sounds JUST LIKE A NEOCON.

Every nation has a right to have an athnic and cultural identity. But White Americans have a stigma problem so they go on in circles.

Dr Kevin Macdonald is right. Unless Whites EXPLICITLY speak of their White idenity and proclaim non White immigration a problem for them, they will lose.

This article is a great example of the intellectual bankruptcy in the right.

#17 Comment By ian On August 29, 2010 @ 1:36 am

I think it’s a bit generational. My parents are late 70s early 80’s and aren’t fond of dark skinned foreigners either. I don’t argue with them as they’re set in their ways but it doesn’t mean i have to pay any attention.

#18 Comment By DirtyHarriet On August 31, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

Mr. PJB, you know that Islam didn’t drive Christians out of Palestine. Did not the greatest exodus coincide with the founding of Israel? Coincidence? Did not Jews, Christians and Muslims live in relative harmony together in the region all under the Ottomans?

And for as many terror groups you’ve named that are Muslim, how many have actually attacked us Americans? And how many non-Muslim groups/nations have attacked us?

#19 Comment By Arab Christian On September 13, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

Bigmo,

I agree. If Pat Buchanan types actually came out and spoke what’s truly in their hearts regarding the white identity and non-White immigration problem. But Pat, like you so rightfully said, sounds like a neocon when he talks about Islam in America. This is what makes Pat a complete coward.

I will gladly leave the West since I am non-white, and go back to Amman, if the US government does two things:

Stops supporting the kings and sheikhs, dictators of the Middle East.

Dismantles Israel and creates Palestine.

#20 Comment By Urblogsuksneway On September 20, 2010 @ 1:34 am

How many “Americans” were against the abolision of slavery??? You wingnuts are so dam hypocritical that it’s repugnant! I get so sick of American, self righteous elitist attitudes. This country will never unite. It will always be a seperate but equal in appearance group. I say group because I wouldn’t desercrate the word “country” with the sick display posed by people of this country on all the world’s stages. The terrorist are eating this stuff up. It plays right in thier hands. They tell new recruits that Americans hate them and all they have to do is go to just about any blog for proof. How stupid we Americans are. So many years of slavory and detententions of specific races, and we still haven’t learned SH _ _!!!