Wayne Root’s ‘Why the 9/11 Mosque Controversy Is NOT About Religious Freedom…and Should Be Stopped!’ has drawn several reactions at libertarian blogs. The ones I have found so far are below. Readers are welcome to link additional articles on the issue in the comments.
IPR has also carried varying opinions on this issue by LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich, Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.
Doug Mataconis at The Liberty Papers:
Root starts out with the same sort of milquetoast paeans toward religious liberty and property rights that we saw in his book, but he quickly goes off in a direction that makes it clear that, on this issue, he is more in line with Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich than any Libertarian (or libertarian):
Property rights and religious freedom are among the principles of a free society, basic liberties that are supposed to be protected from the mob. To hear of anyone casting them aside is concerning. For a libertarian to do it is a betrayal of these core values that we are supposed to believe in.
Kissing up the Neoconservatives and their ilk was never a good idea in my opinion and Root’s disregard for the First Amendment is sickening. Part of being a Libertarian is that you don’t compromise on liberty and Root is doing just that in order to get his pat on the head from the statist right and other fake Libertarians like Neal Boortz. It’s another reason I’m glad he was never elected Libertarian Party Chair. The other question remains will he actively oppose Warren Redlich who is the Libertarian candidate for New York Governor, who has supported the construction of the Mosque.
Update On Knapp’s post (linked above):
I wasn’t thinking of Wayne Allyn Root when I wrote this piece (one reason for ending my involvement with the Libertarian Party was to minimize the amount of time I have to spending thinking of Wayne Allyn Root, period), but along he comes to drive home my point [hat tip: Jill Pyeatt].
Once you get past the “in a fetal position in a corner, laughing at Wayne Allyn Root calling himself a ‘leading Libertarian thinker'” phase, note that Root tries to frame a new argument for governernment intervention:
If it turns out that this project is sponsored by a foreign government — either directly or through a state-sponsored organization that engages in terrorism — than [sic] the idea of this being an issue of religious freedom is a sham and an argument can be made that our Constitution would actually prohibit this mosque from being built.
The Constitution in Wayne’s imagination, perhaps. The real one … no. And a good thing for the largest Christian denomination, too, considering that every last Holy Roman Catholic church building in the US is “sponsored” by a foreign state (the Vatican).
Root participates in the fraud aspect of the issue, falsely referring to the cultural center as a “mosque” and pretending that it’s at Ground Zero in order to obtain valuable considerations (“public pressure on the property owners to sell” the property to someone besides the Cordoba House project, participation in protests, etc.).
mr, yes, well, cover stories can often sound attractive. This column brings some of CH’s funding into question:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/imam-faisal-ground-zero-mosque-money-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett_2.html
This proves nothing that I can discern. The Stop CH forces have gone hysterical, Root with them. The Stop Root forces also sound a bit hysterical.
When in doubt, chill, I say. Let things unfold as they will.
Seriously Wayne,
Just fuck off with these ideas. They’re NeoCon bred in nature and inspire fear, cowardice, intolerance and racism, not to mention that it’s direct interference with property rights, and you’re calling for government interventionism.
Seriously, just fuck right off.
Hmm. It seems that the building currently there has a mosque in it, and has for some time. The proposed building would not have a mosque in it but would be a multi-faith cultural center with a prayer space, recreational center, and theater, at least that seems to be the plan.
The Cordoba Initiative’s mission statement:
Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.
That sounds like something we should nip in the bud, toot sweet. Fer sure.
There is no consistency in the arguments against the center. Essentially the argument is ‘this is America, we believe in religious freedom, now get out’. Really, is there some fear that this is somehow going to subvert the American Way or establish a foothold for extremist activities?
Wayne Root actually suggested buying the property to prevent it from being used to build the mosque.
This leads to several questions: have the people behind the Cordoba cultural center bought the land already? Or do they have a contract in place to buy the land already?
Ancillary question – were any New York taxpayer dollars used to help buy the land? Will any tax dollars be used to help build the cultural center?
Finally, why would Wayne Root want to waste money buying in an overpriced market like Manhattan? So that the “American” owners could be subject to New York government regulations, or be mugged?
tms, personally, I generally don’t use the words “moral” or “immoral” as I find them not esp. descriptive. I used the term “moral suasion” as it’s a term of art that is popular esp. among old-school Ls.
As for me, I would see no virtue in your neo-Nazi example.
Yes, it’s clear to me that you and Root differ on this one. He seems to at minimum think it’s insensitive to build Cordoba near the WTC site. I don’t agree with him based on what I’ve read on the matter thus far. I think Root made a mistake — on several levels — jumping on this bandwagon.
I’m not “reporting” anything.
I’m saying that it’s not “moral suasion” to try and prevent a religious group from exercising their property or free expression rights. It’s immoral suasion.
Like I said, I don’t think Root or you would call it “moral suasion” if neo-Nazis tried to prevent a synagogue form being built, or if the KKK tried to prevent a black church from being built. It’d be immoral suasion.
Yes, my opinion differs from that of Root. Many Libertarians’ opinions differ from that of Root’s.
tms, apparently, Root’s and your opinion’s differ. Unless you’re reporting that he’s said his opinion is “immoral.”
Radicals = drugs, unmoral things, lefty’s =communism. But of course that can’t be changed, Well as G-d once said, there can be NO Freedom with out the law. But some who don’t believe in G-d. Thats ok too. But I know there has been out of body experiences that are for real. Well something is more than this life. So keep doing what your doing. I notice a lot of people into the occult are very unhappy people, just like some of you are very unhappy people. Hmm might be something to that way of thinking.
I don’t see how “on one level” changes your point, because “on no level” is Root advocating moral suasion.
One one level, he’s hinting for government intervention (wanting the funding sources investigated). On another level, he’s calling for immoral suasion.
So no, I’m not being “tricky.” I really don’t know how you think your “on one level” qualifies or justifies Root, on any level.
tms, are you being tricky? I prefaced my sentence with “On one level,” which you left off.
That’s the problem with “morality.” It’s an opinion.
I thought the point here was that the facility in question was not a mosque and it was not at “ground zero”. So arguing against a mosque at “ground zero” is arguing against a fantasy.
The arguments that Root and others make make no sense when applied to a cultural center blocks away from “ground zero”, if in fact they are reasonable arguments in any case.
I don’t think it would be unreasonable for Wayne Root to reconsider his position in light of actual proposals for facilities in New York.
It’s OK to be a conspiracy theorist, or in this case an imaginary theorist, in fact the LP has a lot of such people. If you want to be taken seriously in the world of politics and by the general electorate, it would probably be better to stick to reality.
Robert: “Root has point, though. Moral suasion can often be peacefully employed on matters like this one.”
Correction. Root is advocating immoral suasion and not moral suasion.
Would you call it “moral suasion” if a neo-Nazi tried to “voluntarily” prevent a synagogue from being built? Or if the KKK tried to “voluntarily” prevent a black cultural center from being built?
Root’s “point” is that: “Hey, maybe we can employ a ‘libertarian solution’ to keeping those Muslims out?”
cm, LOL!
On one level, Root has point, though. Moral suasion can often be peacefully employed on matters like this one.
However, in this case, government is already involved.
Could this be Root looking for the exit on this one?
Come on guys… given that Nabisco decided to double the amount of whole grains in their crackers, doesn’t it logically follow that principled libertarianism should yield to know nothing populism?
Wayne Root wrote:
http://www.facebook.com/WayneAllynRoot?v=wall&story_fbid=143496452342972&ref=mf
This controversy is similar to when Root announced that he would “testify” at Obama’s trial.
Back then, the libertarian blogosphere’s negative reaction pressured Root to turn tail and run.
However, Libertarians had a prize back then that Root wanted — the LP Chair seat. Root turned tail because he wanted Libertarians to give him that prize.
This time, Libertarians have no immediate prize to offer Root. Whereas, the neocon media can do much to boost Root’s career. So Root will work to please them.
As I’ve long said, Root always sells out to the highest bidder.