Ground Zero Mosque in a Stateless Society

[The Muslim Agorist]

I read a story recently where someone went to a rally against the Park51/Cordoba House/Ground Zero Mosque project carrying a sign that read, "Religious tolerance is what makes America great" and was threatened and told that if it weren't for the police presence they'd be in danger. Isolated incident. I'm just illustrating a point.

For me the issue is property rights. Period. They own it. Let them build any damn thing they want. I'm generally philosophically against big Islamic construction projects, because opulent houses of worship seems contrary to the teaching to me. But again, not my property, not my call.

I feel safe in assuming that the majority of readers on this board either agree with, or at least understand that perspective. Here's my concern.

This thing is not polling well at all. In fact tolerance of Muslims is polling worse and worse in multiple places. The anti Mosque crowd showed up at my Mosque in Santa Clara CA to protest a construction project that was approved by the city over a year ago. It's the same rhetoric that's going on Manhattan right now. A minaret in California is a reminder of the pain of 911, and a mosque is a training ground for homegrown terrorism. I have an ear to the discussions behind the scenes since my wife is part of a network of Muslim lawyers, and across the country they are saying that the hostility is higher now than it was right after 911. Mosque vandalism, so called "hate crimes", and threatening e-mails and phone calls are all higher now then they were then. But the victims are less willing to be interviewed than ever.

I fully understand that the police and the state fail at everything, especially protection. But I can't help but wonder if they aren't holding back the mob from seeking vigilante "justice" from my friends and loved ones. I don't know how a voluntary society would deal with mob rage, and I've never heard it discussed. I'm sure intellectually we can speculate that a private security service would do a better job in a libertopia. But right here, in the real world, if someone pushed the button that disappeared the state tomorrow... I'm not so certain I wouldn't instantly become a target.

It's a weird feeling. Not one I'm used to. I wouldn't call it fear, although I know many people that are afraid. It's more like dread. I'm not sure Muslims would be safe here if it were a Stateless society.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[Turd Ferguson]

Well, for one thing, without the state and its overreaching military getting us involved in all this bullshit, I dont think the whole Muslim hate/fear thing would exist in the first place.

Just a possibility.

[Cognitive Dissident]

That's the way I see it.  If it weren't for the state stirring up the sectarian hatred, there wouldn't be organized displays of it.  I go back to Ron Paul's point that Bin Laden deliberately stirred up the monster in response to activities that didn't start yesterday.  Without the state to strike against, 9/11 doesn't even happen.  

It's not just 9/11 either.  Look to the state of Israel and the violence around it.  Look back to way before that when that part of the world was carved up by empires and artificial lines were drawn.  The state caused all of this, and the vehicle was religious fervor.  

Interestingly, some states in history managed to accommodate different religions, right there in what we now call a hot spot.  Peaceful and free trade prevailed.  Muslims, Christians, Jews and others participated in open commerce to the advantage of everyone, and they worshiped their god in their own ways (the irony being that those three specific groups have a different view of the same god, not different gods.)

I believe it may have been the crusades that ended that, operated by what was essentially the Christian state.  It's probably more complicated than that, though.

In short, I think a stateless society would require, and benefit from, religious tolerance.  Those who could not be tolerant would seek separation from those they could not tolerate.

[hellbilly]

My take on things, especially lately, is that Muslim people have a lot of momentum on their end, so I was surprised to read that you feel "dread" and that the victims of hate crimes are scared to speak out- doesn't mix.

Conservatives who are against the project being built are certainly in the wrong. I see it as an excuse to lash out and get all puffed up, try to show some power and influence.

But, a part of me thinks that it's near the same with the planners of the mosque; it's a passive-aggressive approach to continue plans to build something in an area where so many are opposed to it, and still attempt to claim being victims of insensitivity.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Well, for one thing, without the state and its overreaching military getting us involved in all this bullshit, I dont think the whole Muslim hate/fear thing would exist in the first place.

Just a possibility.

"It wouldn't have started" is a pretty stupid argument because as it is now, the danger is present.

[Robin Police]

What danger?

[Cognitive Dissident]

My take on things, especially lately, is that Muslim people have a lot of momentum on their end, so I was surprised to read that you feel "dread" and that the victims of hate crimes are scared to speak out- doesn't mix.

Conservatives who are against the project being built are certainly in the wrong. I see it as an excuse to lash out and get all puffed up, try to show some power and influence.

But, a part of me thinks that it's near the same with the planners of the mosque; it's a passive-aggressive approach to continue plans to build something in an area where so many are opposed to it, and still attempt to claim being victims of insensitivity.

I don't see how continuing plans can be considered passive-aggressive.  I'd be more inclined to believe the protesters are being passive-aggressive, with their subtle hints about what they won't tolerate.  What's more, I didn't see where Davi claimed there were "victims of insensitivity."  It seems to me he responded to anecdotes about property crimes and threats of violence.

[hellbilly]

Davi didn't say that, but there are many people in the same religion who do. The current lady who is "battling" Disney to be allowed to wear her head gear, for example. One among many.

The passive-aggressive bit stems from the same. As a group (that collectivist term is fair game in this thread since "Muslim polling" was mentioned) there are plenty of instances where people from within have claimed to be victims of insensitivity, yet members of the same group are now proceeding with plans to set up shop in an area where a different group claims it's insensitive to do so. So much insensitivity!

The protesters, to me, don't seem passive at all.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Davi didn't say that, but there are many people in the same religion who do. The current lady who is "battling" Disney to be allowed to wear her head gear, for example. One among many.

The passive-aggressive bit stems from the same. As a group (that collectivist term is fair game in this thread since "Muslim polling" was mentioned) there are plenty of instances where people from within have claimed to be victims of insensitivity, yet members of the same group are now proceeding with plans to set up shop in an area where a different group claims it's insensitive to do so. So much insensitivity!

The protesters, to me, don't seem passive at all.

So, in other words, you're arguing with them, not him.  I'm quite sure Davi would share our disbelief over and disagreement with the Disney bit, from the sound of it.

I think collectivizing them is part of the problem, don't you?  However, if you want to determine if people have been threatened, who are you going to ask?  I think you're probably going to ask people who might be targeted.  Besides...you're using the straw man "insensitivity" again.

I hardly think they're planning to "set up shop."  It seems more likely they're trying to continue their plans to pretend they live in a pluralistic society, such as all the political bullshit that's rammed down people's throats claims.

[hellbilly]

Chill out dude. Haven't had this much flak since I was in 'Nam.

No, I'm not arguing with Davi.

What are you getting at?

[Stoker]

Mosque, Church, Synagogue, who fucking cares? The WTC site is surrounded by BANKS, and these represent the murdering bastards that pulled this shit, and are probably behind this fake build-a-mosque bullshit distraction as well. If the intent is to "honor the memory of those killed", people should wake the fuck up and figure out what is really going on instead of pointing fingers at whatever scapegoat-of-the-day is splashed on the TV screen by the same motherfuckers who actually did this to us.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I'm surrounded by idiots...and they don't even know they're idiots.

[TimeLady Victorious]

In a stateless society with no police or military that "mosque" (isn't it really a community center?) would be bombed to Hell and back.

Might still happen anyway, but there seems to be some restraint on the part of the people to not do that while there are armed policemen about...

[libertylover]

It has always kind of concerned me in a stateless society.  How are minorities going to be able to protect themselves from mob violence?   Wouldn't in order for stateless society to succeed you would have to have a culture of religious and racial tolerance?  
While Muslims are the current whipping boy / scapegoat of the day people have to be mindful that mobs shift their intolerance very quickly to the next scapegoated group.  

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."     Quote by: Pastor Martin Niemöller

Some might point out that the quote was about state lead scapegoating.   But do mobs really need a state to start attacking minorities?

[The Muslim Agorist]

without the state and its overreaching military getting us involved in all this bullshit, I dont think the whole Muslim hate/fear thing would exist in the first place.

agreed.

Without the state to strike against, 9/11 doesn't even happen.

agreed, but what about now?

Muslim people have a lot of momentum on their end

Momentum toward what?

I was surprised to read that you feel "dread" and that the victims of hate crimes are scared to speak out.

I guess I should clarify. I wasn't very clear. My dread is hypothetical in the scenario where there is no state tomorrow. Victims being afraid to go public is real, and I hear about it all the time. Really what I'm talking about is that I would now have a moments hesitation before pushing the instant State disappearing button, which I would have pushed withing hesitation a month ago.

What danger?

I can't say alot, because I'm not supposed to know everything I know. But here's an easy one. There was a woman who marched into a private Islamic school calling people terrorists and started punching teachers. No one was willing to be interviewed and the story went nowhere. A Muslim woman ran for my city council and it ended in someone putting posters around her neighborhood calling her a terrorist, egging her house, and writing "Go Home" on her garage door. She dropped out of the race, but didn't want to go public about it. A guy was approached by two younger men who asked if he was Jewish, he said he was Muslim, they said that's even worse, and beat the crap out of him. No interview. My wife specifically works in representing people visited by FBI, which is admittedly not a problem in a stateless society, but it also has alot of people scared.

As a group (that collectivist term is fair game in this thread since "Muslim polling" was mentioned) there are plenty of instances where people from within have claimed to be victims of insensitivity

I didn't mention polling to describe Americans collectively. Only to identify a national trend that concerns me. I don't think that's collectivist, but a response to collectivism. But to be clear I don't care much about insensitivity... some... but not as much as safety.

I'm quite sure Davi would share our disbelief over and disagreement with the Disney bit, from the sound of it.

Exactly right. Disney's property. Disney's call. Just like the Abercrombie & Fitch cases.

I suppose one could also argue that in a Stateless society Muslims would be free to arm and train themselves until they felt secure in their person and property. I would also argue that those Muslims who do aggress and threaten their neighbors would get themselves taken out too fast to inspire public outrage against others.