The mavens of what Bernard Goldberg calls the 'lame-stream' media have been trumpeting the canard that opponents of the Ground Zero mosque are 'bigots.' No doubt some are. But not in virtue of their opposition to the GZM. There is nothing inherently bigoted about opposition to the GZM. Or so I shall argue. But first we need a definition of 'bigot.'
A bigot is one who is blindly and obstinately intolerant of opinions other than his own, and blindly and obstinately attached to his own point of view. A bigot, then, is one who without good reason opposes the beliefs and practices of others and without good reason adheres to his own. Whether opposition to the building of a mosque near Ground Zero is inherently bigoted, then, hinges on whether there are any good reasons for such opposition. I say there are.
I have already expatiated on one reason, the obvious impropriety of such a construction in such a place despite its technical legality. And with 70% of the American people opposing it, how could anyone take at face value the claim that the proposed Islamic center will serve as a bridge to interfaith understanding? If Imam Rauf were sincere in his professions he would move his mosque elsewhere. But he won't. This gives us reason to doubt his sincerity and to take the proposed mosque for what it appears to be: a provocation and a testing of just how aggressively Rauf and Co. can push Islam/Islamism.
Here is another consideration.
If Islam were a wholly benign religion with no connection via any of its central doctrines to political expansion, suppression of Western rights and freedoms, violence and terrorism, then there would be no good reason to oppose the GZM. In that case, the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims would be a wholly accidental fact about them, and it would be irrational to link Islam to the destruction of the Trade Towers. One could then say: Muslim terrorists destroyed the Trade Towers, but that had nothing to do with Islam. But surely that is not the case: Muhammad Atta et al. acted from their Islamist beliefs. These Islamist beliefs, in turn, are rooted in Qu'ranic passages and commentaries thereon. And the same goes for countless other successful and merely attempted acts of terror committed by Muslims worldwide. It is not a mere accidental fact that these terrorists are Muslims: their terrorism flows from their Islamists beliefs, beliefs that 'enjoy' Qu'ranic warrant.
It is of course false that every Muslim is a terrorist. It is also false that every Islamist (militant Muslim) is a terrorist: an Islamist might accept the jihadist line but lack the courage to implement it. So it is not as if firm adherence to Islamist beliefs (deterministically) causes terrorist behavior. The belief-action link is not one of causal let alone logical necessitation. But surely such adherence raises the probability of terrorist behavior. It is reasonable, then, to speak of probabilistic causation in this context. The beliefs we sincerely hold influence our actions. Intentional action does not occur in a doxastic void.
What I have said thus far suffices to show that conservatives have good reason to oppose the construction of the GZM. Islam is not an otherworldly, wholly benign religion with no connection via any of its central doctrines to political expansion, Shari'a infiltration, violence and terrorism. Islam cannot therefore avoid the taint of its jihadist, expansionist, and illiberal strain. This is not to say that there is no distinction between Islam and Islamism, or that the jihadist strain cannot be kept in check. It is not to say that Islam cannot be moderated and possibly watered down to the point of compatibility with Western values. But it is is to say that there are serious doubts about the motivations of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and those who are supporting and funding the GZM. (Cf. Nat Hentoff's recent article.) These serious doubts give conservatives a good reason to oppose the construction of the GZM. Without ruling out the possibility of a 'West-friendly' Islam, let us not downplay the fact that jihadist elements loom large at present, a fact that gives us good reason to be skeptical of Muslims' claims to be peaceful and tolerant. One should not forget that Taqiyya (deception) is an element of Muslim belief. This gives us good reason not to take at face value claims of Imam Rauf et al. that their intentions are benign. They may be benign, but this needs to be verified.
The fact that conservatives have good reasons proves that they cannot be called 'bigots' by anyone who understands the meaning of this word simply on the basis of conservatives' opposition to the GZM. The fact that liberals will not accept as good the reasons conservatives proffer is irrelevant. For the question before us is solely whether conservatives can be legitimately labelled 'bigots' because of their opposition to the GZM.
Recent Comments