There has been quite a bit of media hysteria surrounding the proposed building of a mosque at ground zero in New York. I haven't blogged in quite a while, and many of you have let me hear about it. What a fitting topic to which I make my return...
The conservative right wingers really annoy me. (That is not to say that the liberals have it right, either.) What really bothers me about the mosque at ground zero "debate" is that the so-called "constitution supporting" members of the conservative right have a perfect opportunity to put forth a consistent message instead of letting politics dictate their beliefs.
I had a conversation with someone over the weekend whose opinion I highly value and one I give a great deal of credit in starting me on my freedom-seeking journey. I asked if he would allow the mosque to be built if he were a city council member in NYC. He responded that he would need to find out all of the facts surrounding the situation and then make his decision.
I said that only one factual question is pertinent: who is the owner of the land?
Why do so many people get caught up in the minutia of this politically excited discussion, when it all boils down to property rights? Why don't the conservatives remain consistent in the supporting of property rights, especially in the context of their support of the constitution?
Could it be that conservatives have the same view of the constitution that liberals do, and that it is simply a trump card to pull out when necessary? If conservatives really wanted to remain consistent, they would support the right of a property owner to do what he wants on his land.