Don't Let It Go

A Facebook friend of mine brought to my attention two answers that Ayn Rand gave in her Q & A sessions that might be of use to us in this discussion of the planned mosque near Ground Zero. The relevant answers can be found in Robert Mayhew’s edited collection, Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A on pages 94 and 101.

On page 94, Rand is asked, “What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?” In her answer, Rand explains that, in times of war, the aggressor is properly seen as “stepp[ing] outside the principle of rights.” The consequence of identifying a country as an aggressor nation, she says, is that the principle that prohibits the killing of innocent persons, no longer applies to the killing of civilians in the aggressor nation. She acknowledges that the majority of people living under the government of the aggressor nation may even be innocent, and yet still, “they must pay the price for the sins of their government.”

The trick with applying Rand’s reasoning to the present case is that we are dealing not with an aggressor nation, but with an aggressor religious organization. Yes, there are some nations that can be identified as synonymous with it — Iran for starters — but otherwise it is an organization with members living throughout the world, some active, some quite passive. Do all of the members of this organization give up their rights, such that, as some people have been asking, we would be justified in, e.g., bombing all mosques in the United States? I think there are some rights that Muslims give up simply by identifying themselves with an aggressor organization. But this would be minimal (e.g., being subjected to heightened scrutiny in certain contexts, even without particularized suspicion). However, more extreme measures would be called for — e.g., deporting or imprisoning large numbers of people, or closing down mosques en masse — only if doing so was necessary to eliminate the threat posed by this enemy, with minimal loss of life on our side. And, at least in my judgment, I don’t think it is.

What is clear, though, is that with respect to the “prime movers” within the aggressor organization, the concept of rights is simply inapplicable. I’ve done a little reading in the so-called “Just War Theory” literature, and I think the following definition of “combatant,” given by philosopher Jeffrie G. Murphy, may be helpful. A combatant, writes Murphy, is anyone “who may reasonably be regarded as engaged in an attempt to destroy you.” Of course people can be “engaged in an attempt to destroy you” even if they are not the ones performing the physical actions entailing the proximate cause of your destruction. Providing aid and comfort is enough. And, if you’ve been following this debate, you’ve likely been pointed to sources supporting a reasonable belief that those behind the planned mosque at Ground Zero are such people. (Ed Cline’s article at Rule of Reason is the most recent example.) Whether those who own or operate other mosques in the United States are such people, is a different question, one I am not attempting to answer here.

So, while Rand is (unfortunately for us, perhaps fortunately for her) not around today to weigh in on this issue, I believe she would have thought it fantastic to defend the property rights of those behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero. In fact, I’m starting to wonder whether she may even have quickly brushed aside the “rule of law” issue we’ve been discussing as well.

Which brings me to the point illustrated by Rand’s second answer: the importance of the image projected by America to the world, and the value of symbolism. On page 101 of the Q & A book, Rand was asked whether the U.S. should agree to sign a treaty to hand over control of the Panama Canal to Panama (Carter signed the treaty in 1977). Rand considered handing over the canal to be an “abysmal slap in the face to American achievement.” She said that, rather than “flatter the feelings or inferiority complex of South America,” we should “maintain our dignity, which we deserve.” She concluded by saying, “There’s no reason to give the Panama Canal away.” Note that, according to Objectivism, government should not be in the business of running and owning canals. And yet Rand thought, in the context, it was better to continue owning/operating the canal, than to be on the receiving end of a “slap in the face of American achievement.” Similarly, I think that, with respect to the planned mosque near Ground Zero, Rand would be very much concerned with what allowing it to be built would mean, how it would be perceived, both by our enemy, and by others around the world.

I don’t think one has to have a specialized grasp of Islam to appreciate most of the relevant meaning and symbolism here. Two towers, symbols of American freedom and productivity, were brought down by Jihadists on September 11, 2001. It was the worst, most horrific attack that has ever occurred on American soil. Muslims plan to build a mosque, which will preach the same religion that motivated those Jihadists, just a couple blocks away from the site of that attack. Moreover, they plan to open it on the 10th anniversary of that attack, at which time the Jihadists will no doubt still be at war with us. For more, including the significance of the name “Cordoba”, given to the organization behind the planned mosque, I refer you to an article by Raymond Ibrahim.

Ayn Rand thought that giving away the Panama Canal would be tantamount to an “abysmal slap in the face to American achievement,” and would rather have our country continue to own and operate the canal, than suffer such a loss of dignity. What do you think she would have thought of (a) 9/11, and (b) the idea of a mosque built near Ground Zero? Do you think she would have had any problem with bending, twisting, or distorting whatever invalid laws were available to stop the latter, if all proper avenues for doing so were taken off the table? I don’t.

Thank you , Facebook friend who pointed me to these passages.

Thanks to a comment by Steve Simpson, over on NoodleFood, I have arrived at what I think is a better way of framing the issue that I and some others are grappling with here: Suppose you agree that no one has a right to build a Mosque near Ground Zero, that a proper government would stop this from happening, by any means necessary, and would do so on the proper grounds. A secondary question, the one that might be more of a judgment call is: should we, as Objectivists, advocate for our current government to stop the building of the Mosque, by whatever lame means it would agree to stop it?

In the last couple of weeks Objectivists have been debating whether our government should interfere with the construction of a planned Mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. The debate seems to have started on Facebook, then continued on Diana Hsieh’s Noodle Food blog and elsewhere. Leonard Peikoff then devoted an entire podcast to the issue, which sparked even more debate, both on Facebook, and back on Diana’s blog, where both she and Paul Hsieh have written posts reiterating and further explaining their disagreement with Leonard on this issue. In this post I offer some further considerations in support of Leonard Peikoff’s stand on this issue, and try to address some of the arguments raised by the other side. Note that I am not speaking for Leonard Peikoff on this issue, although I am arguing in support of his stand on it.

As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — a belligerent interpretation of Islam — that declares war on us (the nonbelievers) and our way of life. Because they have declared war on us, we are at war with them, regardless of whether our government has chosen to formally or explicitly declare war on anyone. This war is more than a cultural war, because this ideology explicitly advocates the use of force in order to propagate its ideas and way of life. Most importantly, in my view, a significant number have acted in accordance with its teachings, killing thousands of Americans. And, by all accounts, they will continue to do so. Finally, it seems that the majority of Islam’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers.

Nonetheless, it has been argued that, because our government has not explicitly declared war, then any of the potential ways that our government might stop the mosque from being built, within the context of our current legal system, would negate property rights. Why? Because without that declaration of war, property rights are presumably retained by those who own the land and intend to build a mosque there.

I think there are a couple issues here that prevent some Objectivists from wholeheartedly agreeing with Leonard Peikoff’s view.

First, I think that one’s understanding of the nature of Islam will affect whether one believes that building a Mosque in the United States is an exercise of property rights. So long as one believes in the existence of a predominantly peaceful Islam, with only some fringe elements (call them what you want) being responsible for terrorist attacks on the U.S., then one is more likely to believe that property rights are the relevant principle.

There’s another issue, however: even if you agree that in reality, there is no property right to build a Mosque in the U.S., much less near Ground Zero, you might still think that you want the government to follow proper procedures – i.e., respect the ideal of the rule of law – before stripping any legal rights away from the owners of the property at issue. You might be concerned that, should proper procedures/precedents not be followed or set, then you will be statism’s next victim. I have a few thoughts on this.

We are good people living under a bad government in a time of war. Objectivists have argued, properly, that if our government was bad, in the sense of being an aggressor in war, then we should be prepared to suffer the consequences when another country acts in self-defense. However, here our government is not the aggressor, it’s the appeaser. Do we similarly have to sit back – in the name of the rule of law – and let ourselves be wiped out as collateral damage? One argument that has been made is that, because we’ve allowed our government to go down this path, we have to be prepared to accept the consequences. But note that the argument is not that we have to accept the consequences in order to preserve the principle of property rights; instead the issue, as I see it, boils down to the preservation of the rule of law. So what can be said about that?

First, there probably are good legal arguments that could be made to stop this, arguments that need not presuppose that our government has formally declared war. This approach is tricky, of course, because you can’t say that someone doesn’t have a right to property, simply because his views, which he plans to promote via use of his property, at root negate the principle of private property. Plenty of ideologies do that. So this gets back to the problem of recognizing the unique nature of Islam in this regard. To make the proper sort of legal argument I have in mind – something along the lines of a well-defined trade embargo, or perhaps a charge of conspiracy to commit a crime, or, as James Valliant has suggested, solicitation to murder – one has to recognize that the distinguishing characteristic of Islam as a religion is its doctrine of Jihad, which is, in effect, an incitement to violence, even though many individual Muslims aren’t violent and never will be. If you don’t believe that a belligerent interpretation of Jihad is embraced by a substantial number of Muslims, then you will likely reject this approach.

Some have doubted whether Islam can be distinguished in this way, and have told me that the holy books of other religions have similarly violent passages. I am not an expert on religion, but what I have seen is that a belligerent interpretation of Islam is, today, inciting a significant number of Muslims, on a regular basis, to commit terrorist attacks against the US. For every attack or planned attack we learn about in the news, imagine how many have been thwarted, that we never hear about. There’s probably more to say about this distinction, but to me, a call to kill in the name of Catholicism, today, would pretty much fall on deaf ears the way that “Kill in the name of the blue-green martians” would.

OK, so much for using good legal arguments to stop the Mosque. There is also the option of using bad legal arguments. And given that our government won’t declare war or even acknowledge who the enemy is, a bad legal argument is likely what we’d be in for. So what we’d ask the government to use is some sort of invalid law, e.g., a land use regulation, to stop the building of the mosque. Note that here, if you don’t make a principled distinction between Islam and other ideologies, depending on which invalid law you choose to deploy, you are in danger of setting a precedent that can later be used against any ideology that challenges the government. This is what many Objectivists are concerned about: the use of invalid law to stop this mosque as setting a dangerous precedent. A few considerations here.

Longer-term vs. shorter-term perspective. Again, I return to recognizing the nature of Islam. If you believe the worst about Islam, you will see that there will be no long term unless the propagation of this ideology is stopped whenever possible, by whatever means. Ask the question this way: Should we argue for the adherence to proper legal procedure in a context where:

1. Doing so puts American citizens at potential tremendous risk, in the immediate future, plus
2. Nowhere else in the government are those procedures being strictly adhered to anyway.

Consider some other things we might support only in the context of a mixed economy:

One Facebook friend raised the issue of cheering for Apollo 11, even though one knows that government should not be investing in space exploration. Rand discusses similar (albeit less inspiring) examples  in her essay, “A Question of Scholarships,” where she argues that it is OK to take advantage of invalid laws (government scholarships and funding for research), so long as one advocates the abolition of such laws. Rand writes, “[A] scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.” Similarly, can’t we take advantage of whatever invalid laws might be used to stop the building of this mosque, so long as we consider any benefit to be gained thereby as retribution for all the damage done to us by a government that has not protected us, and so long as we advocate the abolition of these invalid laws?

Another example is that of promoting school vouchers. Given the context of public education, many promote school vouchers – using other people’s money to pay for your child’s private education – on the idea that we are at least moving towards relative freedom. One can argue that, here, using invalid laws to stop the building of the Mosque does move us towards relative freedom, in that it stops creeping Sharia law and indeed might even save our lives. But again, I think making this argument requires one to understand the essential nature of Islam, its role in the world now and in the immediate future.

I read Paul Hsieh’s post and I like his framing of the issue as a lose-lose situation which has arisen because the best option — that of our government declaring war against a properly identified enemy — has been taken off the table. I agree that there’s a judgment call to be made here, but if the choice is secular statism vs. Sharia law, I will pick the former. The goal of belligerent Jihadists is the same as that of the secular statists: totalitarianism. The difference is that the Jihadists work to achieve this both via immediate violence, and via cultural infiltration/persuasion. The secular statists aren’t yet going the open immediate violence route. In addition, secular statism has less staying power than does theocratic statism, as Leonard Peikoff has discussed numerous times.