Several years ago, I was hanging out with a group of friends. There was this one girl in our group that was very liberal particularly when woman’s issues were a concern. The group debated where to go for dinner, and someone recommended Hooters.
This girl flipped out and went into a rant about how she wasn’t going to go because Hooters degrades woman. The rant continued with her points also against strip clubs and prostitution. How these institutions shouldn’t exist.
Time had passed and this liberal girl got upset again because some news about the abortion issue. (Obviously, she was pro-choice.) I set her up in a trap and the conversation went something like this:
Me: So ultimately it is up to a woman if she wants to have an abortion?
LG: Yes
Me: Therefore, her body is her own property?
LG: Yes
Me: So she is the one who ultimately decides who she wants to have sex with as well?
LG: Yes
Me: On her own terms? No one can determine that including the government?
LG: Correct!
Me: So if a woman has ultimate control over her body, and with whom she decides to share it with, and also on her terms therefore: if she wants to have sex with an individual for the exchange of money that is okay?
She gave me a glare which basically suggested to me that she would love to see bodily harm done to me.
Anyway, I continued, “I guess that would also apply working in strips clubs or even as a waitress at Hooters.”
She stormed out the room.
The reason why I bring up this old story is because sometimes we may have certain beliefs pertaining to our rights, but on some issues we fall into the hypocrisy trap.
I will never suggest that prostitution is proper. However as a person that respects property rights, I can’t see where the government has the authority to make it illegal. If a woman decides to have sex with another individual for either personal pleasure or for an exchange of money, how are her individual rights being violated?
This case about the Mosque in New York is along the same lines. Majority of Americans oppose this being built, but there really isn’t an argument the government can make to stop it. Property rights and the First Amendment protects those who want to build this Mosque.
I was dismayed when I watched a YouTube video from FOX discussing this issue. They had a liberal political science professor going up against a conservative radio talk show host. The professor argued for the Mosque to be built while the radio host held the opposing point of view. I got annoyed that neither of them really mentioned the Constitutionality of the issue.
Last weekend, This Week on ABC showed a poll that a majority of Americans didn’t like this Mosque, BUT a majority of Americans also understood they had the right to build it. The latter rarely being mentioned in the media as well.
Again like prostitution, this becomes a property rights issue. The owners of the land wants to build a Mosque there. It is their right. Would there be this outcry if a Christian Church, a Jewish Synagogue, or even a Hindu Temple was going to be built there?
I seriously doubt it. It is Unconstitutional to allow one group to build a place of worship on their land while denying a different faith. Either you respect the First Amendment or you don’t. You respect property rights or you don’t.
This is especially true when dealing with issues that people may feel uncomfortable about such as prostitution or building a Mosque close to Ground Zero.
There is another argument to be made on this issue that I have not seen ANYONE in the media make. We are not going to win the War on Terror by military might. We have to demonstrate that our values are correct and just. A system that Freedom and Liberty still wins when even it is unpopular.
Even after all the pain, anger and frustration of a post 9/11 world, a Mosque can be built close to Ground Zero will send a message world wide that the United States does value Liberty and Freedom.
