"Emotionalism" and the Ground Zero Mosque

by EDWARD CLINE September 13, 2010
In Saturday’s Daily Telegraph (London) article, Anne Applebaum asked:
 
Today, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, there is only one relevant question to ask about this sudden outburst of anti-Muslim rhetoric: why now?
 
Why indeed, after nine years? She is somewhat stunned by the level of discussion and “anger” displayed by Americans, an emotion directed specifically at Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his Cordoba Initiative (now “Park51”) to replace a building damaged on 9/11 with a 13- or 15-story “community center” which only incidentally will contain a “prayer room.” That innocuous and ostensibly non-controversial space means the building will indeed be a mosque.

But, on a broader scale, many Americans are finally grasping the fact that wherever Islam is concerned, “tolerance,” “religious freedom,” “sensitivity,” and “freedom of speech” constitute a one-way street for Islam. They are becoming wise to the sweet talk of so-called “moderates” like Imam Rauf, and disgusted with the conciliatory “gestures” of former president George W. Bush and the blatantly improper “outreach” efforts of President Barack Obama, and with practically every politician who has publicly frowned on the electorate’s “anger.”

After recapping the shenanigans of Florida Pastor Terry Jones, who may or may not burn a barrel full of Korans to protest the mosque, and of Bill Keller, another “pastor” who wants to build a “Christian community center” near Ground Zero to “balance” the new Islamic Center (there is another one on the upper East Side of Manhattan; Imam Rauf’s father oversaw its creation), Applebaum cynically concludes:
 
Still, anger is a popular emotion at the moment, and those who cultivate it can receive a lot of attention, as well as material rewards which follow. Attention brings book contracts, book contracts bring lectures, lectures bring money.

Why has the American "negative" response to the Ground Zero mosque been so intense?

Angry public response to the Ground Zero mosque has been largely characterized as "emotionalism." But, what is an emotion? Ayn Rand, the novelist-philosopher, noted that "There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards," and also that, "An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship."

Why has the "negative" response to the Ground Zero mosque -- aside from its murky funding and the dubious character of its movers, such as Imam Feisal Rauf, Gamal, and another Muslim with direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Holy Land Foundation, among others -- been so intense? It is because Ground Zero is the grave of the Twin Towers, because Americans still remember the attack on this country that has not really seen any meaningful retaliation or the elimination of the enemy. Islam declared war on the West, but Western leaders and the Left refuse to acknowledge that war. Love of this country is a proper emotion; a value was attacked and destroyed, and so the overall American "intense" emotionalism is a response. The "emotionalism" is founded on facts and observations.

Muslims, obeying the commands of the Koran (particularly the later suras, allegedly written by Mohammad after he saw that his “peaceful” ones weren’t winning him converts) committed the act; so all Muslims must live with the crime. The "moderates" among them have come up with rationalistic excuses (the alleged "peaceful" verses of the Koran) in order to hang on to an irrational and barbaric moral system. It matters not that these “moderates” are sincere, or are practicing taqiya, the Koran-sanctioned art of dissimulation or lying to the infidel. Their only other option is to repudiate Islam altogether, as the more intellectually honest among them have (Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, et al.). Muslims can't have it both ways. All Muslims, if they are serious about Islam, are potential "Islamists" or “radicals.” Islam is a heinous ideology of conquest.

Islam is a creed for zombies, for manqués, for men human in form but essentially soulless, regardless of the professions Muslims may follow (it seems many of them go into engineering or medicine, but rarely follow any specific career path), for they all surrender their minds and lives to Allah and Mohammad, one a ghost and the other a “prophet” who was basically a barbarian (as was Moses in the Old Testament, who was equally and indiscriminately blood-thirsty and ready to slay “unbelievers”). Islam was not “hijacked,” no more than Nazism, Communism, and Shintoism were “hijacked” to commit mass murders. Islam, like Nazism, Communism, and Shintoism, is an ideology that seeks to eradicate individual rights, property rights, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. “Islam” means “submission. “Islam” is not “radical.” It is a totalitarian system of theocracy through and through. Islam declared war on the West, and in particular on the U.S. Americans are just now grasping that for nine years they’ve been short-changed by Presidents Bush and Obama. Their “emotionalism” and growing repugnance for Islam are entirely justified. They will not “submit” to the politically correct mantra that Islam is just another “religion.”

There is no "religious tension" that is the "burning issue," as Anne Applebaum, contends, nor is the tension merely "angry and unfocused." Rather, it is tension between a dawning knowledge of the theocratic and totalitarian nature of Islam and the freedoms and liberties that Americans have watched dwindle under the secular authoritarianism of the Obama administration. They see their values and freedoms being attacked, denigrated, ignored, and destroyed.

They are saying: Enough is enough. It is a tardy response, to be sure, but it is focused and proper.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Edward Cline is the author of a number of novels, and his essays, books, reviews, and other nonfiction have appeared in a number of high-profile periodicals.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Who's right: Donald Trump or Macy's?

 

mexico trump_macys_2015

Macy's has removed Donald Trump's products from their shelves because, while he stated that some of the Mexican people crossing our borders illegally are good people, some are murderers and rapists. While a true statement, it is not a "politically correct" statement, so Macy's has decided to pull his products from their shelves.

As a result of this, will you shop less - or not at all - in Macy's stores in the future?






10 year FSM Anniversary

Reporter offered more accurate job title for Hillary's 'organizing fellows'

July 03, 2015  01:08 PM

THAT'S more like it.

'Stop the spin doctoring': William Shatner defends George Takei

July 03, 2015  10:17 AM

Spin to end the spin?

Oregon's Minister of Thoughtcrime orders bakery to pay $135,000 to 'mentally raped' lesbian couple, stay silent about beliefs

July 02, 2015  11:53 PM

Bakery owners ordered not to talk about their reasons for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding.

Rep. Alan Grayson declares it's time to stop fiddling while black churches (accidentally) burn

July 02, 2015  09:51 PM

When is the government going to get serious about racist lightning strikes?

Government assigns Independence Day homework: Hassle your Uncle Ted about Obamacare

July 02, 2015  07:02 PM

Great advice from the federal government: "You should be prepared when Aunt Janine says something like, 'Obamacare hasn't helped anyone!'"

FSM Archives

More in PUBLICATIONS ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )