My View on the "Ground-Zero Mosque"

I have long avoided this post, even though I've followed the issue before it became such a massive national news story. My reluctance to write is not due to a lack of a clear opinion. Rather, the "mosque" has become such a divisive and sensitive issue, and frankly, I hate talking about it. But due to an overwhelming demand that I come out and discuss the issue, I will do so briefly.

First, it must be noted that this is an issue of property rights more than anything else. As a constitutionalist, I do not budge on this issue. A private developer/property owner has the right to do whatever he wishes with his property as long as it does not infringe on upon the rights of others. (Btw, there is no right to not be offended.) Therefore, it does not mater what the project is. Some say it is a mosque. Some say it is a cultural center. Some say it is both. What the project is should not matter. Rights should not be conditional.

Moreover, anyone weighing in on this issue should be careful to consider it from all possible perspectives. Imagine if this where a Christian project. Would you be just as offended? Would you be offended that others were offended? The point here is that we must be willing to defend the same rights for all, especially the unpopular.

I belong to an increasingly unpopular religion--conservative evangelical Christianity. My faith is already under attack by the politically correct crowd who want to legislate what can and cannot be said from the pulpit. When we start to pick winners and losers in religion, it is  a slippery slope. A Muslim center may be stopped in New York City today, but a conservative Baptist church may be stopped in San Francisco in the future.

I have little problem with social influence affecting construction of this or any other project, but when we start talking legal action, that is where we should take issue. The way that our politicians in both parties have politicized this issue is unacceptable.

Whether the decision to go ahead with the center is tactful or not, there is no denying that those proposing construction have every right to go ahead with the construction and to use the building as they see fit. At this point it probably is in poor taste to go ahead with the project, but is also in poor taste to stand against it. If we are to take the high ground and be the land of the free, let's truly be the land of the free and protect the rights of all.

My personal opinion is best summed up by Young Americans For Liberty founder Jeff Frazee's facebook status a few days ago:

I wish Muslim leaders would choose to abandon their plans for the "ground zero mosque" just as a symbol of sensitivity and friendship with neighbors. I think it would go a long way in inter-religious relations within the US. But, I will defend their right to property if they unfortunately choose otherwise.

The Politics of Hoarding

The lives of compulsive hoarders have long been a fascination of mine. What would drive some to acquire and hold onto items in such a manner that they lose control of their belongings, their homes, and even their lives? Thanks to the newest slate of hoarding-themed shows on the air, an unprecedented look is being given into the lives of those effected with this debilitating disorder.

Sadly, anyone who has watched any hoarding television programs has witnessed both individuals lives and their governments spiraling out of control.

While it is completely appropriate for landlords to demand hoarders to clean up or get out (they obviously have the right to maintain the integrity of their properties), the government has no right to tell individuals how to manage their property as long as others' rights are not being violated. Sadly, time after time the government steps in and tells adults (without children even!) how they must maintain their homes. This is a massive affront to liberty. In a free society there is no room for such a massive infringement on one's property rights. People should be free to make their own mistakes.

Regretfully, action against hoarders and like offenders is expected and embrace by many today. A common rebut is "It is for their own good." In fact, many times it is the Department of Adult Protective Services that forces hoarders to clean up their act. (The fact that such a department exists is repulsive to any who value personal responsibility and individual liberty.) Perhaps the behavior of hoarders is detrimental to their health. As a neat freak, I definitely am no fan of those types of living conditions. But it is not mine or the masses' preferences, feelings, or beliefs that should dictate how an individual lives his or her life. Property rights are fundamental, and the willing violation of one's property rights negatively affects us all.

If we value the protection of our own rights, we must resist the violation of others' rights.

When we live in a society where the government can tell an individual how he or she can maintain their own property, we see that the biggest mess isn't that of the hoarders. The mess it that of the government.

Smoking and Alcohol: Polices to Reconsider

I apologize for my long absence from blogging. I have been spending the last two weeks with a friend who lacks the internet in his home. Therefore, my time on the net has been limited to time spent at the homes of others who have internet access or at coffee shops (which I hate with an unrivaled passion). I would ask, however, that you keep an eye on my blog as I will still be posting when I get the time.

As you may or may not be aware of, I am a Tennessean who has been living in Louisiana since the end of August, working as a field rep for a political non-profit called the Leadership Institute. I miss Tennessee with everything in me. I love and miss my home state, but one thing I will not miss is TN’s refusal to allow for personal responsibility and liberty.

One example of what I am referring to is the state of Tennessee’s liquor and smoking laws.

I don’t smoke or drink, myself. In fact, I am very opposed to both the consumption of alcohol and tobacco products. Heck, I don’t even like people taking medicine for non-migraine headaches. However, I still believe it wrong for my displeasure with the practice of others to hold sway over the law. (Note: I am writing this as a woman is smoking beside me at a coffee shop. The smoke is killing me (literally and figuratively), but I still believe I have no right to tell her she should put it out.)

In Tennessee we have laws that regulate smoking and alcohol in relation to location. Smoking cannot happen in non-bar atmospheres like indoor restaurants, and liquor must be sold in a liquor store or licensed bar. I have noticed the absence of these restrictions in LA.

I must admit when I first entered Wal-Mart here in Louisiana and discovered in-store liquor establishments and saw shelves of Vodka and Jack Daniels, I was a bit taken back. It was quite different for me, growing up in TN without said sights.

Anyone who knows me knows that I hate drunkenness, I hate reliance on alcohol in social contexts, and I abstain completely from alcohol myself. But do I agree with TN’s policy on alcohol? By no means! I believe that we should let individuals act on their own responsibility when it comes to alcohol. I have no right to dictate their ability and limit their liberty. Furthermore, as a Christian, I believe that drunkenness will never be combated through state legislatures prohibiting liquor sales. Rather, only through changed hearts will we see changed practice.

The same should be said of smoking, which I despise on an equal level. (Note: The argument that will follow can be equally applied to alcohol.)

Any establishment that wants to offer the ability to smoke on its premises to its patrons should be allowed to do so. Equally, an establishment has every right to prohibit smoking on its property. This is a decision that is best left to property owners on the local level—not to the government. Before Tennessee adopted its current law on the matter, property owners were able to exercise their God-given rights to their property. Now this is not the case. The nanny-state propped up by the Tennessee legislature now tells property owners how and where property owners are able to use their property in relation to smoking. This is wrong beyond all measure.

Moreover, it robs businesses of the ability to market their establishments to customers. No longer is one’s smoking policy an effective way to cater to demographics.

I remember quiet clearly my parents avoiding certain establishments when I was growing up based on smoking policies. For example, we would not go to certain restaurants because “all the smoke” as my parents put it. Others, we would frequent, seeking better air quality. Businesses who wanted like minded customers could advertise their being a “smoke-free” environment. The same is true of “smoker-friendly” establishments. Now that the policy has changed, those who would like to provide a place for smokers to frequent have lost business to bars and other “smoker-friendly” facilities. Likewise, those who once enjoyed exclusive “smoke-free” clientele have lost their marketing edge as all non-bars are now required by law to remain “smoke-free.”

Not only have property rights been violated by dictating what can or cannot be done on one’s property in regard to smoking, but the government has hindered businesses’ ability to make profits. This is a grave mistake for a free society and a policy that should be reconsidered.