In response to this

It comes at an opportune time, ahead of the looming elections, in which our political philosophies and principals are put to the test through practice. One such test involves the mosque slated to be built in the region; and while supporting other’s rights to express their distaste with the project, I do not support their views of not allowing other’s similar rights.

The opinion which struck me as the most odd in this debate, was purported Tea Party leader Lou Ann Zelenik’s claims that, “Until the American Muslim community…condemn(s) those who want to destroy our civilization…we are not obligated to open our society to any of them.” Coming from the conservative libertarian viewpoint, I found this statement and those that accompany it, to be hypocritical at best. If such a political movement or a purported leader of it, which prides itself on the Constitution, openly threatens the Constitutional rights of fellow citizens, I am quite concerned as to how this person could be trusted with the powers to act on such threats.

It’s not just Mrs. Zelenik’s views though; upon further examination it has been an uproar among, what appears to be, a majority of residence. But lest I remind these individuals, that this right which has been afforded to them to show their outrage, also affords those in the Islamic faith the right to express their religious views without government abridging it. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.”

This is not a country of one religion or one creed, if it were we would not be free. All liberty is individual; it is not of collective ideals, but of individual ones. Those of the Islamic faith are not asking that you or I convert to Islam, but in many cases, the Christian view is being forced upon them with government as its sword. You would be hard fit to find even two Christians of which agree upon every issue, nor two Republicans, nor two Democrats. If we pick at the seams of our free society through our collective ideas we will do nothing but undermine, not only the rights of others, but of ourselves. As Jesus once said, those who live by the sword will die by the sword; and in this case, many threaten the rights to both expression and of property as they wield the power to do so; a power which may not always be there.

In short, wearing the flag does not make you a patriot any more than wearing the cross makes you a Christian, nor does flogging others for their unconstitutional acts, while threatening the violation of others’ rights make you a Constitutionalist. I believe that people of all views in the matter, should take a step back and ask themselves if they are swimming with the stream or standing steadfast with the principals that they tout in their own name.

If I’ve learned anything from the Wizard of Oz it’s that tin men have no hearts and straw men have no brains; so it comes as no surprise that brain dead people throw around terms such “straw man argument.” It’s a cop out to actually having a discussion, and in many ways is just creating a “straw man” by falsely presenting someone’s argument as misconstruing what you said. This isn’t to say that straw men arguments don’t crop up, only that every time I’ve been accuse of a “straw man argument,” I was the victim of being grouped with a group of people who I generally disagree with. You see this all the time, Republicans say you’re an “Obamanite” if you so much as take up for anything he does; the opposite is true you are called a “Paul-ite” if you take up for Ron Paul, a “Tea Bagger” if you take up for the “Tea Party” and a racist if you take up for Rand Paul. After these claims are made and you try to have an argument, about half way through you are accuse of a “straw man argument.” Wait a minute buster, what was that you just said? Did you just use a “straw man” 30 minutes ago and I ignored it? You can’t have a discussion without sometimes misconstruing someone’s beliefs on occasion, but likewise getting a fact or two wrong is completely different than grouping people together with a belief, so that you can let your mind at ease and ignore what the other person is saying. I’m just going to start throwing out the term “Representativeness heuristic” so that these people have to go look it up and I can go find a match.

Anyhow here’s a song about Cognitive bias: