Emotionalism Justified

Submitted by Edward Cline (United States), Sep 8, 2010 at 16:46

Mr. Pipes characterizes the public response to the Ground Zero mosque as largely "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."

What has the "negative" response to the Ground Zero mosque -- aside from its murky funding and the character of its moves, such as Imam Rauf and Gamal, 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 elimination of the enemy. 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 Koran, committed the act; all Muslims must live with the crime and 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. Their only other option is to repudiate Islam altogether, as the more intellectually honest among them have (Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, et al.). They can't have it both ways. All Muslims, if they are serious about Islam, are potential "Islamists." Islam is a heinous ideology of conquest.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".