Ron Paul is as dyed-in-the-wool libertarian as one can get, so it should really come as no surprise that he's taken what is clearly the libertarian position on the so-called ground-zero mosque.
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque ....
It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.
There probably aren't many people that would agree with Paul that opposition to the mosque "has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it." That's just Paul being Paul. But defenders of the mosque will appreciate his stand against Islamophobia and guilt by association. However, Paul would benefit from paying attention to the news a little more closely.
The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.
Er, no. While Nancy Pelosi did call for "transparency" about the mosque's funding, the only "investigation" she got behind (and not necessarily a Congressional one at that) was one into the funding of the mosque opposition. Just replace "the House Speaker" with Rick Lazio, Peter King, or George Pataki, and it makes more sense.
The last paragraph of this post has been updated to provide additional context.