The arguments for both viewpoints, for and against construction, are almost too numerous to mention. Most of the arguments against it are visceral and emotional, if understandable to the majority of the American public, amounting to 'Muslims want to rub our faces in the victory over the Infidel they felt at the 9/11 attacks' and 'It's a slap in the face to U.S. citizens'. It doesn't help that the mosque's director, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, was vilified last week in some American media outlets for suggesting in the aftermath of 9/11 that US policies had encouraged groups like Al Qaeda. "I wouldn't say the United States deserved what happened on 9/11, but the United States's policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," Abdul Rauf said then. Sort of like the political equivalent of, "She was dressed like a slut, so she deserved to be ra*ed".
On the other hand, there are churches and synagogues near Ground Zero already--even an existing mosque another two blocks from the proposed site of this one. If we're a nation touting Freedom of Religion as one of our basic creeds, it would be bigoted and intolerant to refuse one specific religion the same benefits. The Muslims who want to build the mosque are not the Al-Qaeda who carried out the attacks.
Personally, the pragmatic side of me has to say we must allow it to be built; in fact, I doubt that we can legally prohibit it. Whether or not it should be built? I cannot say.
Thoughts?|||Honestly, it's not like every Muslim is a bloody terrorist, so to claim it's so they can "gloat about the victory" is just plain ignorance at best, and a attempt to justify hate at worst. While I can understand the emotional side, I also can't agree with the idea of not allowing it. If freedom of religion is truely a right, then we can't say no without a damn good reason.|||I don't see why not. The attendees may catch a bit of flack for awhile, but I think (I would hope, anyway) it would decline over the years as long as nothing terrible happens there.|||I am against the building of new religious buildings in general. However, from an ethics standpoint, I don't see any good reason they shouldn't build a mosque somewhere. Even if it were explicitly- like, a giant neon sign- to rub 9/11 in the face of the US, freedom of speech would still apply.|||The "hallowed ground" argument sounded pretty dumb to me, considering everything else that's nearby. Also, even the name of the controversy seems intended to stab at American emotions.
I'm not thrilled with the idea. Another one of those "probably not the best idea, but will probably happen because it can't be illegal" kinds of deals. They're always good for some popcorn, if nothing else.
Just for kicks: I wonder what would happen in an opposite situation.|||Quote:
Just for kicks: I wonder what would happen in an opposite situation.
You mean building a church in a Muslim country after a bunch of Christian terrorists came in and destroyed things? No need to wonder, happened lots and lots. Called the Crusades. The Muslims started chopping people up and throwing rocks at them until they died.|||I thought it would be a no-brainer but apparently a lot of people don't have brains. Just because "you" don't like it doesn't mean your emotions trumps freedom of speech and religion.
Also the site is NOT at "Ground Zero":
Quote:
THE FACTS:
No mosque is going up at ground zero. The center would be established at 45-51 Park Place, just over two blocks from the northern edge of the sprawling, 16-acre World Trade Center site. Its location is roughly half a dozen normal Lower Manhattan blocks from the site of the North Tower, the nearest of the two destroyed in the attacks.
http://www.oleantimesherald.com/news...cc4c002e0.html
So basically 2 blocks away from the edge of the WTC site and 6 blocks from the actual towers.|||I don't give a frog's fat butt where the location is, if they want to put in a mosque, let them do it. Yes, America has freedom of religion, but saying they can't build a mosque in a certain area is denying the Muslims that freedom. And there is one not even 2 blocks away yet people are still complaining. Now the director probably shouldn't have said such a comment but this is America we're talking about - every little thing that goes wrong and terrorism is the first thought. I hate living in a country that's hated by so many other countries; you watch movies and a lot of them are about another country planning to somehow bring down America. And again, the country's first thought about anything that's gone wrong is "OMG it must be a terrorist". Which is what's happening here - they're Muslim, therefore they must be terrorists and are going to rub it in our faces by building a mosque so close to Ground Zero.|||It's not a mosque (it's a Muslim community center, which obviously includes a prayer room since devout muslims have to do that several times a day), and it isn't on ground zero.
Stop calling it "the Ground Zero Mosque". I propose "the Burlington Coat Factory Community Center".
The government shouldn't even *consider* blocking it. It's a 100% clear-cut first amendment case. Some people try to hide an actual ban behind "should they build it" rather then "can they build it". It's pitifully obvious what you mean is "they shouldn't build it". Bullying people into doing what you want is censorship just as much as outright banning it. (As always, **** censorship, in all its forms.)
Quote:
"I wouldn't say the United States deserved what happened on 9/11, but the United States's policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," Abdul Rauf said then.
He wasn't the only one, as exposed on The Daily Show. And I don't think that's a position that can be honestly denied, any more then the fact that the US blockade of Japan prior to WWII was a major contributing factor to Pearl Harbor.|||Well I heard the mosque at ground zero was being funded by Al-Qaeda!
But WAIT...this just in...
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08...t-ground-zero/
I
Jon Stewart.
No comments:
Post a Comment