Mosque at Ground Zero

[6Michael6Bennett6]

Ok, here's a touchy subject.
Let's first identify what the subject is: There have been plans to build a mosque at ground zero.
Side one of the argument: Since this is in the United States, you abide by the constitution, in the constitution, it states that you have freedom of religion. This includes believing and practicing your religion as you choose; its as simple as that.
Side two of the argument: Acknowledgement of freedom of religion is made, BUT: the location is the problem. Ground Zero, obviously, thoughts of 9/11 are thought of when thinking about Islam and Ground Zero; this side argues that Islamic extremeists commited 9/11, so building a worship center for that same religion would be a slap in the face to the victims, patriots, and families of the victims.

What's your position on the argument?

 

[Ordeet]

I personally strongly agree with the Anti-Defamation League's perspective on the matter. Namely, that it is not a question of rights, but what is right.

Statement On Islamic Community Center Near Ground Zero

Keep in mind this is not some far-right extremist group, but the ADL, the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, which is dedicated to opposing all types of bigotry, and defending democratic ideals and civil rights for all.

 

[Tathagata]

Side two of the argument: Acknowledgement of freedom of religion is made, BUT: the location is the problem. Ground Zero, obviously, thoughts of 9/11 are thought of when thinking about Islam and Ground Zero; this side argues that Islamic extremeists commited 9/11, so building a worship center for that same religion would be a slap in the face to the victims, patriots, and families of the victims.

That's not an argument. That's an appeal to emotion fallacy, not to mention a false reason at that. Just because a couple Muslims are responsible, doesn't mean all are. That's like saying there should be no Christian churches built around Europe because of the inquisitions.

Not to mention, the mosque is going to be a mosque for Sufism, the esoteric version of Islam that is NOT involved in the Sunni / Shiite conflict.



.

 

[6Michael6Bennett6]

That's not an argument. That's an appeal to emotion fallacy, not to mention a false reason at that. Just because a couple Muslims are responsible, doesn't mean all are. That's like saying there should be no Christian churches built around Europe because of the inquisitions.

Not to mention, the mosque is going to be a mosque for Sufism, the esoteric version of Islam that is NOT involved in the Sunni / Shiite conflict.

Well I did not reveal my side of the argument in the posting of the thread, but I think now is a good time.
I cannot tell you how much I agree with you. Stereotyping is bad enough, but when its not even the correct group of individuals, how can it get any worse? I don't think any of the god-fearing old people who are all ****** off have even heard any of the story outside of Fox News or conservative radio talk shows.
I also agree that it's not an argument, but I presented it that way to invited both sides into the argument. The one with the weakest "argument" would get ripped to shreds (figuratively, of course) in the thread. I appreciate your post, and would welcome anyone of the opposing position to join the conversation.

 

[Valjean]

Next thing you know someone's going to want to build a Christian church near the site of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City.
Where will it all end?

 

[jmvizanko]

this side argues that Islamic extremeists commited 9/11, so building a worship center for that same religion would be a slap in the face to the victims, patriots, and families of the victims.

Last time I checked they are not building a mosque that officially houses a bomb factory in its basement. Should we not let Christian churches be built by abortion clinics for the same reason?

 

[xxclaro]

I think they should as the people of New York. They are the ones who live there,they should get to decide. Have a vote,shouldn't be to hard to do. The government is there to do the will of the people, so ask the people what they want. Majority says yes,build it.majority says no, don't.

 

[beenie]

I think they should as the people of New York. They are the ones who live there,they should get to decide. Have a vote,shouldn't be to hard to do. The government is there to do the will of the people, so ask the people what they want. Majority says yes,build it.majority says no, don't.

that's fair imo.

oh, and there's another thread about this already:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...01855-mosque-near-ground-zero-clears-key.html

 

[Levite]

Ok, here's a touchy subject.
Let's first identify what the subject is: There have been plans to build a mosque at ground zero.
Side one of the argument: Since this is in the United States, you abide by the constitution, in the constitution, it states that you have freedom of religion. This includes believing and practicing your religion as you choose; its as simple as that.
Side two of the argument: Acknowledgement of freedom of religion is made, BUT: the location is the problem. Ground Zero, obviously, thoughts of 9/11 are thought of when thinking about Islam and Ground Zero; this side argues that Islamic extremeists commited 9/11, so building a worship center for that same religion would be a slap in the face to the victims, patriots, and families of the victims.

What's your position on the argument?

I have to say that, although the ADL has come out against it, and I usually find myself agreeing with them, I really couldn't disagree more about this issue. I am totally in favor of this mosque project, and I don't care how close to Ground Zero it is.

This is America. Freedom is freedom, or it's not actually freeing. And freedom doesn't mean that everybody is always happy or comfortable: sometimes it means that some people have to deal with being a little uncomfortable so that everyone can enjoy the same amount of freedom.

If it were a synagogue that had been blown up anti-Semitic Muslim extremists, I would still advocate for their right to build a mosque-- any kind of mosque-- right down the block from where the synagogue was being rebuilt. That is what being part of a free society involves. The fact that it might make me personally uncomfortable would be entirely irrelevant, because society should favor justice and not the private feelings of individuals.

If private individuals wish to negotiate with the community building this mosque to try and convince them to go elsewhere in exchange for money or goods or services, they are also free to do so. But the government has no right to tell a religious group that they are forbidden to build and maintain a place of worship in a place which that group either owns or is fairly leasing, merely because some individuals feel uncomfortable. If that starts, who's next? Jews? Hindus? Buddhists? Christian sect against Christian sect? No.

And, personally, I would think that it is a far more powerful statement about America and the Land of Liberty if Muslim extremists blow up buildings, and then Muslims in America still enjoy unimpeded freedom and civil rights, because they had nothing to do with it. That is freedom at work. If our response to Muslim extremist terrorism is to begin taking away freedoms from American Muslims, then we lost that battle in a big, big way.

 

[Tathagata]

Well I did not reveal my side of the argument in the posting of the thread, but I think now is a good time.
I cannot tell you how much I agree with you. Stereotyping is bad enough, but when its not even the correct group of individuals, how can it get any worse? I don't think any of the god-fearing old people who are all ****** off have even heard any of the story outside of Fox News or conservative radio talk shows.
I also agree that it's not an argument, but I presented it that way to invited both sides into the argument. The one with the weakest "argument" would get ripped to shreds (figuratively, of course) in the thread. I appreciate your post, and would welcome anyone of the opposing position to join the conversation.

I understand that, I just felt like pointing out the flaws of the second "supposed" argument.


.

 

[waitasec]

Ok, here's a touchy subject.
Let's first identify what the subject is: There have been plans to build a mosque at ground zero.
Side one of the argument: Since this is in the United States, you abide by the constitution, in the constitution, it states that you have freedom of religion. This includes believing and practicing your religion as you choose; its as simple as that.
Side two of the argument: Acknowledgement of freedom of religion is made, BUT: the location is the problem. Ground Zero, obviously, thoughts of 9/11 are thought of when thinking about Islam and Ground Zero; this side argues that Islamic extremeists commited 9/11, so building a worship center for that same religion would be a slap in the face to the victims, patriots, and families of the victims.

What's your position on the argument?

on one hand, the audacity
on the other, forgiveness

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think they should as the people of New York. They are the ones who live there,they should get to decide. Have a vote,shouldn't be to hard to do. The government is there to do the will of the people, so ask the people what they want. Majority says yes,build it.majority says no, don't.

Despite what many think. America was not set up with the premise of the majority suppressing the minority. America is a Representative Republic. Not a Direct Democracy.

 

[Misty]

Building a mosque at Ground Zero is a brilliant idea. Icon to all faiths should be represented imo.

 

[Kathryn]

Ok, here's a touchy subject.
Let's first identify what the subject is: There have been plans to build a mosque at ground zero.
Side one of the argument: Since this is in the United States, you abide by the constitution, in the constitution, it states that you have freedom of religion. This includes believing and practicing your religion as you choose; its as simple as that.
Side two of the argument: Acknowledgement of freedom of religion is made, BUT: the location is the problem. Ground Zero, obviously, thoughts of 9/11 are thought of when thinking about Islam and Ground Zero; this side argues that Islamic extremeists commited 9/11, so building a worship center for that same religion would be a slap in the face to the victims, patriots, and families of the victims.

What's your position on the argument?

I was flipping through channels last night and I accidently stumbled across Sarah Palin - a person which I try my best to avoid generally. She was discussing this issue on Fox News.

The leftist elements of our media do a fine job of spinning and re-inventing news, but the right is just as good at it, believe me. I have equal disdain for both extremes and for any misrepresentation of facts.

Palin was repeating the MISinformation that is in this OP. The proposed mosque is NOT at Ground Zero. Using that terminology is intentionally inflammatory and divisive, and a manipulation of factoids.

In my opinion, the ONLY sort of building that would be appropriate at Ground Zero would be some sort of multicultural/multifaith center. Even then, some people are going to be offended - you can't please everyone.

The proposed mosque is two blocks from Ground Zero. The site of the WTCs CANNOT BE SEEN from the site of the future Islamic Center. The Center site is surrounded by large buildings.

Various factions are repeating over and over again that this mosque will be "built on sacred ground." This is bull ****. It's several blocks away.

I just hate it when warring factions make up psuedo truths to divide and alienate people. All political parties do this (except the Libertarians!) and I will call bull **** on it every time.

Let the mosque be built and let these people practice the religious freedoms that this nation was built on.

The common rhetoric "They can build a mosque when we can build a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia!" is another crap statement that is being bandied about. Let me remind those who chant this of one very salient point - this isn't Saudi Arabia, this is the United States of America, and thank God for that. We should rise above the standards of religious intolerance that are in place elsewhere in this world. If you don't want your religious freedoms restricted, don't restrict the same freedoms for other people.

All that being said, I think the decision to build an Islamic Center so close to Ground Zero is an inflammatory move by this particular Islamic group, and an example of poor taste and insensitivity.

But last time I checked, poor taste and insensitivity were not against the law.

 

[beenie]

I was flipping through channels last night and I accidently stumbled across Sarah Palin - a person which I try my best to avoid generally. She was discussing this issue on Fox News.

The leftist elements of our media do a fine job of spinning and re-inventing news, but the right is just as good at it, believe me. I have equal disdain for both extremes and for any misrepresentation of facts.

Palin was repeating the MISinformation that is in this OP. The proposed mosque is NOT at Ground Zero. Using that terminology is intentionally inflammatory and divisive, and a manipulation of factoids.

In my opinion, the ONLY sort of building that would be appropriate at Ground Zero would be some sort of multicultural/multifaith center. Even then, some people are going to be offended - you can't please everyone.

The proposed mosque is two blocks from Ground Zero. The site of the WTCs CANNOT BE SEEN from the site of the future Islamic Center. The Center site is surrounded by large buildings.

Various factions are repeating over and over again that this mosque will be "built on sacred ground." This is bull ****. It's several blocks away.

I just hate it when warring factions make up psuedo truths to divide and alienate people. All political parties do this (except the Libertarians!) and I will call bull **** on it every time.

Let the mosque be built and let these people practice the religious freedoms that this nation was built on.

The common rhetoric "They can build a mosque when we can build a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia!" is another crap statement that is being bandied about. Let me remind those who chant this of one very salient point - this isn't Saudi Arabia, this is the United States of America, and thank God for that. We should rise above the standards of religious intolerance that are in place elsewhere in this world. If you don't want your religious freedoms restricted, don't restrict the same freedoms for other people.

All that being said, I think the decision to build an Islamic Center so close to Ground Zero is an inflammatory move by this particular Islamic group, and an example of poor taste and insensitivity.

But last time I checked, poor taste and insensitivity were not against the law.

i am finding myself agreeing with you all over the place!! the bolded is so very true as well.

 

[dogsgod]

"All that being said, I think the decision to build an Islamic Center so close to Ground Zero is an inflammatory move by this particular Islamic group, and an example of poor taste and insensitivity."

Guilt by association, interesting concept.

 

[uu_sage]

Building a Mosque near Ground Zero is a brilliant idea. It will be an outreach to all God's children regardless of their faith tradition or lack of one.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

Personally I am completely opposed to this idea. But mainly for the fact that I don't feel anything should ever be built on Ground Zero. Many people were killed there; it should be kept as a memorial. It's almost like building on a graveyard or something. They can build somewhere else. Being an American, it is an obvious touchy subject for me. I try not to be prejudiced about it, for I know that the attacks on 9/11 were not initiated by all Muslims, and I know many Muslims are against those attacks. However, I still feel that nothing should be built on that site.

 

[Kathryn]

"All that being said, I think the decision to build an Islamic Center so close to Ground Zero is an inflammatory move by this particular Islamic group, and an example of poor taste and insensitivity."

Guilt by association, interesting concept.

If I made statements like, "I think that the KKK should be given a special set of laws that are independent of our Constitution and laws," one might think I was "guilty by association."

If I said, "Well, black people were accessories to their own persecution during the Civil Rights movement and before, and I can really understand why some radicals strung them up by their necks," one might say I was "guilty by association."

If I wrote a book and titled it "A Call to Prayer from the Grounds of a Burned Plantation Home - A White Man's Plea for the Return of Slavery From the Heart of the American South" one might say I was "guilty by association."

If my main office was in the same office space as the Grand Imperial Wizard's office, one might say I was "guilty by association."

I could protest all day long that I was not racist, and had no ties to the KKK - but it sure wouldn't look good, now would it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Personally I am completely opposed to this idea. But mainly for the fact that I don't feel anything should ever be built on Ground Zero. Many people were killed there; it should be kept as a memorial. It's almost like building on a graveyard or something. They can build somewhere else. Being an American, it is an obvious touchy subject for me. I try not to be prejudiced about it, for I know that the attacks on 9/11 were not initiated by all Muslims, and I know many Muslims are against those attacks. However, I still feel that nothing should be built on that site.

Not "on Ground Zero". three blocks away in an empty lot suitable for the purpose intended.