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]

Originally Posted by 6Michael6Bennett6

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]

Originally Posted by Tathagata

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.

[Seyorni]

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]

Originally Posted by 6Michael6Bennett6

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.

[ssainhu]

Originally Posted by 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.

that's fair imo.

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

Mosque Near Ground Zero Clears Key Hurdle

[Levite]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 6Michael6Bennett6

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. :P


.