Disallowing 1 mosque to be built at ground 0 does not violate religious freedom
The reason for not wanting this one mosque in this one place is not grounded in xenophobia. If it was, then we would disallow every mosque everywhere in the U.S.A.
The reason for not wanting this one mosque in this one place is grounded on the emotions that memory still evokes. We want to remember the "good" emotions (sadness, etc.) and forget the "bad" emotions (anger, etc.). This mosque evokes anger because it reminds us of the attackers. And for this mosque to be so close to ground zero feels like a taunt. The money being used to build this mosque would buy much more goodwill if it was donated instead towards the building of the memorial itself. Otherwise it feels more like a memorial for those who commited the attrocity.
The constitution allows for religious freedom. Not allowing one mosque to be built in one particular area does not violate anyone's religious freedom. The mosque can be relocated. Some people erroneously believe that the constitution allows people to do whatever the hell they want and that is just not the case.
Some people claim that **the whole point of the mosque is to extend peace and goodwill**
If they really wanted to show goodwill, then they would find some other way to do so after realizing that the method they have chosen was being perceived as offensive.
For example, if some drunk kills you mother in a car wreck, he may feel bad about the whole situation and may wants to extend peace and goodwill towards you. So he says, "Hey, at least she's with God now. Right? So no worries mate ;)" But you are still hurt and angry by the whole incident so you tell him that it didn't have to be that way had he not been drunk. After realizing that his comment backfired, if he was truly sorry, he would come back and say, "I'm sorry." He would not say, "I'm just trying to extend peace and goodwill and you are being ungracious and intolerant."
You don't extend peace by trying to force your version of it down their throats. You extend peace by being respectful and tolerant of the other person's feelings and emotions. We are not being intolerant of Muslims by not wanting this one mosque in this one part of town. They are being intolerant of our hurt feelings. There are other ways for them to extend peace and goodwill. Forcing people to accept a mosque in a place that people view as offensive is not the way to go about extending goodwill and peace.
I don't claim to know the intentions of anyone wanting this one mosque in this one place, but I do know that others cannot claim to know their intentions either, but that won't stop them from trying ;)
I also know that no one can prove that the constitution allows for any mosque to be built anywhere on the U.S., but that won't stop anyone from trying ;)
true
Side Score: 10
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
What we are saying is, "You cannot build your mosque here." What they are saying is, "We'll build our mosque wherever the hell we want." People claim that what they are saying is, "We want to extend goodwill towards you by building this mosque at ground zero." What we are saying is, "Please find some other way of showing us goodwill." Side: True
1
point
does are fundamental belief of the allowance for life, liberty, and pursuit of happens violate religious freedom? does fighting militant islmofacism violate religious freedom? the answer is yes. some religions or religious ideologies must be fought because they violate individual freedoms. the fact that on 9/11 rememberence day there was a anti western pro militant parade by Muslims. the fact that the building was hit by militant terrorist Muslims. and the fact that most Muslims want sharia rule in America which is anti democratic and inhuman makes me believe that the mosque there would only be rubbing salt in a wound. however there are moderate Muslims and people who disagree with the majority of Muslim middle easterners who support jihad and violence against western nations. so i believe there should be a compromise. if the state allows the mosque. then let it be built. if after review by 3erd party members of the mosque being supportive of the magnificent 11 or 9/11 terrorist and implements sharia and jihadist ideologies into its members and violence to outsiders. i say then close the mosque down. so its simple. warn the Muslims that one out of line move will result in the termination of your mosque. end of discussion. Side: True
1
point
Agree and to those who say it does violate religious freedoms, I cannot wait to stand beside you in a fight this Christmas season fighting for the rights of a mangier going up on public property. When was the last time you saw liberals standing up for religious rights for something Christian to be built.God Bless you all Side: True
"When was the last time you saw liberals standing up for religious rights for something Christian to be built." When was the last time Christian property rights were infringed? Show me the situation, and I'll stand up for it. Simple as that. The manger is a completely different situation, by the way. Public offices can't favor any one religion, it's as simple as that. If the police ask you to get a manger off your lawn, THAT'S a rights violation. But that never happens in America. Side: Wait..., What? No!
1
point
Uh,right beside ground zero. Side: True
|
The answer to whether a mosque should be built TWO BLOCKS away from, NOT "AT" ground zero should be based on the contract of the builders and the city. If there is a contract and both sides signed it, whether before or after 9/11 happened, then the mosque should be built. I don't know whether a contract was signed and whether both parties approved, but if it was signed, according to law, you can't deny the right to build the mosque. Considering all the hype for this debate, if a contract was already signed, disallowing the mosque to be built two blocks from ground zero is religious intolerance and prejudice against moderate Muslims in disguise. Sarah Palin said on Twitter that the mosque at ground zero is "an unnecessary provocation. It stabs hearts." It stabs the hearts of the victims and their families of 9/11. Now if it was a Christian 13-story cultural center, NO ONE would be protesting and it wouldn't "stab the hearts" of anyone. This is obviously a sign that the Islamic religion is being prejudiced as enemies of the U.S. considering that 9/11 was done by "Muslims." As a summary, supporters say they want to build a cultural center and mosque 2 blocks away from ground zero Protesters say we don't want you to build it here because it would be like pissing on the victims of 9/11 (why? because we think Islam is full of extremists with bombs under their shirts and would love to kill Americans....!!!news flash!!!: RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE) Side: Wait..., What? No!
1
point
1
point
62% do not want it Side: True
1. Yes it does. It's a religion, you wouldn't be allowing them to assemble. 2. It's not a mosque for the billionth time. 3. It's a slippery slope. 4. There are dozens of instances of reactionary scardy cats protesting other's religious freedom to build a mosque all over this country since 9/11. Side: Wait..., What? No!
|
