CreateDebate


Debate Info

61
66
Yes No
Debate Score:127
Arguments:103
Total Votes:140
Ended:06/30/10
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (48)
 
 No (55)

Debate Creator

YvetteL(18) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?

Some have expressed outrage at plans to build a mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 tragedy. 

"The Cordoba House project, according to CNN, calls for a 15-story community center that would include a performance-art center, gym, swimming pool, and a mosque."

Should it be allowed to be built there?

Yes

Side Score: 61
VS.

No

Side Score: 66
Winning Side!
3 points

Should churches be allowed in Europe after all the atrocities committed by the Crusaders? Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Islam. It was committed by a single extremist group with both religious and political motivations. I personally think that Islam is bad for humanity in the same way that all religions are bad for humanity, but above all else I believe in freedom, and assuming the people responsible for the community center containing the mosque went through all the proper steps to get the building approved, I see no reason why a mosque can't be built two blocks away from Ground Zero.

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6780) Disputed
1 point

Should churches be allowed in Europe after all the atrocities committed by the Crusaders?

Learn something about history before you start making these claims.

The Crusaders were fighting a war begun by the Muslims.

Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Islam.

And yet you still use the Crusades as an example for your argument. Thus, I shall dispute with:

Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Christianity...

It was committed by a single extremist group with both religious and political motivations.

Prove it.

I personally think that Islam is bad for humanity in the same way that all religions are bad for humanity

Your personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Side: No
JGalt13(43) Disputed
2 points

Thankfully, I have studied the Crusades and they were started by Pope Urban II in 1095 because the Muslims had taken Jerusalem, but that doesn't change the fact that the greatest atrocities were committed by the Crusaders. According to the first-hand account of the First Crusade, written by Fulcher of Chartres, one of the Crusaders, the Crusaders entered the Dome of the Rock and slaughtered all the women and children that were in there praying for safety until the blood was ankle-deep. Secondly, I never argued that it was Christianity that was responsible for 9/11. I was merely showing that other extremist groups with different beliefs have also done terrible things in the past, but it is not the fault of the religion as a whole. As much as I think religion as a whole is stupid and harmful to society, most religious people are decent human beings, and the 99% of Muslims who would have openly opposed this extremist act if they had seen it coming should have all the same rights and liberties as all the other citizens of the United States. This includes the right to use their hard-earned money to build a mosque wherever they want to. They could build it on Ground Zero if they paid enough, but you will notice in the original article that they had the decency to build it a couple blocks away. If anyone is really offended enough by this, then by all means go buy that plot of land and build whatever you want there. As for proving that 9/11 was committed by an extremist group, I honestly don't know what to say. Osama bin Laden confessed that Al Quaeda did it in a video he sent to us right after the attack. I'll admit that it isn't definitive proof but it's good enough for me. Finally, you are correct for once. Personal beliefs have no place in a true debate, and I will try to limit them in the future.

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

It's commical how hypocritical you are at times.

You argue again and again for capitalism and free market and anyone should do what they like with the money they earn. Muslims earn money and buy a mosque, suddenly you're an idealist.

The Muslims who will be going to this mosque were no more responsible for 9/11 by virtue of being Muslim, then you were for slavery being as you're white,

Yet just a few debates ago you spewed despotic how unfair it is that we should now continue paying for slavery simply for our skin color,

Now though, now that it is not you specifically, these Muslims should pay for other's sins.

I'm dissappointed in how tranparently flawed your logic is.

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

The Crusaders were fighting a war begun by the Muslims

... no they weren't. They were started in 1095 CE by Pope Urban when he proclaimed Christians to be superior and encouraged Christians to take Jerusalem.

Prove it - referring to who was responsible for 9/11

Really? Conspiracies now? You're insinuation that perhaps all Muslims were responsible has no more merit than the conspiracy theory that Bush planned the whole thing.

Side: yes
1 point

you have all got it wrong look at the facts, nature of the human ( clothed ape!!!) there are far to many of them living upon the land that is unable to support them regard less of religion. the ever expanding population will have to end. what goes up must come down! regardless of dates, time there will be a decline of the human, simple fact just look at his story or history! get over it! all religions helped humans to be able to survive. but that is now the problem!

the red Indians had a good religion unfortunate for them there was a religion called technology! why not build a tee pee, or a bomb shelter Mr bush could use one of them to hide in lol. let nature have the land back! no more building or development! much needed common sense.

Side: No
JGalt13(43) Disputed
1 point

I don't know if you are high or English isn't your first language, but please rewrite this because it currently makes no sense.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
0 points

Should churches be allowed in Europe after all the atrocities committed by the Crusaders?

Opposing factions' churches wouldn't have been allowed a mere nine years after the event. It's true that time heals all wounds but we are presently at war with Islamic factions who spread their ideology amongst mosques, and the terrorism they committed was not very long ago.

If this was 50 years after, or even 25 years after, feelings would probably be different but we're still too involved with those radical elements of the religion.

Side: No
MKIced(2511) Disputed
3 points

Why should we persecute all Arabs because a group of radicals did this? This is similar to the internment camps that the US created in WWII to keep Japanese-Americans captive.

Side: yes
2 points

The anti-Muslim sentiment that has been growing in America exacerbates the problem of Islam extremism.

We are a country founded on ideals of religious freedom and to even discuss NOT allowing a mosque near Ground Zero shows that we have come a long way from our founding.

Side: yes
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
1 point

We are founded on those principals, so why should we not expect those who want to build the mosque here in the United States go by the same principals.

If you went to Mecca and Medina, you not only wouldn't see a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue, you wouldn't see a non-Muslim. They're closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter. Yet we're told that we have to have this mosque in this place where Muslim terrorists relying on a construction of the Koran, mass murdered thousands of Americans.

Now because of our principal we have to allow others who do not follow that principal to do as they please?

Side: No
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
1 point

Yes.

We are not Saudi Arabia or North Korea or any number of other countries who do not support freedom. We are America. We are a nation founded on freedom and if we don't offer it to everyone, then it's not really freedom, is it? Freedom for some just doesn't work.

We're better than they are, so we say, so we sure as hell better act like it.

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6780) Disputed
0 points

The anti-Muslim sentiment that has been growing in America

There is a reason for this 'anti-Muslim (or, more specifically, anti-Semitic) sentiment; that is, they killed many people and have made their desire to kill known many times over !!

exacerbates the problem of Islam extremism.

It truly is* a problem, and the only way to defeat this problem is to get rid of all the Muslims.

We are a country founded on ideals of religious freedom

Why does the way in which America was founded matter today? It's all in the past now, liberals don't care about freedom of speech (cf. political correctness, et al), why should I care about freedom of religion?

and to even discuss NOT allowing a mosque near Ground Zero shows that we have come a long way from our founding.

It's been a tumultuous two-hundred-plus years, hasn't it?

Side: No
Spoonerism(831) Disputed
1 point

You're on very shaky ground here. "They" killed many people. The "they" here isn't Muslims, it's Muslim extremists. Terrorists, specifically. And non-terrorist Muslims aren't particularly fond of them, either.

It truly is a problem, and the only way to defeat this problem is to get rid of all the Muslims.

You don't honestly believe this do you? Are you advocating genocide? Or the banning of a set of religious beliefs within our borders? What exactly are you getting at, other than being incendiary?

And why does America's founding matter today? Oh, I don't know, maybe because we are what we are because of our foundation? Maybe because those ideals are the best thing about us? Or maybe just because it's right. Liberals are not one big mega-group like you tend to think. We are varied with varying opinions. Still, on the whole, its liberals who argue most often for freedom of speech (I've yet to meet a conservative who thinks flag burning should be protected...) but I digress.

Regardless of where you think any party or group stands with respect to the ideals America was founded upon, that does not change the inherent value of those ideals.

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6780) Disputed
1 point

You couldn't even copy-and-paste your argument? Rather, you supplied a link!

(idiot)

Side: No
1 point

You couldn't even copy-and-paste your argument? Rather, you supplied a link!

(idiot)

The purpose of the link is a polite suggestion to the creator of the debate to use the search function, as is common practice in any forum, but thank you for your feedback.

Side: yes
1 point

A lot of people who would disagree with this seem racist (or "religionist", I suppose) against Muslims. Let me tell you that 9/11 was not caused by every single Muslim. It was an attack against our nation, orchestrated by an extremely radical group of Muslims. Not every Muslim is a terrorist!

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6780) Disputed
0 points

or "religionist", I suppose

Anti-Semitic is the proper word.

Let me tell you that 9/11 was not caused by every single Muslim.

Of course not, there's too many of them rat bastards!

It was an attack against our nation, orchestrated by an extremely radical group of Muslims. Not every Muslim is a terrorist!

Prove both claims; that is, prove that not all Muslims are terrorists and prove that Muslims were even involved in 9/11.

Side: No
MKIced(2511) Disputed
1 point

Anti-Semitism refers to Jews only.

And to prove that not all Muslims are terrorists is simple. Go to a mosque in the US and meet one. They're Americans just like us. When the Nazis were on rampage throughout Europe, we didn't single out Germans (specifically Aryans). And maybe that's because they never attacked our soil. But what about the Japanese? They bombed Pearl Harbor and we turned around and imprisoned countless Japanese-Americans in internment camps. We imprisoned innocent Japanese people simply because other Japanese people were our enemies.

If you want to block all citizens of those Arabian nations from entering our country, that'd be one thing. But treating fellow Americans like that is unconstitutional. Whatever happened to the freedom of religion?

Side: yes
1 point

Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Islam.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Islam.

No one here is arguing that it is. Followers of Islam perpetrated that crime, in the name of their god.

Side: No
Scumbarge(116) Disputed
1 point

And yet somehow, their individual actions which they took as a result of their radical beliefs -beliefs which make up an extreme minority among muslims- reflect on every single other follower of Islam as a whole.

Right.

Side: yes

I don't care, and neither should the relatives of those who died there. A mosque shouldn't be associated with their deaths in such a way that it makes building a mosque offensive, and even if it is such: so what? Having the mosque there doesn't violate rights, its not in the realm of law to deny the building of it.

Side: yes
1 point

I suppose I don't really understand the opposing side here. For what reason would we circumvent local law? I assume the mosque has already been cleared with zoning and safety regulations, and so forth. As long as they are complying with the law, we are only allowing them to do what everybody else in this country has a right to do.

Are they merely spiting Muslims out of prejudice? Do they hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a sectarian radical group that attacked the twin towers? I don't really see any logical argument to deny such a structure.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

I suppose I don't really understand the opposing side here. For what reason would we circumvent local law? I assume the mosque has already been cleared with zoning and safety regulations, and so forth. As long as they are complying with the law, we are only allowing them to do what everybody else in this country has a right to do.

The issue is that nine years ago Muslim terrorists (in the name of Allah) killed 3000 civilians nearby, as in close proximity to the proposed mosque. Further the Mosque is named Cordoba, after a previous province that was a capital of Muslim rule 1000 years ago.

It is perceived as insensitive to promote a religion which condones conquest, intolerance and allows for terrorism near the site of victims of said terrorism.

The reaction is similar to what you might get if you zoned a Neonazi fellowship building in Jerusalem or a Zyklon B factory on top of the old concentration camps Austria and Germany.

Are they merely spiting Muslims out of prejudice? Do they hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a sectarian radical group that attacked the twin towers? I don't really see any logical argument to deny such a structure.

It's not prejudice. It's being offended at something that is intended to be as provocative as possible. The construction of said mosque is designed to be offensive to the memory of the victims of those attacks, that is why the mosque was built so close to the site of the attacks.

You need to look deeper into the construction of this building, the motivations behind it. They are not benevolent or innocent. It's like you're being slapped in the face and you're just looking at the fact that no laws prohibit this.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Maybe so, but do you not see the problem with blaming an entire religion of some 1.6 billion people for the actions of a small radical group within that religion? It is difficult for me to reason that prejudice is not playing some role in your response. Yes, the attack was done in the name of Islam, but not all of Islam condoned the attack. This would be the equivalent of blaming all white people for the actions of the KKK or blaming all Christians for the actions of Fred Phelps. It's sheer absurdity.

Islam uses the Hadith and Quran as the ultimate authority. The Quran condones terrorism, because it is legitimised as destroying unbelievers who attacked and insulted Muslims (because we support Israel and are in war in Afghanistan and Iraq). The beliefs and actions of the terrorists were not made up from unrelated material to Islam.

The correct analogy is to use a group assembled by ideology. This isn't a matter of race, so using it is a flawed analogy. Islam is a form of ideology, a belief structure, with divisions based on interpretation. They are required share similar beliefs, just like in Christianity, and the Quran is their authority. Because the Quran condones violence and intolerance it doesn't matter if we're talking about radicals who perpetrate the violence, or believers who are intolerant or merely unaware of the Quran's deeper theology, because a mosque endorses the Quran.

To use a parallel you might understand, imagine that Nazi radicals massacre a village of Jews then ten years later try to construct a tributary and study centre for Mein Kampf near the site of the massacre. These new Nazis didn't massacre anyone, and by your reasoning should be allowed to construct it because to deny them the right would be based on prejudice. They merely wish to promote the teachings of Mein Kampf.

Side: No
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
1 point

Any religious text written thousands of years ago is going to have some bad things in it. The old testament commands us to stone disobedient children to death, although we don't see very many Jews doing this. Why? Because no one is forced to follow every single thing their religion teaches, and in fact most people don't. People have minds of their own. Sometimes they invent excuses for why they don't follow a certain part of their holy book.

You are blaming all Muslims for what a few have done. This reminds me of when a friend of mine, who was born in Germany, but lived most of her life in the States, was physically attacked by the grand-daughter of a holocaust survivor. She automatically associated all Germans with Nazis, just as you automatically associate all Muslims with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

We must not build any churches near a moment to the Jim Jones massacre victims, despite the fact that the Jim Jones church was radically different than mainstream churches.

Side: yes
2 points

The argument is that not allowing the mosque near ground zero makes those who don't want it are intolerent.That is not the case at least in Christian nations. There are plenty of mosques throughout the United states,2300 plus . Several hundred in New York alone.

If you went to Mecca and Medina, you not only wouldn't see a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue, you wouldn't see a non-Muslim. They're closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter. Yet we're told that we have to have this mosque in this place where Muslim terrorists relying on a construction of the Koran, mass murdered thousands of Americans.

The intentions of the builders of the mosque make my vote a no.

The Cordoba Islamic Center is the proposed mosque. Cordoba was the name of the caliphate that conquered Spain and ruled it, often brutally, for about half a millennium. The guy behind the project is someone who has said that he would like to see Sharia law more insinuated into American law. The thought of having a mosque erected over the ruins of two of the great pillars of the Western economy and Western Civilization would be an enormous propaganda victory.

Side: No
Conro(767) Disputed
4 points

"...at least in Christian nations"

What was the point of that statement. It had no relevance to your argument, except to elevate a supposedly Christian country above an Islamic one.

"They're closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter."

That is the country's decision. If the country wishes to be a theocracy, then as that country is sovereign, they have the right to do so. Additionally, those are holy cities. I wouldn't call New York "holy"...

Do you have any sources for your last paragraph. Cordoba was a huge cultural center in the 9th and 10th centuries. Of course, by its downfall it had been corrupted (hence the downfall), but up until then, it remained rather peaceful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph_of_Córdoba). Additionally, please provide sources on Imam Feisal Abdul rauf's view that there should be more Sharia law. After the September 11 attacks he said "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam".

Supporting Evidence: "The guy behind the project" (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: yes
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
1 point

No elevation here.................. we are asked to be tolerant while others are not.

Supporting Evidence: Here's one (www.shoebat.com)
Side: No
Scumbarge(116) Disputed
0 points

So because other countries do not have the same rights as us, we should deny freedom of religion to Muslim Americans in the name of fairness.

That makes perfect fucking sense.

Side: yes
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
1 point

Whose's denying freedom of religion? 2300 mosques in the US.

That's the fucking facts to use your language.

Side: No
2 points

Besides the fact that we don't need more religious structures erected in this day and age, my main argument is that it is highly insensitive to the victims of a terrorist bombing which happened there less than ten years ago, by Muslims in the name of their religion.

Whether or not the mosque is Wahhabi, Sunni, or Shi'a it is inappropriate to place it right next to the site of victims of Muslim terrorism.

Side: No
2 points

@JGalt13 First of all, The Crusades were not justified by the Christian bible. This is the difference. There are many references in the Quran about killing infidels (non-Muslims). Islam is a threat to the world and the U.S. should not support by giving it permission to build a mosque on Ground Zero.

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

@JGalt13 First of all, The Crusades were not justified by the Christian bible. This is the difference.

You need to read your bible. Besides the wars in the name of god condoned in the book, there's also the strong condemnation of other gods.

Side: No
Troy8(2433) Disputed
1 point

I don't quite understand what it is you are trying to say, please expand on your short comment.

Side: yes
1 point

you have all got it wrong look at the facts, nature of human ( clothed ape!!!) there are far to many of them living upon the land that is unable to support them regard less of religion. the ever expanding population will stop. what goes up must come down! regardless of dates, time there will be a decline of the human, simple fact just look at his story or history! get over it! all religions helped humans to be able to survive. but that is now the problem!

the red Indians had a good religion unfortunate for them there was a religion called technology! why not build a tee pee, or a bomb shelter Mr bush could use one of them to hide in lol. let nature have the land back! no more building or development! much needed common sense.

Side: No
1 point

They should build something more productive to society. They should re-build the World Trade Centers, or at least build something as beneficial as them. I don't care if it's a Mosque, a Church, a Movie Theater, a supermarket, whatever. They should build something worthwhile.

Side: No
1 point

I have no problem with the mosque. But i don't believe any building of worship should be built there. There are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples etc. Build a museum, school or something. The performance art center and gym sound fine, why bring any religion into the complex? Leave it free of religion for all to enjoy.

Side: No