Should a Mosque be allowed at Ground Zero?
Yes
Side Score: 10
|
 |
No
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
9/11 was committed by Muslims, but not for Islam. The motivation for the attacks were not religious, they were political. Bin Laden has claimed that his most driving factor is US policy in Israel. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has claimed the same. The official stance of the Taliban is that regional US policy goes against their views - not only in Israel, but in Saudi, and toward Iran. That's not to say that religion was not a factor in the attacks, but it was not the leading factor, and without it, I still believe that the attacks would have occurred. Ultimately, it was the actions of the US which lead to the motivation, and the anger, that brought about the attacks. Therefore, I see no problem with having a Mosque at Ground Zero (that is, not at Ground Zero, but near, as was planned). To lump all activities by Muslims as 'Islamic' is ignorant. It would be like not allowing a Church to be built on Utoya Island (Norwegian shooting), just being Breivek identified as a Christian. Side: Yes
1
point
First and foremost, I vehemently despise any attempt to stifle freedom of or from religion, or to associate an entire demographic with a tiny extremist minority. I guess by the same reasoning it would be insensitive for Christians to build churches in Norway, or Spain, or England because at some point some Christians decided to murder some people there. If you think that a Mosque near ground zero is offensive, you're a fucking idiot. If you think that it shouldn't be allowed, i.e. stopped by force, you are a fascist piece of shit. Sorry. Side: Yes
1
point
I guess by the same reasoning it would be insensitive for Christians to build churches in Norway, or Spain, or England because at some point some Christians decided to murder some people there. This doesn't compute. A better example, by the same reasoning, would be to ask if it would be insensitive for Christian fundamentalists to build a church adjacent to the LP Youth Camp where a Christian fundamentalist killed 69 people because of and for his Christian beliefs. And I would say, hell yes it is. I have absolutely no problem with mosques being built in America. Obviously. Or even New York. They're both very big places, and everyone is welcome. I do have a problem with a fundamentalist Muslim group building a mosque that overlooks the site of the most successful (i.e. deadly) fundamentalist Muslim terrorist attack in America. And I have a problem with their absolute refusal to even discuss moving it to another site because it emphasizes the provocative and offensive nature of the whole thing. Well, to be fair, the old developer said he would have picked a different site if given the chance to do it all over again, but then he was kicked off the commission shortly after saying that, and he was replaced with a more fundamentalist and less moderate Imam. And "more fundamentalist" really means something, here: the old Imam refused to acknowledged terrorist groups as actually being terrorists, and blamed America for 9/11. That moderate. Imagine the new one. Let me ask you, should Neo-Nazis, or modern German blood-purists be allowed to build a building dedicated to their beliefs across from, say, Auschwitz? Or any other place the Holocaust once took place and there is now a Holocaust memorial? Okay, lets say they're allowed to, does this mean it isn't tasteless and deliberately provocative? The Park51 site was chosen in the first place specifically because of its proximity to Ground Zero. The developers refuse to discuss moving it because, to them, this isn't about building a mosque, this is about where they're building a mosque, and what kind of triumphant political statement that makes. If this wasn't their goal, they might have reacted differently to the overwhelming public outcry; instead they plod on right ahead. I'm not exactly for the government stepping in and saying the mosque isn't allowed. There's no legal basis for that. I just think it should be noted that if this degree of calculated insult was aimed by Christians at Muslims, instead of the other way around, well... the building would have been ransacked, looted, and burned, already. And in the spirit of the over-sensitivity the Muslim world likes to feign (people killed over a video!?) you'd think they could at least practice what they preach. Or whine about, as the case may be. Side: No
It's not about stifling religious freedom. Nor is it about association via demographic. The predominant religion in the three countries you named is Christianity, just as it is in America, so of course no one would be offended at that. While a cold-blooded murder committed against an innocent person is horrible, it pales in comparison to the heinous acts committed AGAINST OUR ENTIRE NATION by an extremist Muslim religious group. I think it is a slap in this nation's face that the request was even made to build a mosque there. There is a constant reminder of what happened at ground zero. Why add insult to injury? Side: No
1
point
|
I don't really care, but I find religious buildings offensive and worthy of fire no matter what religion. However, I'm sure that if it's built, it will be built to inspire war. It would get Christian Americans angry, and thus motivate them to continue fighting in the war. Side: No
1
point
Irrelevant to the question, but I just have to ask. If you saw a Church, housing deeply Christian nuns, who dedicated their lives to helping the disadvantaged in society, and were just some of the lovliest people you've ever met, would you find that religious building offensive? Personally, I dislike many aspects of religion, but that's not to say that it's all bad, or that they deserve to be pulled down (if that's what you're implying?). Religious buildings, just as any other, can take my breath away. Side: Yes
1
point
I'm usually all for freedom of... well... everything, but I do think certain things cross the line. Building a Mosque over Ground Zero is like pissing on the grave of everyone who died on 9/11. It would be like allowing Neo-Nazis to have a convention at a Holocaust memorial. That instance crosses over from being freedom of association to a deliberate and calculated (and very grievous) insult, very quickly, and I think this issue is similar. New York, and, for that matter, the US are very big places. And yet the fundie-funded Islamist developers specifically and uncompromisingly chose a site overlooking the scene of the most significant Muslim atrocity on American soil. Coincidence? Bullshit. Side: No
1
point
You are obviously an asshole. I don't even care calling you that cuz you have the BALLS to comment something so bizarre. People have built mosques, temple and churches- TO PRAY! Not cuz it embarks someone's colonial rule alright? There are a hundred mosques in America already you loser. GROW YOUR head around yourself, will ya? Side: Yes
1
point
Let's look at a historical example, shall we? Cordoba, Spain, was at one time ruled by Christian Spaniards, and was then conquered by Muslims. As a symbol of their victory the Muslims converted a Christian church into The Great Mosque of Cordoba, which still stands today. Guess what the Ground Zero mosque project is called? Cordoba House! Side: No
This is a really old debate and its on with its entity. Do they need to commemorate something that is yet to symbolize tyranny over the very existence of religions and castes and their on going tiffs. No thanks... That is some place people died and whatever the cause and person behind you do not need people to hang over heels on that. Side: No
I honestly don't think that ANY religious building should be built/allowed at ground zero. Christians, Muslims and many people of other religions died in 9/11. The war on terrorism and the Christian vs Islam war is almost as high as it's been in modern era. Any religious building built at such a historic place would cause probable retaliation from either religious group. And don't forget: every religions have radicals. Side: No
1
point
|
