As the debate over the proposed Mosque located near the Ground Zero site in New York City continues, I’ve heard many opinions on the radio and read many online. They have ranged from First Amendment arguments to arguments over sensitivity.
Our long-time friend over at EGO has the following advice when approaching the topic:
It is important that the resistance against the building of the mosque is based on rational arguments and that you prevent that the demonstrations against it will be hijacked by “dark elements” (read: collectivists) as it happened in Gothenburg, Sweden. I think that Dr. Leonard Peikoff and Amy Peikoff have given the best arguments for not having a mosque in New York city, near Ground Zero.
The New Clarion defines two possible realities:
In this case, since the government is defaulting on its proper role (the safeguarding of a civilized order, where such things as property rights hold sway), we are placed in the position of considering the lesser of two choices, both of which are rotten when seen in the light of derivative principles, but nonetheless necessary. Choices like this are of an emergency nature, like medical triage, and involve tradeoffs (NOT “sacrifices”) that morally we should never be asked to make.
In this case, the alternative we face is the following: permitting the enemy a symbolic success as Embedded I describes here, versus interdicting that symbol at the cost of emboldening the statists, our enemies in *this* country — and of further sanctioning the accelerating expansion of an out-of-control State.
Our friends over at Questions and Observations add:
Exactly right. Another way of saying all of this is “grow up”. You either have religious freedom and ownership rights or you don’t. It isn’t a “right” if it can be selectively applied under the arbitrary rubric of “what is right” fueled by bigotry.
And, as inevitable as the rising sun, you can count on politicians gearing up for a run for office to grab the populist opportunity to chime in and side with the bigots because it is the popular thing to do.
Taking a different approach on the issue, the Atheist Revolution proposes:
For me, the problem with the proposed center is not that it is Muslim but that it is religious in any way. Given that 9/11 probably would not have happened but for religion, it seems like a secular center to promote tolerance would be a more appropriate choice. The thing is, that is not what is being proposed. So the question must be about whether this particular center should be permitted and not about whether some other hypothetical center would be better.
I so not see any defensible grounds for denying permission to build the proposed center. Yes, we could have a “no religion of any kind near Ground Zero” policy, but this would not be constitutional. So yeah, if it was my decision (and I am glad it isn’t), I’d allow the proposed center to be built. There is no other choice.
TalkLeft chimes in with the following:
I agree the Islamic Center has every bit as much of a right to be built on the site as any other kind of building. To reject it because of 9/11 is to further the very prejudices we should be striving to overcome.
Islam is a religion, it is not al Qaeda. Tolerance will get us a lot farther than blind prejudice.
Lastly, our fellow SeededBuzzer Just Joe adds:
I haven’t said anything yet about the Ground Zero Mosque issue. Too many other ridiculous voices were making noise over how peaceful Muslims should “refudiate” the mosque and others who think we should flush the entire First Amendment and not build any mosques anywhere until Saudi Arabia decides to build churches.
In my view, it boils down to two things: doing what’s right and what you have the right to do. Those wanting to build the Mosque have the right to do so as long as it meets the local zoning laws. As the vote earlier this week shows, the city has no plan to block the construction of the Mosque. On the other hand, they might better serve the city by choosing an alternate location away from a controversial site. If the Mosque is going to draw the ire of the local community, it is possible that it could lead to vandalism of the Mosque because it might become a symbol that caused the tragedy on September 11th.
My hope mirrors that of the Atheist Revolution. If the site is used more as a cultural center rather than a religious facility, it might help to heal some of the wounds caused by a handful of fanatics. We’ve mended fences with the citizens of Japan, and we can do the same with Muslims.
Loading ...
“If the Mosque is going to draw the ire of the local community, it is possible that it could lead to vandalism of the Mosque because it might become a symbol that caused the tragedy on September 11th.” You think?
Common sense dictates that if your intention is to build a bridge to mend harmful relationships then you do not poke the eye of the person you are trying to build a bridge to. If the real intent of this “mosque” was to mend the wound caused by 9-11 then why are you so intent on causing unrest in the very people you intend to reach out to? The best thing these Muslims could do IMO is to use the money slated for this eyesoar to pay the victims families for the horror they had to endure as a result of Islam. Building a mosgue only honors the Muslim religion and does nothing for those who suffered at the hands of that religion.
You said: “If the site is used more as a cultural center rather than a religious facility, it might help to heal some of the wounds caused by a handful of fanatics. We’ve mended fences with the citizens of Japan, and we can do the same with Muslims.”
A culrural center could be built by the city and not by some “secret” Muslim backed group if the intent was to educate the people. I do not think the people of New York need anyone telling them anything about 9-11 they lived through it. And the people of New York are telling anyone who will listen that this is a BAD IDEA!
And your comment about mending fences with Japan does not mean we erect a statue to a Japanese warrior at Pearl Harbor. We dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan and defeated them before we even thought about mending fences. Perhaps had we dropped a nuke on the Muslims and defeat them then perhaps we can consider mending fences.
I know this sounds harsh but I am offended that anyone would even try to justify this whole obsurd idea that a Mosque is a fitting symbol for mending fences at “ground zero.” It is a slap in the face! If no one else will say it then I will. No Mosque No Way No How for No Reason. I learned all I needed to learn about the Muslim religion on 9-11 and since we are still at war with adherents to that religion in Afghanistan and Iraq this whole mosgue thing makes no damn sense to me let alone common sense. Eagle Out!
I don't really disagree with much of what you say. Personally, I think it is in bad taste for this controversial mosque to be built there, especially when there are claims that there isn't a significant Muslim population in that section of the city.
However, you have to remember that the city has chosen not to take action to block the development of this Mosque. Therefore, “if” it gets built (there is a lot of speculation that the do not have the funds to build it), then I would “hope” that it is used to mend fences. That is the point of the article. I am not advocating the construction, but rather a use of the facility if it is built.
And fear not, you did not offend. It is a very passionate issue. The point of this web site is to allow people to voice their opinions freely so we can have as many views as possible to come up with the right decision.
Thank you for your response. The more I think about this whole issue the more it really irks me. I can not see how building this mosque anywhere near “ground zero” is going to do anything but pour salt in an already sore wound. Let's think about this a little more. What if a Christian group decided to build a 3000+ cross at ground zero. And then to add just a bit more irony put a Star of David in the middle of it. Engrave the cross with the family names of those who died on that spot and point it square at the Mosque so that everytime they look out their windows they are confronted with the shadow of the cross. Now do you suppose the Muslims would see this as a bridge to mend tensions or fuel for the fire of intolerance?
Which would be a more fitting symbol though for peace and tolerance, the cross of Christ who died for everyone or a huge Mosque whose adherents blow up innocent people? I say the cross but I wonder if Bloomberg would support a cross being build at ground zero.