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.
