the title is the debate in which I am starting. Fire away your opinions
Yes, yes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a pretty piss-poor American.
I think that it should be built, but perhaps even more blocks away. Then it will be built but it should also quiet the protestors down.
No one is proposing a “ground zero mosque”.
I find nothing positive about kowtowing to the ignorant. The “protestors” are nothing more than reactionary fools who work harder making America less American than the terrorist ever could.
The proposed site already several blocks away from Ground Zero. And it isn’t a mosque, either.
So what else ya got?
It should be built, wherever the developers have property to build it on, as long as the building and use does not violate pre-existing zoning and use laws.
End. Of. Story.
Already did WHAT to Ground Zero?
I was expecting more in deep thoughts relating to “the emotions of americans” and “freedom of religion” and such. but this is fair enough
At this point moving it would be bowing to the protesters argument that Islam itself, rather then the particular beliefs of Al-Queda members, was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. Given that the organization thats building the community centers mission is more or less to demonstrate the opposite of that, I don’t see how they can move it now.
Out of curiosity, anyone know where one can donate money to the place? I feel strongly building it demonstrates something good about the US, and like to put my money where my mouth is.
The proposed Muslim community center that has been falsely labeled the “Ground Zero Mosque” by people in the Right Wing media to stir up an audience, is an effort by a local group of Muslims to continue their efforts of reconciliation between Muslim and Western communities in which they have engaged for over twenty years.
The building site is two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, behind two separate buildings that are each taller than the proposed community center, (meaning the Ground Zero location will not even be visible from the proposed building).
The opposition was manufactured by lies spread by certain demagogues who claimed that it was “on” the WTC site and that they wanted to dedicate the building on the tenth anniversary of the al Qaida attack. The lies were further promoted by Fox News–which had originally commented that it was a good idea before it became clear that various personalities wanted to increase their ratings by promoting xenophobia.
There is no reason for the site to be relocated and it should be built.
(The organizers of the construction have actually offered to change the location, but none of the foaming-at-the-mouth xenophobes who have demanded it be moved have offered to buy the original building, an action that would need to occur so that the organization would have funds to buy a new site.)
This issue was discussed (at great length with much heat) several months ago: Mosque to be built two blocks from Ground Zero
Then you should have posed a more deeply thoughtful debate.
I do not, because I think they should build it closer to (if not directly atop) Ground Zero, and it’s a total cop out. It should be the Mosquiest Mosque that ever Mosqued.
I’d actually love to see a mosque incorporated into a non-denomination, multi-use prayer space in whatever finally ends up replacing the WTC’s (they haven’t built anything yet, have they? It’s been a while since I was living in NY). I’d especially love it if the Islamic portion of said prayer space highlighted the importance of interfaith (and non-faith) respect and cooperation and the fact that out of the entire world, Muslims are freest, most prosperous and most secure in their personal liberty in nations like the United States.
Failing that, I will settle for anything that makes Glen Beck’s head explode.
Yes, the Cordoba House/Park 51 project should be built (let’s use the proper name and location - rather the the propagandized name)
I have not yet read the book, but from the NYT review of RATIFICATION* The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 *By Pauline Maier, I was fascinated to learn that during the debate and ratification of the constitution, "Many opponents of the Constitution wanted religious tests that would keep pagans, deists, “Mahometans” and “Popish priests” from holding office. "
I guess that those sentiments still exist, but oddly enough, in those who think we should literally follow the constitution - when actually they are reviving old objections to the constitiution.
It’s funny how this whole issue has dropped from the headlines since the elections, isn’t it?
Whatever the Cordoba House may actually be, the one thing I don’t see how it could be is a “community center.” The whole concept of a community center seems to me like it should necessarily be a non-religious place, at least in a city that doesn’t have one official religion. Shouldn’t a “community center” be a place for the whole community to come, regardless of their religion?
Wikipedia says this about community centers:
I do not understand the idea of a community center being for a specialized group within the greater community. It doesn’t make sense to me. If it’s for a specialized group, then it’s not for the community.
I don’t believe that any religious institution should call itself a community center. It should call itself, in this case, an “Islamic center.”
A community doesn’t have to be a geographical community.
Anyway, it’s not a mosque, but that doesn’t matter. Of course it should be built. I ony wish it could be built right in the footprint with a giant American flag right in front of it. That’s what America is about.
Umm…OK. But there’s a Jewish Community Center near the proposed Cordoba House, YMCA christian community centers in every sizable town in the country, etc, etc. Regardless of what you feel a community center should mean, its pretty obvious that as the term is actually used, it doesn’t preclude religious groups from running them.