Then I learned that this name is a misnomer--it's actually two blocks away from Ground Zero. My opposition quickly faded away in the warm and cherished parchment of the U.S. Constitution.
Shortly thereafter, I learned that the Imam behind the creation of this Mosque is a radical bloke--stating that U.S. policy was "complicit" with the 9/11 attacks. He also refuses to label Hamas a terrorist organization. My support was withdrawn.
Then it was made known to me that this "moderate" Imam is a "goodwill ambassador" for the Obama administration, preaching an (in his words) "Americanized Islam" to the rest of the Muslim world (courtesy of U.S. taxpayers). My opposition calcified.
Taxpayer dollars have no business flying radical clerics across the globe to speak with other radicals who happen to be closer to Mecca.
Public funds also have no business funding such a religious building project in direct violation of constitutional principles.
Public funds also have no business funding such a religious building project in direct violation of constitutional principles.
Once the doting Obama threw himself in the fray of the controversy, the majority (68%!) of Americans had made up their minds that the mosque should not be built.
We now see some interesting fallout as a result of the president's intervention (or perhaps due to his previous religious ambiguity)...24% of Americans in a recent poll thought Obama was Muslim. One in four!
In the end, this issue boils down to 3,000 deceased persons whose families have sworn never to forget or dishonor.
To have a symbol of the fanaticism (in the minds of most victims' families) that drove men to kill next-door to the literal killing field and burial ground of their loved ones' is simply unacceptable.
Nine years is simply too soon to have had their collective memories fade enough from the horror and death they experienced.
7 comments:
Rather than sanctifying the ground because of the terrorism, think of opposition to the mosque as an indication of the shortsightedness of our society. In every generation there has been an enemy that must be challenged on every front - from the fear of Catholics in the 18th century to fear of the Chinese in the early 20th century to the Nazis to the Communists to the Russians and now to the Muslims. The denigration of Islam as a whole "in defense of country" will seem as ridiculous to our grandchildren as McCarthyism is to us.
By arguing against the mosque all you're saying is that because someone who suffered a real loss may be offended by the location of the mosque, then it ought not to be built. That, though, encourages the very stereotype that is ridiculous - the foolishness of demonizing an entire group because of the actions of discrete individuals. True, the Imam made some statements about 9/11 that could be deemed offensive (at least if read completely out of context in a Fox News excerpt), but that doesn't mean that the facility as a whole is a slap in the face to all the people who lost loved ones. One person's statements are not indicative of a religion (ever heard of "Mormon Doctrine" First Edition?).
Arguing that an organization shouldn't build a religious building because of a fear of offending someone else is a ludicrous proposition. Think of the Boston Temple or the Jerusalem Center - the same arguments made against the proposed mosque were used against both of those edifices and the arguments are just as ridiculous in the present situation. People have the freedom to choose and that includes the choice to be offended whether any offense was intended or not. We shouldn't encourage people to be offended simply because of a religion. If you think someone is doing something wrong, then show them a better option and encourage them to choose that option, don't just criticize the choice.
Also, as a parting point, your characterization of President Obama's stance is disingenuous at best - he stated that the developers of the proposed mosque have a right to build it which is absolutely correct under the constitution; he never commented on the wisdom of them actually following through. I won't defend President Obama's decision to even address the issue - he definitely should not have - but please don't resort to strawman arguments to tear it down.
Rather than sanctifying the ground because of the terrorism, think of opposition to the mosque as an indication of the shortsightedness of our society. In every generation there has been an enemy that must be challenged on every front - from the fear of Catholics in the 18th century to fear of the Chinese in the early 20th century to the Nazis to the Communists to the Russians and now to the Muslims. The denigration of Islam as a whole "in defense of country" will seem as ridiculous to our grandchildren as McCarthyism is to us.
By arguing against the mosque all you're saying is that because someone who suffered a real loss may be offended by the location of the mosque, then it ought not to be built. That, though, encourages the very stereotype that is ridiculous - the foolishness of demonizing an entire group because of the actions of discrete individuals. True, the Imam made some statements about 9/11 that could be deemed offensive (at least if read completely out of context in a Fox News excerpt), but that doesn't mean that the facility as a whole is a slap in the face to all the people who lost loved ones. One person's statements are not indicative of a religion (ever heard of "Mormon Doctrine" First Edition?).
Arguing that an organization shouldn't build a religious building because of a fear of offending someone else is a ludicrous proposition. Think of the Boston Temple or the Jerusalem Center - the same arguments made against the proposed mosque were used against both of those edifices and the arguments are just as ridiculous in the present situation. People have the freedom to choose and that includes the choice to be offended whether any offense was intended or not. We shouldn't encourage people to be offended simply because of a religion. If you think someone is doing something wrong, then show them a better option and encourage them to choose that option, don't just criticize the choice.
Also, as a parting point, your characterization of President Obama's stance is disingenuous at best - he stated that the developers of the proposed mosque have a right to build it which is absolutely correct under the constitution; he never commented on the wisdom of them actually following through. I won't defend President Obama's decision to even address the issue - he definitely should not have - but please don't resort to strawman arguments to tear it down.
Part 1
Rather than sanctifying the ground because of the terrorism, think of opposition to the mosque as an indication of the shortsightedness of our society. In every generation there has been an enemy that must be challenged on every front - from the fear of Catholics in the 18th century to fear of the Chinese in the early 20th century to the Nazis to the Communists to the Russians and now to the Muslims. The denigration of Islam as a whole "in defense of country" will seem as ridiculous to our grandchildren as McCarthyism is to us.
By arguing against the mosque all you're saying is that because someone who suffered a real loss may be offended by the location of the mosque, then it ought not to be built. That, though, encourages the very stereotype that is ridiculous - the foolishness of demonizing an entire group because of the actions of discrete individuals. True, the Imam made some statements about 9/11 that could be deemed offensive (at least if read completely out of context in a Fox News excerpt), but that doesn't mean that the facility as a whole is a slap in the face to all the people who lost loved ones. One person's statements are not indicative of a religion (ever heard of "Mormon Doctrine" First Edition?).
Part Two
Arguing that an organization shouldn't build a religious building because of a fear of offending someone else is a ludicrous proposition. Think of the Boston Temple or the Jerusalem Center - the same arguments made against the proposed mosque were used against both of those edifices and the arguments are just as ridiculous in the present situation. People have the freedom to choose and that includes the choice to be offended whether any offense was intended or not. We shouldn't encourage people to be offended simply because of a religion. If you think someone is doing something wrong, then show them a better option and encourage them to choose that option, don't just criticize the choice.
Also, as a parting point, your characterization of President Obama's stance is disingenuous at best - he stated that the developers of the proposed mosque have a right to build it which is absolutely correct under the constitution; he never commented on the wisdom of them actually following through. I won't defend President Obama's decision to even address the issue - he definitely should not have - but please don't resort to strawman arguments to tear it down.
Lets go back to that parchment: separation of church and state.
Obama's actions = endorsement. Which is not allowed.
Is it 2012 yet? I am so sick of him.
If the vast majority of the families of the deceased do not will its construction, I think their wishes should be honored.
That's the whole point of this post.
I also should like to snub this radical Imam being supported by taxpayer dollars by opposing its construction.
That's the second-tier reason why I'm opposed.
Post a Comment