There was already a mosque at the WTC (after Al Qaeda attacked it). There is a mosque at the Pentagon (also attacked on 9-11) and there is a Buddhist temple at PH (despite the Japanese attack). The fact is that the anti-mosque argument (which ignores that it's a multi-faith/secular community center) is based on the fact that the previously listed don't exist (yet they do). I'm tired of hearing it called the 'GZ mosque' when it's 4 (not 2) blocks away. I'm tired of hearing people complain about the mosque when it's not strictly a mosque and is and is in fact meant to house the goring congregation of an existing mosque just 1 mile away that nobody seems to mind. I'm tired of people asking why they want to build it here but not build 'offending' religious sites at the Pentagon or PH when such sites have existed for decades. I'm tired of people calling the imam a terrorist yet parroting talking points from Fox News, which he partially owns. In short, I'm tired of lies just to score political points.
That was a really long response. I can make a longer one. How many of the facilities you mentioned were in existence before 9/11?
Whether you are tired of this or that isn't at issue. The Mosque is sufficiently close to GZ to be noted as the GZ mosque.
The "anti-mosque argument" wasn't an argument. I asked a question and I noted what
your argument was... your assertion is that because these other facilities exist we cannot voice objection about this new facility. That's not a very good argument. The existence or non extistence of something similar does not require nor deny same in the present or future. It is a reasonable analogy as far as it goes but the circumstances are not directly on point. 9/11 matters.
Multi-faith facility? No, it isn't a multifaith facility. They claim that is their intent but it is not currently true. As such you should probably stop refering to it as something it is not.... I'm tired of pointing out your errors of fact.
There are times when a visceral response has merit. This is one of those times. I know you are tired of it but there are plenty many people who disagree. The Imam could avoid this controvery by building elsewhere. Doing so would, imo, be a great step forward in promoting interfaith community and peace. Moving the planned site would show respect to the feelings of those who object to the proposed site. Arguments that accuse those who do not like the site of being liars and parrots is not an argument
for but an assertion of
you cannot tell me no. When we do things over the objections of others we tend to piss them off. When we tell those angry people that they are liars and that their objections are meaningless it tends to piss them off more. This is a great way to achieve they exact opposite of their claimed intent.
Lastly, when Imam Rauf tells us that failing to build on the proposed site could lead to his co-religionists committing acts of violence he validates the concerns people have regarding jihadi terrorism. If the Imam warns us that Muslims will blow things up it is a good idea to take him at his word. That being true, if we permit building because of a fear of attack we have been intimidated. That pisses off those same people noted above even further.
Because of these issues building on the proposed site is a horrible idea.
FTR and because I'm tired of correcting the lies others have continued to hew to; they have the right to build on the site. That is not in dispute. It not about whether they
can it is about whether they
should.
