The Building of a Mosque Near the WTC Site

Personally, I believe that they have every right to a build a mosque there. However, I question why they would even want one there. Sure, you could see it as a symbolic gesture, but what good really is that church after it's put up? Because of its location and publicity, nobody is going to be able to worship there peacfully, which in my opinion is the most important thing to consider when building a place of worship. These protests and threats probably won't go away to soon even after the mosque is built. If a muslim goes to worship there, they'll be made the targets of discrimination by many of the anti-muslims in the city. I can't help but think back to the civil rights movment when black churches were burned to the ground by the KKK. I doubt it would happen now, but just the threat of such a thing would compromise any type of peace of mind that one could find while worshiping there. Then again, maybe they're looking ahead to once this whole thing cools down and muslims are no longer a target of aggression, but still, the people who worship there will have to put up with a lot in the mean time. So, while I support their wish to build a mosque where ever they want, I question wether building it near ground zero will really benifit any of the Muslim individuals who simply want to practice their beliefs in peace.

 

"However, I question why they would even want one there. Sure, you could see it as a symbolic gesture, but what good really is that church after it's put up?"

The 'mosque' that is currently in operation 4 blocks away from Ground Zero is overcrowded and regular queues are formed for prayers. So yes there is the demand. Besides only a small fraction of it is worship space for muslims.

"If a muslim goes to worship there, they'll be made the targets of discrimination by many of the anti-muslims in the city. I can't help but think back to the civil rights movment when black churches were burned to the ground by the KKK."

I think you are overreacting. Afterall it's not some backwater Texan village, it's Manhattan. And what could be worse than actually giving in to the bigotry? It's the same argument as the anti-same sex marrige argument that homosexual couples shouldn't be able to adopt because some little ****ers in school are going to pick on them.

 

Now now, as I seem to recall they had a perfectly legitimate reason for doing that despite their desire to help first responders. I can't exactly remember what their reasoning was without looking it back up, but I remember they gave their assurance it was for the better good

edit: Ok, refreshed my memory. Basically it was about economic recovery. I found a great Daily Show clip about it below. My guess (I'd have to research more) is that Jon Stewart is being a bit disingenuous by focusing on the subject of the proposed tax increase, since it probably has more to do about projected impact on foreign investment in the U.S. economy, but it is still a crying shame.

The comments by Rep. Brady are particularly...well /facepalm.

But the reported reason as to WHY the Democratics opted for the procedure requiring a two-thirds majority is equally /facepalm

http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/p...for-911-responders-over-political-expediency/

ps. If you watch it through the end, does anyone else feel like a Team America joke should have been inserted? If the republicans are all a bunch of assholes, and the democrats a bunch of ****in' *******, then what we really need is some leaders who are a bunch of ****s. Because ****s **** *******, but sometimes they also **** ***holes

 

why isn't the last word cencored?


Well, apparently a dutch politician was protesting the center (he said mosque) today. Our collective apologies for sending Wilders your way.

 

nm. it is obvious. It isn't censored because it isn't on the censored list. I thought the first instance was censored at first when you asked only about the last word, so I got confused.