The Supposed "Ground Zero Mosque" should be built.

Thanks to Pro for a lively debate on a controversial topic. Pro argues that not forbidding the Mosque from being built is the same as advocating it should be built. Pro reflects the arguments of many of the supporters of the Mosque, that the reason for building it is that there is a right to do so. The argument is wrong. I agree that the Mosque should not be prohibited, but that asserting the right under law does not mean the decision is wise. The distinction between having a right and choosing to exercise it is clear to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid. President Obama upheld the distinction. Senator Reid upheld the distinction and went further to advocate the Mosque be moved. Why do 68% of Americans object to the building as planned on that site? Building it poses the 9/11 tragedy as being a cultural conflict rather than a terrorist act, and that is inappropriate. I challenged Pro to analyze my hypothetical of building an American cultural center at ground zero in Hiroshima. Should that be done? Pro did not respond. I think he knows perfectly well that it is bad idea and should not be done. The reason is that whether there is an intent to be confrontational or not, it would be confrontational. How about building a Christian cultural center in Mecca? Pro wouldn't say. I believe it is clear that the path to peaceful relations does not lie in unnecessary confrontation. Pro's silence, I claim, shows he understands that. Is a church that has a cultural facility attached properly viewed as a church or as a cultural facility? In American law, the Courts rule it is a church and as such entitled to freedom of religion Constitutional guarantees. The Courts understand that a church comprises the facilities for a religious community, not just a sanctuary for worship. Americans understand this intuitively. Nearly all churches welcome outsiders into their community, but the facility is there to support the religious community. In the case of the Mosque, if its purpose were nonsectarian, it would have been proposed as having interfaith management. That would have ended opposition and brought acclaim. Pro claims that Americans do not know where the Mosque is or that it has multiple functions. He presents no data to support his conjecture. News stories give accurate information and Mosque proponents stress the location and functions. People know the situation. Pro claims that building the Mosque as proposed would "reinforce the distinction between the two - peaceful Muslims and terrorists." For the 32% of the American people who want the Mosque built it probably would, but for the 68% who do not it would make the situation worse. I explained why. Pro did not refute my argument, he only reasserted his premise. Pro provided no polling data, opinions of community leaders, or statements of American Muslims that confrontation would be beneficial. The data I presented shows the Mosque would make matters worse. I challenged Pro to produce evidence of anyone in the Arab Muslim world who recommends that the path of cultural confrontation be broadly applied as a way of improving relations between Islam and the West. Surely, anyone who believes in the principle would want a Christian cultural center in Mecca or some other sacred place in Saudi Arabia. Pro again ignored my argument. Only a minority of Americans and few others in the world believe in "peace through cultural confrontation." In this debate, Pro did not progress much beyond his original list of unsupported assertions. He provided no sources or informed opinion to support his case. We should reject the resolution for the same reason that the Saudi Prince backing the Mosque now believes it should be moved rather than built as planned. The resolution is negated.