Is it appropiate to build a muslim religious center near the world trade center

The Old Testament said stone adulterers in Levitivus 20:10. Jesus stood against the concept in John 8:7. In Leviticus 11 we see lists of "unclean foods". In Mark 7:19, Jesus stands against the concept. (See Romans 14:14,15). There are seversl OT commands renounced by Christ. Christians don't hold hands with the full rubix cube of Moses' Leviticus commands. They hold Jesus as their final authority. Islam has no New Testament. -There is a time and a place for all kinds of things. For example, there is nothing wrong with building a museum of Japanese military history in my mind, but would the place for that be Pearl Harbor? No. Inappropriate.Or how about "God hate f*gs" signs at a funeral? No. Inappropriate.-----Why should there be no mosque at Ground Zero specifically? Radical Muslims flew planes into the World Trade Centers in the name of Islam. For a group of Muslims to try to gain from that act by building a mosque on that spot is insensitive, disgusting, and utterly maddening. Not only will many of the family members of the people who died on 9/11 be beyond offended, this "in your face" mosque will provoke massive levels of anger around the U.S. If you spent billions of dollars to promote loathing, hatred, and disgust with Islam, you couldn't do better than building such a mosque.-----In past history, Islam has built mosques on historical sites as a sign of conquest specifically. Take the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and the Great Mosque of Cordoba in Spain. In all 3 cases, Muslims built mosques on those spots to send a distinct message, "We conquered you, took your holy site, and now it belongs to Islam." It is no accident.That is the message that building this mosque is supposed to send. In fact, they're naming it Cordoba House just to make sure no one can be confused as to the meaning.Cordoba is the name of a city in Spain. After the Muslims conquered the Visigoths living there during that time, they took the biggest church in that area and turned it into a mosque as a defined symbol of their conquest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...-----Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex Muslim"Instead we must acknowledge that they are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in Islam itself, in the holy book of the Qurâ€™an as well as the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad contained in the hadith.Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace.For expressing the idea that Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic, or political conditions â€" or even in theological error â€" but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself, I have been denounced as a bigot and an â€œIslamophobe.â€"Â I have been silenced, shunned, and shamed.Â In effect, I have been deemed to be a heretic, not just by Muslims â€" for whom I am already an apostate, sentenced to death â€" but by some Western liberals as well, whose multicultural sensibilities are offended by such â€œinsensitiveâ€" pronouncements ... today, it seems, speaking the truth about Islam is a crime.Â â€œHate speechâ€" is the modern term for heresy.Â And in the present atmosphere, anything that makes Muslims feel uncomfortable is branded as â€œhate.â€"-----Ayaan Hirsi Ali, exMuslim"I think I can justly say that I was among the first in my age group of millions of Muslims to admit that our faith, no longer mine, has begotten a bloodthirsty ideology that is determined to destroy the principles of liberty and humanity and basic decency.Even after 9/11 there are still those who naively believe that it's a threat only in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.Â The reality as our general (Jack Keane) just laid out, is that it is now a global threat.Â A recent report by the United Nations Security Council confirmed that more than 100 countries are now supplying recruits to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and the United States is one of them."-The idea of not calling violence committed in the name of Islam by its true name is a really bizarre one to me.Â Imagine if American and European leaders during the Cold War had gone around calling Communism an ideology of peace or condemning the Baader Meinhof Gang for not being true Marxists. Or what if we had chosen not to call the Nazis "Nazis." I am still trying to put my finger on this philosophy that is outraged when a Christian says something "homophobic", yet is mute when Islam hangs homosexuals in the street under the Sharia, then welcomes this third world minset of bigotry, sexism, and lack of tolerance with welcome arms into a liberal society. I one day decided to stand against Islamic intollerance knowing I would be labeled intollerant. It's a strange day when standing against bigotry makes you a bigot. It's a strange day when Americans must be PC, but American Muslims need not be. There is no full victory, but the battle must be fought nevertheless, thus I stand. But why the distinct anti-mosque stance by me? Because I am a theologically based person. I have studied many religions. Islam is not like other religions. Islam has a social dimension, a religious dimension, and a political dimension. This is not an argument against a group praying, withstaining from pork, or any such thing. This is an argument against the political version of Islam which is set on conquest, islamization, and Sharia over democracy. If only 1 out of 3 Muslims were devout to Islam in this way, that would compose 500+ million adherants, much more than the entire U.S. population and enough people to settle an entire continent. But 1 in 3 was a low ball number. The hidden agenda of political Islam has followers numbering much greater than that, but kitman and muruna hide this reality enough to blind the West, and it's on purpose. My final point is Feisal Abdul Rauf. He has been the leader of the movement for the mosque. He is a 100% full fledged Islamofascist. Within Islamic arrogance of the infidel bowing to it, he wanted his cake, a piece of pie, some cookies, and anything else unsuspecting Americans would cough up as to not seem racists or bigots. He wanted it dedicated on September 11, of 2011. In response to the Islamfascist arrogance that tries to use our tollerance and democratic appeal against us, I offer him the preverbial hand jesture including only one finger, and with a grin. He and others who roll around like hogs in jihadi bloodlust and a loathing of freedom will try to toss as much mud at the anti-Islamic movement supporters as possible, but his claim of someone like me being a bigot is met with this response: I do not condemn any other religion. I do not condemn homosexuals, nor do I find myself superior to women. I'm as tolerant a Christian as one will ever find, so to provoke me to intollerance is not a compliment. I meet his clsims of bigotry with a final statement: He is the definition of bigotry and intollerance, and his intollerance will and should be met with intollerance. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali (ex-Muslim)once said,"I am not anti-Islam. Islam is anti me and anti democracy. The day it is not, it ceases to be Islam."This has been a kitman war on the West and should be met as a political agenda exactly like Communism, Naziism, and Marxism are met with disgust, so should this be.I thank arien6 for the debate, and respect his position, but I have a different view. Thank you.