The Supposed "Ground Zero Mosque" should be built.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," said [Senate Majority Leader] Reid's spokesman in a statement. "Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else." http://politics.usnews.com... With a "should" resolution, if something should be done, then the presumption is that even if a Constitutional amendment is required, then that should be accomplished. Virtually every town in the United States has zoning ordinances that specifically direct where churches can and cannot be built. What the First Amendment guarantees is that it must be allowed to build a religious facility somewhere in a location reasonably accessible to the parishioners. For this debate, I stipulate that if the backers want to build a mosque on the selected site, then the law allows them to do so. New York City, whose laws govern, has affirmed that. The debate is entirely about whether they should build it or not. I said that the name of the facility and whether it was precisely at ground zero are irrelevant to the debate. Con argued that if people generally recognized that there were non-religious functions and that it was two blocks away from the World Trade Center collapse, then opposition to it would vanish. Pro offered no evidence that opposition was based upon the name, that opponents do not know the proximity, or that opponents do not know the multiple functions. Those points have been included in most reports on the mosque controversy, and those favoring the mosque have publicized them extensively. Yet 68% of the population still wants it moved. The people understand it quite well. In the United States, church facilities have long been understood as centers of faith, not as secular facilities with an incidental place of worship. There was, for example, the case of a church that wanted to build a lighted baseball field as part of the church facility. The town objected that the zoning was only for a religious facility, and not for a baseball field. The Courts ruled in favor of the church. The understanding is that religious facilities have ancillary facilities that support the religion, so those facilities are properly allowed as part of the church. http://www.churchlawtoday.com... The law reflects the common sense understanding, that a religious community is more than just the central place of worship. Even if theoretically open to the whole community, the GZM would not be built if it were not expected to serve primarily Muslims. They certainly have the right to build such a facility, but the understanding that it is devoted to Islamic culture is a correct understanding. Pro claims my argument "verges on semantics." How else could the resolution "The Ground Zero Mosque should be built." possibly be interpreted? President Obama clearly agreed with my interpretation. How were we both using slippery semantics? If Pro actually wanted to debate some other resolution, it's not my responsibility to find out what he really wanted to debate. Pro says, "My entire contention that it should be built is based on the fact that the structure in question is, at this point in time, either going to be built or not be built - that is a given - and as such, topics such as the Constitutional rights or why prohibiting the building would be Un-American or immoral fall under the category of why the building should be built." I objected to that argument in the First Round. It is absolutely false that to not build the Mosque in deference to cultural sensitivity is the same as not building it because it is prohibited. Pro reasserted his argument that they are the same, but obviously they are quite different. Pro repeats the argument that building the Mosque should not be opposed on the grounds that it proves the terrorists have won. I never made that argument. He is inventing a straw man. The argument I made, and elaborated with an example of building an American Cultural Center near ground zero in Hiroshima, is that proximity of the cultural center suggests implicitly that tragic events were a consequence of opposing cultures, and not an errant force within the culture. Pro did not address my argument or my example. Does Pro think that an American Cultural Center should be built in Hiroshima? If not, why not? I say we should not, because it would falsely imply that the central issue of World War II is Japanese culture as a whole, and not the errant rise of Japanese militarism. Similarly, the Ground Zero Mosque draws attention to the Islamic religion as a whole, rather than on the terrorist faction. This is emotional, but it is nonetheless the case. Emotions count when attempting to promote peace. A parallel real case in 1993 is that of Carmelite nuns having built a convent a the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Jews objected, on the grounds that having the convent was "Christianizing" a place sacred to Jews. Pope John Paul II ultimately ordered the nuns to relocate. http://online.wsj.com... Carmelite nuns do not proselytize, they only pray. Nonetheless, the cultural confrontation was posed. It was resolved by relocation. Pro argues that peace will be promoted by deliberate confrontation. He gives no evidence in support of that position. The Saudi prince backing the mosque does not believe it. Harry Reid doesn't believe it. American Muslims are not convinced. "In reality, this is possibly the single worst thing anyone can do. Instead, this is the perfect move to ensuring relationships deteriorate. American Muslim Shireen Quidosi writes, "Such a move perpetuates the ongoing tug-of-war between Islam and the West ..." http://qudosi.com... Other American Muslims opposed to the Mosque are referenced on that site. Pro claims that Muslim terrorists would not want the Mosque built. But radical Muslims have in fact not denounced the Mosque. They want it built so they can falsely claim victory over whom they characterize as anti-Muslim. Those in the Muslim world who support the Mosque are from countries who are opposed to any cultural confrontations in their lands. I challenge Pro to find an overseas Muslim commentator in the Arab world who says the equivalent of "Building religious structures and cultural centers to confront narrow-minded opponents is the best way to advance peace among cultures. A multi-cultural center including Christian and Jewish places of worship should be built in Mecca to promote understanding by this means." As far as I can determine, it has not happened. They know that confrontation does not lead to peace. They are seeking some sort of victory, not peace. (Incidentally, I think a Center as described should not be built in Mecca, for the reasons I cite.) Is it necessary to actually tattoo "I love DDO" on your forehead in order to prove you have the right to do so? That is the essence of Pro's rights argument. No, you don't. Pro has the burden of proof in this debate. He provides evidence to support trivial claims like where the Mosque is located and what it comprises. He offers no evidence that these facts are not well understood. His main conjecture is that building the Mosque at that location will promote cultural understanding in spite of 68% opposition. He offers no evidence that will happen. The informed opinions of Harry Reid and of a Saudi prince backing the project are that it will not, and American Muslims are at the very least divided over the issue. Pro hasn't addressed my hypothetical of building an American cultural Center at ground zero in Hiroshima, and the actual case of a convent being built at Auschwitz shows that confrontation did not lead to understanding. The Mosque should either be relocated or managed by multiple faiths.