The construction of a Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero shouldn't be stopped.

I will start by attacking my opponent's case then move on to re establishing my own contentions. In my opponent's first contention he stated that the majority of Americans oppose the Mosque's construction. While this may be true, it is not a legitimate argument. The fact that many people agree or disagree with an idea doesn't make it right or wrong. Take the example of slavery in the United States. Originally a majority of people were not opposed to it; however as time passed it has come to be viewed as an atrocity and a scar on the history of the U. S. This applies to the construction of the mosque because while many people oppose it; it is not necessarily wrong. My opponent also stated that it is an issue of sensitivity; not an issue of Islamophobia. It is true that it is an issue of sensitivity. However we must look to what causes this sensitivity. This sensitivity is caused by a fear of Islam. Why else would these groups be sensitive to a mosque; when said mosque and its builders had nothing to do with the attacks? This sensitivity must be caused by something. Perhaps the builder's of the mosque are being insensitive; however we cannot hold this as a reason for opposition is the sensitivity is so pointless. In my opponent's second contention he stated that the name of the mosque sparks controversy. He argued that the name Cordoba was a symbol of Islamic victory over the west. In considering this argument we must remember two things. First the victory over the Spanish city occurred more than a thousand years ago. Second that this argument is based solely on speculation. There is no actual proof that the builders or the funding is related in any way to extremists. When we look at these two facts we see that my opponent's argument shouldn't be considered in this debate. Now to move on to re establishing my own case. In my first contention I argued that the U. S. was attacked by extremists not the Islamic faith. The basis of this argument was that we shouldn't classify all Muslims as terrorists. The group that attacked was a group of extremists that launched a terrible attack against the United States. My opponent attempted to refute this contention by arguing the House is "considering investigating where funds of the Mosque have come from. " He then went on to say that "there are possible terrorist ties. " If there is only a possibility of terrorist ties in the funding that is not enough cause to violate the rights of the people of this country. In my second contention I argued that Freedom of religion protects the creation of the mosque. The basis of this argument was that the core values as well as the constitution protect the right of a person to freely practice their religion. I was arguing that the mosque's construction should not be stopped because they have every right to build it. My opponent tried to argue that not allowing the mosque to be built would not infringe upon the right of Muslims to freely practice their religion. This argument is entirely invalid. Not allowing this mosque to be built would be limiting the ability of Muslims in New York to practice their religion. I do agree that other mosques do exist in New York but we must look at this from a ideological standpoint as well. If the government denies the construction of this mosque it makes a statement of distrust and prejudice to all Muslims in America. This is simply unacceptable. In my third contention I argued that denying the construction of this mosque will fuel prejudice against Muslims in America. The basis of this contention is that if the government is to intervene by stopping the mosque it will show the people of the United States that prejudice is acceptable. This is unacceptable. My opponent attempted to refute this contention by arguing that the mosque creates controversy and therefore increases Islamophobia and prejudice. While this may be true I feel that we must value an good example set by our government over a poor example set by part of the people. In my fourth contention I argued that there is no law that can be used to stop the mosque. This was supplemented by the fact that according to the First Amendment a law cannot be created to block the freedom of religion. My opponent attempted to refute this by using the example of executive orders and eminent domain. However neither of these examples are plausible if there is not a reasonable cause. I have proven that the cause for opposition is prejudice and irrational hatred. Obviously neither of these are reasonable. It is because of this that we can see that my opponent's attacks are invalid.