The Supposed "Ground Zero Mosque" should be built.

Well, seeing as you took a totally different approach than I anticipated, my arguments will be presented differently than I originally planned. - First of all, it is important to note that the Ground Zero Mosque will not be built at Ground Zero. Based on some of the media hype surrounding the issue, one could think that the Mosque is being built literally at the ruins of the World Trade Center. It is not - it is two blocks away. [1] This begs the question of just how far away from Ground Zero can be considered "Ground Zero" and what can be considered "disrespectful" to the 9/11 or the victims. There is both a strip club and an adult video store within the very same proximity of Ground Zero. Additionally, there already exists a Muslim center with a Mosque inside of it within close proximity to Ground Zero, but it has never been an issue before. The existence of this Mosque nearby Ground Zero has caused no harm to the community it belongs to. The proposed building is also not "truly" a Mosque. It is a Muslim community center, similar in that regard to a YMCA or a JCC. It is supposed to be open to the public - technically to everyone. It will house a nice basketball court, a good sized gym, a swimming pool, a culinary school, a 500 seat performing arts center, a center for several groups such as the Cordoba Initiative, a group devoted to harmony between Islam and America and promoting peaceful understanding of the two to better co-exist. In addition, the 15 storied building would house a prayer space for Muslims. [2] So it's established that the "Ground Zero Mosque" is not truly at Ground Zero and not a technical Mosque. The title "two and a half blocks away Islamic community center open to public" would be far more accurate. Con acknowledges the fact that the builders of the community center have the law on their side. In taking a different approach than I had anticipated (and perhaps bordering on debating over semantics) the bulk of his presentation has been telling me that nothing I have said addresses why this "Ground Zero Mosque" actually should be built. I disagree with this assertion. By creating the debate itself with an opposing stance of Con, the presupposition is that my case can be made on why I believe the Mosque should be built in light of the opinion of Con, that it should not be built. 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. It is fairly obvious that I intended to make my case this way - on the fact that it should be built because the only alternative at this point is actually preventing it, which I contend is wrong. Not, as Con seems to be suggesting, that I believe the current building plans to be the best scenario with no better possibilities than what is planned now. It is important to note that I don't have to think that this building is literally the best idea possible in order to be in favor of it. Anyway, at this stage in the game, proofs for why the Mosque should not not be built should suffice as equal proofs as to why it should. So, I will quickly address the Constitutional aspect and then move on to why the Mosque actually should be built. The first sixteen words of the first amendment to the Constitution state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [3] The builders clearly have the law on their side. Sarah Palin posted from her Twitter account, "Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?" [4] This is absolutely ridiculous. One cannot simultaneously acknowledge a right and suppress it. There is absolutely no way to acknowledge a protected right under the law and then insist against that same right being exercised. Notice how Ms. Palin, an outspoken supporter of the Con side of the debate, makes no distinction between "steps" and blocks." And again, apparently she has no objection to the two "Ground Zero Porn Shops." Now, you claim to recognize the facts of their legal rights, yet at this stage in the development the Mosque will either be built or not be built, so logically, proving an element of why it should not not be built proves an element of why it should be. More on why it should be built. - Simply, to oppose it is un-American and immoral. Our message to Muslims is that if they are good, moral American citizens, they will give up their American rights. Many have suggested that if we allow this building, the terrorists will have "won." The opinion of most of the opposition has been that the building should be seen as a slap in the face to America. On the other hand, if we STOP this building the terrorists will have won. The terrorists, who, despite what Palin wants to acknowledge, are only bloodthirsty, evil human beings who happen to be Muslim, and use Islam as a veil for their heinous deeds - those very same terrorists will have accomplished their goal if this Islamic community center is anything but built. If it is not, those terrorists will not only have succeeded in breaching our security and crumbing the World Trade Center to the ground, but they will have had the privilege of watching its ripple effects unfold as an citizens are turned against each other. They will see that as their victory and their success; then, they will have truly shown their power and influence over American society. However, if we do build it, we'll be showing them that we can rise above their petty acts of hatred. And then, the terrorists will have lost and we, the American people, will have triumphed. Additionally, the hateful terrorist Muslims behind the 9/11 attacks people see the peaceful, non-radical Muslims who want to build the community center as repugnant. They would be disgusted by the building - a Muslim community center, co-existing with the people, trying to promote actual peace and harmony between American citizens? That's exactly what they don't want and it is exactly what we need. In similar thought, we will only be "rubbing salt on our wounds" if, at this point, the Mosque is anything but built. Building it should actually be the ideal way to heal those very wounds. Again, if it is not built (therefore an argument for why it should be) the terrorists will be able to watch as we fight each other from the inside. We will have violated the doctrine that has been the backbone of our country and that we have upheld meticulously for years. However, if we allow it, we can better integrate Muslims back into society and try to heal the obvious Islamophobia apparent within the American society. You're caught up in the fact that the building would hurt citizens emotionally and would not strike a good chord with citizens. But, accepting the fact that it is two blocks away, a community center, run by peace promoting Muslims, the perfect way for us to "win" and for the terrorists to "lose," and especially when there has been a functioning Mosque near Ground Zero with no issues whatsoever, the logical conclusion is that the building's opposition is purely emotionally based... And we cannot change our laws based on emotion. As Aristotle said, "The law is reason, free from passion." We should not let our passion effect the obviously reasonable choice. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org... [4] http://www.associatedcontent.com...