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

==NC== 1. The majority of Americans oppose the building of the mosque The Hill writes: "The CNN/Opinion Research survey showed that 68 percent oppose the plan to build the mosque, compared to 29 percent who favor it. Forty-three percent of Democrats support it and 54 percent say they are opposed. Eighty-two percent of Republicans are against the mosque, as opposed to just 17 percent who support it. A whopping 70 percent of independents are against the mosque, compared to 24 percent who support it." Moreover, the vast majority of polls range from 60% – 75% Insofar as the US is a Democratic-Republic, the will of people cannot be ignored when it comes to policy options and initiative. Moreover, as the poll suggests this issue spans the entire political spectrum, which is against it, conservatives, liberals and independents alike. This means that the driving factor is not specifically that of Islamophobia, but it's an issue of rational sensitivity. Plus, if the driving factor for the building of the mosque was that of religious tolerance and religious sensitivity to build community so to speak, then the builders of the mosque should recognize the insensitivity of their actions and move the mosque elsewhere. This turns the AC. 2. Using the name Cordoba sparks controversy If people are unaware, Muslims during the age of the Caliphate would build mosques in the areas they conquered. This was true because it symbolized that this area was not just under the control of Muslims, but under the control of Allah's Law, namely Sharia Law. Cordoba was a massive Muslim victory in Spain, which then became the capital of the Cordoba Caliphate. And, as you might have guessed, the name of the mosque near ground zero is the Cordoba House. This reason may seem unimportant at first, but it again strikes at the intentions and motives of the mosque builders. They are building a mosque near ground zero (an area Muslim extremists claim a great victory over the U.S.) and they call it Cordoba, an area of a great Muslim victory over the west. ==AC== 1st Amendment --> The 1st Amendment is constrained with the notion of "Separation of Church and State." At the point where religion enters the realm of secular politics, the 1st Amendment cannot be seen as an outright defense for certain actions. This mosque exemplifies an undermining of the notion of the separation of church and state. Immam Feisal (the Immam in charge of the mosque) writes in a Jordanian newspaper: "People asked me right after the 9/11 attacks as to why do movements with political agendas carry [Islamic] religious names? Why call it ‘Muslim Brotherhood' or ‘Hezbollah (Party of Allah)' or ‘Hamas' or ‘Islamic Resistance Movement'? I answer them this — that the trend towards Islamic law and justice begins in religious movements, because secularism has failed to deliver what the Muslim wants, which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . . .The only law that the Muslim needs exists already in the Koran and the Hadith." A state based on the Koran and Hadith could only be called a theocracy." Clearly the person who will be running the mosque is not one of religious moderation. --> The 1st Amendment protects against a state religion and a deprivation of practicing ones religion. Stopping the building of one mosque doesnt infringe on this. A plethora of mosques exist NYC, so the prevention of one mosque doesnt deprive ne of the right to practice ones religion. 1. Terrorists =/= Muslims --> Even though this is true, unfortunately Muslim extremism is a sect of Islam. If Muslims were as tolerant and as sensitive as you propose, and which I believe they are, then it would seem logical that they would listen to the concerns of those that died in the 9/11 attacks. But, clearly the controversy has not ended. --> The House is considering investigating where funds of the Mosque have come from. There has been enough evidence presented to the House that there are possible terrorist ties. This comes from the Hill Report cited above. 2. FoR --> XA 1st Amendment arguments 3. Fuel for Islamaphobia --> (TURN) Since this controversy had been sparked, anti-Muslim protests have increased not decreased. By denying the people what they want, it is you who is sparking more Islamaphobia (which now more people will see as legitimate). You are giving justification to the far-right extremists and turning moderates towards sympathizing with the far right. 4. No law --> There doesnt need to be a "law" to stop the building of certain area or property. Executive orders exist, and also the proposal to take the property via eminent domain. --> This doesnt say why the building shouldnt be stopped, just that there is nothing on record in the status quo. That does not preclude the making of a law to prevent the building of the mosque.