The Supposed "Ground Zero Mosque" should be built.

This is a "should" resolution, meaning that among the choices of things that might be done building the Ground Zero Mosque is preferred to other things that might be done. For example, a multi-cultural community center embracing the multiple religions might be built on the site, or the Mosque might be built a couple blocks away. Pro must prove that building the GZM as it is proposed is what should be done. Pro has not presented a single argument in favor of building the Mosque. I agree that there is a Constitutional right to build the Mosque. They may do so if they wish. The right is irrelevant to the debate. Each of us has the right to tattoo "I love DDO" on our foreheads. That is not an argument that we should do so. Having the right to do something does not mean that it should be done. President Obama, after some fumbling, correctly framed the issue, "... I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said in response to a reporter's question ... "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about." http://www.foxnews.com... Let's first consider Pro's specific contentions. 1. Whether the "Ground Zero Mosque" is appropriately named is largely irrelevant. The name clearly identifies a specific project, and the debate is about whether that specific project should be built. It does matter whether or not it is a Mosque, because if it is not a Mosque then there is no Constitutional issue. Cities ban "big box" stores on slim grounds of politicians happen to like http://www.bizjournals.com..., so if it isn't a mosque then the project is left to whatever zoning rules the City wants. It has a mosque, and it is also includes a cultural center. http://politifact.com... What exactly constitutes "ground zero" is not defined. The landing gear from the wreckage of one of the hijacked aircraft hit the building and the general proximity to the World Trade Center site suggests the name. 2. I agree that the proponents have a Constitutional right to build the Mosque. That doesn't mean they should do so. 3. Pro argues "It is both Un-American and straight out immoral." Pro is confused. The resolution is that the Mosque should be built. So what is "Un-American and straight out immoral"? Based upon what Pro subsequently argues, it seems that Pro is asserting that legally banning the Mosque would be "Un-American and straight out immoral." Sure, I agree, but that is not the debate resolution. The resolution is that the Mosque should be completed as planned, rather than doing something better. I also agree that (b) opposition on grounds that the proponents are Muslim is incorrect, and (c) that the Mosque should not be prevented. Neither (b) nor (c) affirm why the Mosque should be built which is Pro's obligation in the debate. N1. Pro asserts (a) that the "'rubbing salt on the wound' idea is incorrect and foolish," but he doesn't say why. If the assertion is true it still does not argue why the Mosque should be built rather than, say, a jointly-managed multicultural center dedicated to peaceful understanding. The characterization of "rubbing salt into the wounds" does not accurately reflect most of the opposition. The explanation calls for an example. Consider the idea of building an American cultural center. The idea is to build it Hiroshima within sight of the building partially destroyed by the nuclear bomb dropped on the city. Let's put aside the question of whether there is right to build it; if it "should" be built, according to debate parlance, then a legal way should be afforded. The case for the American center is strengthened by the Americans having opposed Japanese militarism, and thus brought democracy to Japan, and by the nuclear bomb probably having saved ten million lives by ending the War quickly. In Pro's phrasing, there is no wound to rub salt into, because in the long view it was a good thing. So, should the proposed center be built? I say clearly not, because there are much more positive things that could be one instead. The harm is how the Center casts the event. The bomb drop is implicitly suggested to be an America versus Japanese clash of races or culture, rather than a turn of history. Proponents of the American Center could say anything they wanted about how it was really a monument to peace and understanding; it wouldn't change the implications. N2. What should be done is for proponents of the Mosque to modify the plan so it does not evoke the idea of cultural confrontation, whether that is what is intended or not. They could move the project a couple blocks. What I suggest is that the project be built on the site, but with equal worship space afforded to Muslims. Jews, and Christians and most of the building given over to multi-cultural activities. A critical requirement for credibility is that planning for the site would have to entrusted to an interfaith committee. If it were entirely under the control of the Imam, the inter-faith aspects would be dismissed as window dressing, as the current inter-faith aspects are now dismissed. Pro can argue that having acute sensitivity about the 9/11 site is irrational, but that does not address the problem. The goal should be to smooth the waters, not to invoke the self-righteousness of political correctness. Whether building the Mosque as conceived should be antagonistic or not does not change the fact that many people find it upsetting, and there is more to be gained by being accommodating than confrontational. A prime backer of the Mosque agrees: "A billionaire Saudi prince who has been a prime backer of the Ground Zero mosque imam is urging that the controversial Islamic center be built elsewhere. ... 'Those people behind the mosque have to respect, have to appreciate and have to defer to the people of New York,' Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said in an interview with the Dubai-based Arabian Business magazine. 'The wound is still there. Just because the wound is healing you can't say, 'Let's just go back to where we were pre-9/11.' ... 'Most governments are pragmatic, most people are logical. There are pockets of extremism in Israel, in the U.S. and in the Muslim world. But we have to fight them with reason, with logic and with compassion,' Alwaleed said. 'We can't just say 'go to hell.' We cannot do that.' '" http://abcnews.go.com... Nervousness about the purposes of the project are justified. The progressive British newspaper "The Guardian" summarized, "... opposition may arguably be derived from a certain latent nuance in Imam Rauf's language that demonstrates an imperviousness to the hurt that New Yorkers still feel. While he professes to be a bridge-builder who is using Park51 to promote inter-community peace and healing, his lack of sensitivity is exhibited for many in a certain evasiveness over Islamic culpability in the 9/11 attacks. In short, he has never conceded that Muslims committed them." http://www.guardian.co.uk... "Imam Rauf's words ring hollow to many and his efforts have struck a raw nerve nationwide, with 68% of Americans and 71% of New Yorkers polled opposing the project." Clearly, more than a few people find it upsetting. [ibid] It is not going to help Islamic relations to deliberately confront 68% of the American people. The Ground Zero Mosque should not be built. If a Saudi Prince backer can see that there is better plan, so should the rest of us.