Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

I think I've found your problem. Extremists are called extremists AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR VIEWS BEING MORE EXTREME THAN THOSE OF THE AVERAGE PRACTITIONER. By calling them extremists, you admit that their views do no reflect those of the whole BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION.First sentence, correct. Second sentence, incorrect. Do you see your mistake?Extreme, average and moderate are like a coefficients, they require something to modify and each modifies the magnitude. Since we're talking about an ideology (religion or ideology is the same here since we don't care about the supernatural in this discussion), it means the adherents must share a common belief system to be a part of it. Further, the authoritative work is the Quran. Since the base of the ideology stays the same with the distinction being between sects, using words like extreme, average or moderate only would indicate a magnitude of propensity to trust the ideology and to act on it. It does not change the underlying beliefs.To use a simpler explanation, extremists, moderates, and average followers all adhere to the Quran, which consistently promotes values like terrorism and intolerance. The only difference between these three groups is how much they trust the Quran and how much they are willing to act on it. Anyone can become an extremist with the right environment, but the Quran never changes between the groups, so it serves as a seed for violence.If every single muslim were out bombing buildings, then we wouldn't call the attackers extremists. We would call them "muslims" with no need for further identification, because they would be the norm.It perplexes me why you feel the need to defend the religion where if it was "just" an ideology like Nazism or Fascism I'm fairly confident that you'd condemn it for what it leads people to do.But this is not the case. While islam itself is admittedly an archaic religion with great potential for violent interpretation, the vast majority of its followers are not inclined to terrorism. The church being planned has no direct ties to terrorism. Your claims that it is only being built as an insult is baseless speculation. As such, we have no legal right to prevent the church from being built, regardless of how disgusting the religion of islam may be.Where did the beliefs of those who flew a plane into the World Trade Center come from, ultimately? The Quran. What is a mosque? A shrine to the Quran. It boils down to this, no matter how much you feel we need to appease those Muslims by letting them defile a memory in the name of tolerance, they are building a temple to a book that inspired the 9/11 attacks.Are you starting to get where I'm coming from here? I don't want the goddamn church. I don't particularly want any churches, muslim or otherwise. But constitutionally, we can't let our biases get in the way of the law.This isn't a constitutional issue however (are you claiming that Muslims are not permitted build mosques in America?). This is a zoning issue. The community around a proposed building has the right to protest it if they collectively agree it damages the neighborhood in some way.However, I'll let you in on something. This passive "defend their freedom of religion" attitude you support (when it's not about that), has helped to clear the Mosque for construction, while if we accepted that it was a zoning issue, rather if the Manhattan council did, it probably would have been blocked. See how you played into the hands of religious propaganda in the name of tolerance?http://abcnews.go.com/US/mosque-plan-clears-hurdle-protests/story?id=10747570