Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: No

To suggest that the Muslim center has ties to terrorists--and to demand that they show their books to the public--is discriminatory and baseless.It's a reasonable piece of speculation given Saudi ties to sectarian violence and the large amount of wealth that Saudi Arabia donates to build Mosques in the west. Plus, we're at war with the Muslim world.You have to remember these simple things.If nothing else, the fact that there are "concerns" isn't going to go unnoticed and you can expect the Muslim center to be under quite a bit of scrutiny. Apparently not given the guilt Americans have started to have towards Muslims, and desperate need to seek Muslim community approval.It's almost become a blind spot to common sense, is what I'm saying.I agree that the families of the victims of the WTC attack experienced great tragedy, but the country should not base public policy on their personal prejudices (I mean this in the most general sense: as a perspective or unfavorable opinion).I disagree. Now more than ever we need to be prejudiced in favour of our Secular values and free society. We need to ask ourselves why it is so important to make allowances, favours and appeasements towards Islam and its followers when the values we are supporting in doing so are antagonistic towards secularism and freedom.A Muslim group wishes to commemorate 9/11 with the opening of an Islamic cultural centre? Scorn it. Because our values of freedom and democracy are worth more than a few disgruntled worshiper's feelings and favour with a frankly barbaric ideology. You know that in the Islamic world, supporting western ideals gets you killed. They apparently value their ideals more than we value ours.But I should re-state my position: as tragic and hurtful these experiences were for these people, it is neither the purpose of law nor appropriate to legislate discrimination (i.e. violating religious freedom to organize, exist, and openly worship) to honor victims. Right. It's the purpose of the community.And should we extend your standard of condemning their practices and choice to live as Muslims to Christians, whose earlier institutions (or, to make it more relevant--their extremist groups) did terrible things/continue to do terrible things?Even though it is a double standard to have accepted Christian atrocities over the last centuries while condemning Islam, it is still the proper course of action. We are trying desperately to liberalise Christianity to the point that it ceases to exist in any meaningful form. Islam is like Christianity from three centuries ago. You want to include that in our nation? Are you mad? So you want two sets of fundamentalists seeking political power? You want not only abortion clinics to be bombed, but churches too and homosexuals beaten and killed, women raped for being immodest? That's what Muslim fundamentalism does, and importing Islam imports it as well.Great, I'm an atheist too. But I'm a responsible and respectful atheist. I believe that a free-thinking society cannot and should not regulate free belief, representation, and access to justice.It's good to be responsible, and respectful, however realise that you are dealing with an ideology that cares nothing for this. You are dealing with a mindset that sees you as an enemy that must be converted or killed. That is Islamic policy, there is no tolerance, only submission.You need to realise that part of securing liberty, tolerance, and democracy for the future requires that we be intolerant towards ideology-religions like Islam in the present.