Debate: DO YOU SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO
Side: yes

I don't follow your "bridge" analogy? Could you elaborate? It doesn't claim or argue anything and I don't see the relevance to the debate. Constitutional rights exist as matters of equality and freedom, not special interests, hobbies, etc. I also haven't suggested we all go erect establishments to offend people. However, I'll play your silly game to illustrate the seriousness of constitutional rights as they are/should be upheld: No, I would not jump off a bridge if everyone whose right to jump off bridges started jumping off bridges. I would defend their right to do so! I'd remain consistent in my initial statement regarding constitutional rights to do so, because I have already set the standard by which a constitutional right is a guaranteed "freedom." Namely--these bridge jumpers would not be under any duress or obligation to jump from a bridge and they would not be impeding on anyone's freedom or civil liberties by jumping off a bridge. There. Now let's make a mature examination of your response...I may not have a definite answer, but the induction is more reasonable than your speculation. We're talking about an organized religion. Organized religions in the United States operate on private donations from their constituency and members. We can both agree on those base inferences without speculating (read: fear mongering) about ties to terrorist organizations. 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. If you're actually worried about what "they" are doing on their property, perhaps you can have some peace of mind when you remind yourself that the Patriot Act gives the government observation, surveillance, and seizure powers over any public/private domain it believes to be an epicenter of terrorist activity (international or domestic). 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. 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). If those victims are your utmost concern, then you should really be going to bat for their health benefits (which were voted down), a gift of the country for living through one of our nation's tragedies. 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. I'll repeat something others have said: this is a Muslim community center, not strictly a mosque. 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? If the basis of your argument is disrespecting victims, then why not also refuse Mormon Centers the right the exist in New York City, a thriving LGBT community who would be offended by all the anti-gay propaganda that the LDS group has produced?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.