The "Ground Zero Mosque" is a good thing. Here's why...

It's campaign season, so the media figured Americans could use a ginned up cultural controversy to lose our minds over. As usual, a bunch of opportunistic slimeball Republicans, and a few opportunistic slimeball Democrats take the hysteria and run with it, while the majority of politicians hem and haw and dance around the issue. Obama was the most prominent among those dancers.

For summer 2010, that sensationalism comes from the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque". Because, you know, fact-free anti-Hispanic fervor is just so last season. We need another minority to fear. Preferably a smaller minority. Muslims will do.

Let's get a couple facts straight. First, it's not at Ground Zero. It's two blocks away, and out of the line of sight of Ground Zero. Second, it's not a mosque. It's to be a large community center, which will include a prayer space, among many other things.

What are the usual arguments against building it?

1. Although they have the Constitutional right to do it, it's still insensitive for Muslims to build near Ground Zero, when they were the ones who killed thousands on 9/11.

Response: The Muslims who did the destroying and the Muslims doing the building are two different groups. As with all religions, including Christianity, Islam is fractured into many subgroups, some of which are violent, and most of which are peaceful. Plenty of Muslims died on 9/11, and plenty were first responders as well.

2. The imam says it's supposed to be a "peace center", but it's not a gesture of peace to ignore the sensitivities of 9/11 victims' families.

Response: The way to promote peace is by defeating prejudices, and the way to defeat prejudices is by integrating groups. Segregated groups don't communicate, and don't learn that the other guys are just regular people, too. When Obama said he had no comment on the "wisdom" of building the facility, he was wrong to do so, and this is why.

3. It will be a terrorist training facility.

Response: No, it will be a community center. If they wanted to build a terrorist training facility, it could be built anywhere, and would most likely be done in a far more secluded area than Manhattan in order to maintain secrecy.

Now, here's why I - an atheist - say it's a good idea to build the Muslim community center. Quite simply, exposure to multiple religions tends to make people realize that their own religion isn't so special after all. That is why I not only accept, but also support the building of the Muslim community center near Ground Zero.

What I find odd about this issue is that the pundits act as if someone could actually do anything legal to stop the center from going up. On what grounds could a building permit be denied? Even Obama's heartfelt opinion has no weight . It might not be such a bad thing though if a law was adopted that banned edifices for a particular religion to be built within a certain proximity of locations where crimes made in the name of that religion were committed. It would severely limit the construction of new churches.

What I find odd about this issue is that the pundits act as if someone could actually do anything legal to stop the center from going up. On what grounds could a building permit be denied? Even Obama's heartfelt opinion has no weight .

Yeah, which just goes to prove that all the hand-wringing is nothing more than a ginned up media controversy that some slimeball politicians are trying to take advantage of.

It might not be such a bad thing though if a law was adopted that banned edifices for a particular religion to be built within a certain proximity of locations where crimes made in the name of that religion were committed. It would severely limit the construction of new churches.

Aside from being unconstitutional, it wouldn't be bad, that is. Who would be left with building permits? Buddhists and Hindus?

If I may say a resounding "Amen" to everything I've read on this link, without offending our atheist sensibilities! As religious sentiment often does, this issue is playing to people's fears and prejudices, which politicians in general love to take advantage of.

While there is clearly no legal recourse to prevent the mosque from being built(absent some proof that funding is coming from terrorist groups--unlikely), I do worry that the threat of vandalism or even violence will keep this group from exercising its freedom to build. This type of bullying was certainly put to good use by the KKK and similar groups, which is why this seems to surreal to me.

Matt, you made an important point about this being a different Muslim sect than those that carried out the 9/11 attacks. I saw recently on the news that this is the Sufi Muslim sect, which is more liberal than many of our Christian sects. Al Quaida recently targeted one of their places of worship in Pakistan and killed several people. If there is any branch of Islam we should be supporting, it is the Sufis. As for the more conservative sects, I have no sympathy for them in view of their treatment of women, gays, etc.... under Sharia law. I feel no obligation to be tolerant of these kinds of ideas propagated in the name of religion, and am not one of those who believe all religions are equally bad just because they've got the God issue wrong. As practiced, the threat from the majority of U.S. Christian churches today pales in comparison to those Muslims who want to institute Sharia law, and are actively doing it in their communities in liberal host countries such as Great Britain and France. Let's just hope the Sufis win the battle of ideas within this religion.

I would have to say no to building this mosque/ community center. I have a couple objections that are different then those that Matt stated.

First off, I have objections to any place that can be used to indoctrinate young minds on what they should believe, especially when those are supernatural beliefs, beliefs ignoring reality based facts. I am all for teaching people how to think for themselves, and how to use critical thinking. This objection extends to any 'religious' buildings anywhere, for example the Creationist "Museum", not just New York.

My second objection is ties in with the first, and it has to do with taxes. Do we really need another tax free building in downtown Manhattan, especially in these tough economic times? I'm not sure a community center would qualify for tax exemptions, but I'm sure they would push for tax exemptions due to the prayer area. If it does, perhaps RL's Throne at his house might qualify as a community center and become tax free. I would make a community center of my house and add a prayer area to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if it meant I no longer had to pay property taxes. If they have to pay downtown Manhattan property taxes, then I would withdraw this part of my objection.

I kind of take the Thunderfoot approach: Yeah, they are and should be allowed to do it, yeah, its an asshole thing to do.

But I figure those opposed to it should get their say. Pat Condell does a pretty good job making his case http://www.youtube.co... Though I should say that I don't think he ever explicitly says they shouldn't be allowed to build it, it's more of a rebuke of everyone involved.

Although I agree with Ga'kuct, I don't see how not building any type of religious facility is even plausible at this point. The direction this country has been heading since Bush's second term has been leaning increasingly toward fundamental evangelicism, with no societal plateau in sight. Particularly in rural areas of the country, where information in almost all of its media forms (radio, TV, newspapers) is unbelievably biased toward indoctrinating the masses into believing that this country was based on christianity. There is a movement - and a strong one at that - that is at war with any form of reason.

So called christian scientist are coming out in droves in defense of intelligent design, school boards are revamping curriculum to teach students very biased (and incorrect) lessons; megachurches are exploding across the country, climate change has become a hoax, and a person's faith is evaluated to determine if they are 'eligible' to be in politics. The true irony - in my personal, finite opinion - is that most evangelical christians still push the "christians are being persecuted" rhetoric. To [some of] them, it's a form of persecution and condemnation to disagree with them!

But no - unfortunately - I fear things will get much worse before they get better. The protest around the country against established mosques and muslim communities; the man that urinated on prayer rugs in a mosque while screaming "Terrorist!" in Queens; the cab driver in New York that was stabbed by his passenger after admitting that he wa a muslim; the mosque that was set on fire by arsonist in Tennessee; I fear these things are just the beginning. History teaches us that it's the innocent that get caught in the crossfires. The true enemy of these types of behavior is reason.

However, I also believe that there are no coincidences in politics. The Ground Zero Mosque fervor is being instigated by persons that have a lot to gain by stirring the political pot on this issue. The tail is truly wagging the dog on this one!

...this is just what I think anyway

I kind of take the Thunderfoot approach: Yeah, they are and should be allowed to do it, yeah, its an asshole thing to do.

But I figure those opposed to it should get their say. Pat Condell does a pretty good job making his case http://www.youtube.co... Though I should say that I don't think he ever explicitly says they shouldn't be allowed to build it, it's more of a rebuke of everyone involved.

The WSU Atheists and Agnostics forum on Facebook posted a link to TheAmazingAtheist's response to Pat Condell's video. It's worth watching, though he seems to think that Pat is saying they shouldn't be allowed to build there, and I watched it a fourth time: Pat never says that.

TAA is insistent that the imam is moderate, so I read the three articles Pat linked to in regards to the imam, and there really isn't much there to support his position that the imam supports Sharia, an Iranian theocracy and that he won't condemn terrorism or the exploitation of children as suicide bombers.

So, seems to be an issue that has a lot of people riled up and divided. (religion dividing people? what?)

Anyway, I'm still with Thunderf00t.

I think you can find out what the USA is really doing by reading news from other countries. The fervor over the Prayer Community Center is created in the same way as the fervor over the Mohammad cartoons. If they didn't make a huge deal about some pictures, no one would have known about these drawings. If they didn't make a huge deal of the mosque- err... I mean community center-, no one would have cared. Isn't rioting and calling for the death of the cartoonists over some pictures just a bit over board? I find it disturbing. Folks burning down Mosques isn't the answer either, but it sure seems like a Christian thing to do. I don't want to be caught in the cross fire when the Muslims and Christian decide to have a pissing contest over who can have the most martyrs.

Are all the protesters fundamentalists or are there moderates mixed in? I have a hard time telling the two apart. My definition of Moderate doesn't include beheadings, arranged marriages, honor killings, or burkas.

I think the money spent making the community center(millions of dollars?) would make more of an impact if it was given to homeless shelters, then constructing buildings where folks go to talk to themselves. Will there be Infidels Only restrooms in the community center?

Infidels Only Restrooms!

Funny!