The Instigator
Kinger
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
Sarcasm
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The "mosque" near Ground Zero has every right to be built

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,199 times Debate No: 12885
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

Kinger

Pro

Currently in the works, there are plans for building a so called "mosque" near Ground Zero. Countless politicians around the United States are on every TV station and every radio program discussing this delicate issue. Many Americans are upset by the idea that such a place should be near anywhere near Ground Zero; a site where thousands of American citizens lost their lives to Islamic extremists who attacked the World Trade Towers and Pentagon in the name of jihad for the crimes the United States had committed against Islam.

This "mosque" near Ground Zero should be built, and has every right to be done so for the following reasons:

1) It's not a Mosque.
First off, it's not a mosque as many are calling it. A mosque by definition, according to Merriam-Webster [1], is the following:
MOSQUE
: a building used for public worship by Muslims
The building being built is not a public place of worship for Muslims - it's an Islamic community center. This community center will have a basketball court, swimming pool and a culinary school, as well as a place of worship [2]. This is completely different from a general mosque where as in a general mosque the main purpose is to serve as a place of worship. In this community center, as the name suggests, the main purpose is to provide community resources to local Muslims of the Manhattan area.

2) It's their constitutional right.
In the first amendment of the United States Constitution it is declared that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." [3]. So therefore, the federal government, and of course no state government, can ban in any shape or form any religious places of worship unless it somehow conflicts with current law (i.e. zoning laws). The building of the community center, while not it's main function, still acts as a place of worship, thus part of a religious organization, thus is granted the constitutional right to be built wherever the owners of the center so choose (so long as there is no conflict with current law). To deny American citizens their first constitutional right is outright ludicrous. The United States, after all, is a melting pot, and everyone deserves equal rights.

3) A majority of protesters of this "mosque" are racist
While this is a different argument completely, it still should be noted. During an Anti-Mosque protest in Manhattan where protesters gathered to protest the building of this community center, a black man walked through the crowd and was mistaken for being a Muslim as protesters surrounded him and yelled "No mosque here!" and called him a "Coward" after trying to leave.[4]. He turned out not to be a Muslim, but rather a "a Union carpenter who works at Ground Zero." [4]. Similarly, at the same protest, two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic two each other were turned to by the crowd, and chants such as "Go home!" and "Get out" were shouted to them. Like the black man, these two were mistaken for Muslims. In fact, ironically, not only were they Christians, but both were from a California based Christian TV station and had traveled to New York to also protest the building of the mosque[5]. The crowd was yelling at supporters for their cause simply because they 'looked Muslim'. This is outright racism. It would be wrong to give these racists what they want (or rather what they don't want) when they are obviously ignorant to everything around them, including what they're protesting.

For these stated reasons, the Islamic community center should be built near Ground Zero (not 'on' it as some say).

Thank you. I await my contenders response to my arguments.

References:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[4] http://www.mediaite.com...
[5] http://www.northjersey.com....
Sarcasm

Con

First of all I would like to say good luck :)
-------------------------------------------------

My opponent has stated it is not a mosque and they are right it is a and I quote "A Islamic community center and prayer room planned near Ground Zero" and yes it is true they have a right to build it here there any were but how would you feel if your family was in there when this happened there is no law that says they cant build it. But morally this is wrong, wrong to the country itself and Americans that were in ground zero when it happened wrong to their family and wrong for them to know this good and well and still want to build it!

Also my opponent has stated that again I quote" A majority of protesters of this "mosque" are racist" maybe there not racist just people who feel like someone put a giant f*** you sticker on the sight of this national tragedy. Maybe just maybe they are fellow American patriots who feel obligated to tell them that hey go build it any were but here?!
Also it is sad that we have mistaken three people two of them happening to be men on a California Christian tv channel
the other a hard working American citizen, but yelling go home is not a racist act and dose not signify that we want all Muslims to 'go away' or go home.

thirdly my oppont stated that once again I quote 'To deny American citizens their first constitutional right is outright ludicrous' this may be true but we were not denying them and are not denying them anything there building it are they not? But where in the constitution dose It say that we can not firmly disagree whit what they are doing America is as much a home to them as it is to us but it dose not make any more right to build on the site of a NATIONAL tragedy.
Debate Round No. 1
Kinger

Pro

I would also like to wish my opponent good luck, and thank them for accepting this debate. However, I would also like to remind my opponent of the terms of debate.org that prohibit cursing and profanity[1].

----------

My opponent has agreed with my argument that the builders of the Islamic community center have the right to build it. While morally it is an arguable decision whether or not the community center should be built near Ground Zero, it is important to note that morals are not subjective, whilst rights are. This means that morals do not overwrite the rights of an individual or group. If someone thought slavery was "morally right" to be legal in the United States, it does not change the fact that it is still illegal and unconstitutional [2]. So therefore, even if it is morally wrong to build the community center near Ground Zero, it does not effect their right to build it. And in fact, there is no law banning the building of a mosque or Islamic structure near Ground Zero because the government of New York, and the United States deem it "unmoral" ban the building of such structures.

My opponent has proposed the idea that the protesters of the community center are not racist. The definition of racism is as the following according to Merriam-Webster[3]:
RACISM:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
This means that racism is when a person or group associates certain character and personality traits to a person because of their race, such as the old belief that those of black skin color were inferior to the Caucasian race simply because of the color of their skin. The protesters as shown in the Anti-Mosque rally video are obviously racist in the fact that they identified two Arab Arabic speaking men as Muslim simply because they were Arab, spoke Arabic, and were near the community center location. They easily determined that based on the race these two fellow Anti-Mosque men were Muslim, which is a racist act. They shouted the remarks "go home" and of the like at them because they were Arab and Arabic speaking, and because they 'seemed' Muslim [4]. It's not very patriotic to identify someone with a religion simply because they look like someone who would be associated with it. Once more I'll state these people are racist and should not be allowed to have their way with the denying the building of the mosque because they are ignorant about what they are protesting, and who can not tell friend from foe.

I agree with my opponent that there is no place in the Constitution that says "we can not firmly disagree" with something. This is protected in the first amendment of the U.S Constitution stating that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," [5] However, it should be reminded that to associate all Muslims with 9/11 is also a racist remark for the fact that it is untrue, and to deny the building of this community center is to associate the Muslims that want to build it, along with all Muslims of the world, with the same terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11th, 2001, and continue to do so to do this day, which in turn is a racist thing to do.

So once more I should reiterate that the Islamic community center has every right to be built, not because it is morally right or wrong, but because it is unconstitutional to not allow it to be built.

References:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.mediaite.com...
[5] http://www.usconstitution.net...
Sarcasm

Con

Sarcasm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Kinger

Pro

My opponent has forfeited a round. I encourage him to make a final argument in the last round.
I also thank him for joining this debate.
Sarcasm

Con

Sarcasm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
"I personally think they have every right to build the "mosque" where ever they want to. However, as Con points out, the protesters are saying "build it anywhere but here.""

First of all, you're contradicting yourself by stating that you believe Muslims have every right to build a mosque wherever they want to but that they shouldn't build it in Manhattan. The majority of protestors who oppose this community center are ignorant racists who cannot differentiate between a Muslim and a terrorist. Fortunately, some of us know that there is a difference. There are possibly 400, maybe 500 Al Qaeda operatives around the world, and 1.5 billion Muslims. It's unjust to group the 1.5 billion who condone such acts of terrorism together with the terrorists who carried out the attacks. Muslims shouldn't be punished for 9/11; they too lost family and friends on that day. Muslims fight in the armed forces protecting people like you, Brendan21 - what message are you trying to tell them? They put their lives on the line for you every day.

Additionally, opposing this mosque could lead to a huge backlash in the Middle East; Muslims will be furious. Furthermore, opposing this mosque could lead to backlash within the United States; misguided Muslim youth could find this as a justification for future acts of terrorism. 9/11 was a tragedy because there was no justification for it; hence why it's called a "terrorist" attack. However, by stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists and telling them that their community center can't be built because you can't differentiate between a Muslim and a terrorist, you're fueling their fire.

Ultimately, ask yourself this: what do you want your great grandkids to see in history textbooks a century from now?

Obama said it best: "We are not at a war against Islam We are at war against terrorists organizations that have distorted Islam or have falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts. We've got to be clear about that."
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
" These protests, while having a good intentions, is actually hurting our basic constitutional beliefs and the foundation of the U.S."

What good intentions?
Posted by Brendan21 6 years ago
Brendan21
Mosques are being protested all through out the United States*
lol, big difference, sorry for the error
Posted by Brendan21 6 years ago
Brendan21
I personally think they have every right to build the "mosque" where ever they want to. However, as Con points out, the protesters are saying "build it anywhere but here." This wouldn't be a big issue if that was true, unfortunately, its not. Mosques are being protected all through out the United States, from New York all the way to California. Americans are expressing an Islamaphobic message to countries across the oceans, which in turn makes everyone hate America even more. These protests, while having a good intentions, is actually hurting our basic constitutional beliefs and the foundation of the U.S.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
lol, fair point.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Mosques don't have rights.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Actually, there are many islamic countries that allow churches(Pakistan, UAE, etc.). Saudi Arabia doesn't, but it's controlled by extremists.
Posted by Kinger 6 years ago
Kinger
Saudi Arabia bans churches already. There's not a single one in the country. So no, they wouldn't start allowing the building of churches right after a Christian attack on their country.
Posted by mrsmooth27 6 years ago
mrsmooth27
On the topic directly...

I might be tempted to apply the golden rule here. If, hypothetically, Christians committed an act of terrorism on a largely Muslim country (Let's say, Saudi Arabia), would the government allow the building of a Christian church a few blocks away? I would be willing to bet the government would ban that building as quickly as they banned Pokemon.
Posted by Kinger 6 years ago
Kinger
That's alright Kinesis. I'll probably hold this one again but a little differntly (perhaps I'll focous on the racist side of the protesters)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
KingerSarcasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
KingerSarcasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by hrvdbnd2013 6 years ago
hrvdbnd2013
KingerSarcasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ReginaldJeeves 6 years ago
ReginaldJeeves
KingerSarcasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
KingerSarcasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30