The 'Mosque' at 'Ground Zero'. Yay or Nay?

There's been lots of talk surrounding the issue of the proposed Cultural Center two blocks away from Ground Zero, which is the site of the World Trade Center twin-towers destroyed in the 2001 9/11 attacks. The proposed center would have a Muslim prayer area inside (with other religions represented), and is explained as something intended to 'heal wounds'.

Despite this seemingly-innocent proclamation, the idea of a Muslim-proposed center two blocks from Ground Zero (actually on Ground Zero, if we count all areas damaged in the attacks), is going to make things *worse* for many, and it appears about 64% of New Yorkers are against the proposed construction.

To me, the religious Cultural Center doesn't come across as a means to heal or unite, but as an Islamic exclamation point on a site they directly destroyed, inspired by beliefs in the Koran and cheered on by massed of Muslims in the Middle East (just watch some of the footage shown after the 9/11 attacks).

Whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not, America's motivation after 9/11 was a response to a declared holy war. It doesn't mean that all Muslims are equally culpable, but those who represent the idealogues who seek our destruction should not expect the same rights as everyone else during wartime. If nothing else, it's a good reason to delay or declare a moratorium on new construction for mosques near areas destroyed by the motivations of Islam. If nothing else, it's a security measure, or an attempt to prevent Americans from being demoralized during an active war with militarized factions of Islam.

Furthermore, if we understand correctly that Islam is part of the problem and not the solution to a problem it created, erecting any Muslim 'interfaith' structure so close to Ground Zero should be a repugnant idea to Muslim moderates and Americans, who were also injured in the 9/11 attacks. Strangely, we don't hear much from the Muslim 'moderates' regarding this.

A Mosque or 'Islamic Cultural Center' two blocks from Ground Zero would be like a proposed Shinto/Japanese shrine near the destroyed battleships in Pearl Harbor, or a Nazi community center near Auschwitz, Treblinka or Birkenau. While there may be a Constitutional provision for those who seek to build religious structures near sites destroyed by religious extremists, the city itself can simply disallow it under zoning laws, much the same way they'd prevent a Harley mechanic from setting up shop downtown between two fine-dining establishments.

If a city can zone for new construction based on noise, pollution and other concerns, why can't they make a case for those who represent enemy combatants which we're still at war with?

If nothing else, the community center would inflame and/or demoralize Americans, and serve as a 'victory' flag for Islam near a site which isn't even restored. Osama Bin Laden is still at-large and the stated endgame of Islam is to dominate all non-Muslims. The Koran instructs its adherents to treat Infidels roughly, and 'slay them wherever you find them'.

There's no reason to allow proponents of an unreformed 7th-century death-cult to build so close to Ground Zero during wartime, even if they're only apologists who might not be actively be at war, but are still preaching the same dogma which inspired the 19 terrorists and countless others who seek to destroy or dominate the free world.

The U.S. in the past has gone to great lengths to keep up morale during wartime, and yes, unfortunately, the U.S. is at war with militarized factions of Islam, and those who would support them. How did the 19 terrorists (sometimes called the 'Magnificent 19') have so much financial and moral support in the first place, and why did their own families celebrate their martyrdom? Why does the Middle East suffer no shortage of suicide bombers? It's not something peculiar to the location, but to Islam itself.

In the shadow of the site destroyed by the forces of Islam, do we allow Muslims to build their 'community' center, when religion was precisely the cause of the as yet unrestored World Trade Center, with Osama Bin Laden still at large during a time of war? I say, no, at least, not yet, and perhaps, not there or both.

I think this is why so many Americans are conflicted about this proposed community center. They understand that Constitutionally, there's no reason to disallow it. However, we're at war with militarized factions of radical Islam. We weren't attacked by Mormons, swedes, stamp collectors or people who hate cauliflower. We were attacked and continue to be attacked by those directly-inspired by Islam, with support from others who aren't actively fighting the war.

During war-time, not every citizen is in battle carrying a gun or driving a tank, but as a nation, we aim to win wars, not lose them. If we're going to fight a war, whether we agree with it or not, we should aim to win or not fight at all.

As long as Islam has declared war on the U.S. and the west, and since 9/11 already happened, and with Osama Bin Laden still at large, I say, all bets are off.

During war-time, we don't always have the same rights we'd expect during peacetime, and this would apply to those trying to build a Shinto Shrine in 1948 near the destruction of Pearl Harbor. This proposal would be made more repugnant if the area still hadn't been restored and Japan still hadn't surrendered, and we were still at war as a response to the Pearl Harbor attacks on December 7th, 1941, with enemy number one still at large.

We can consider Ground Zero to be somewhat of a crime scene. Just like any crime scene which is taped-off barring entry as a matter of security and investigation, America can decide where those boundaries are with regard to Ground Zero, and the zoning which is enacted with regard to new construction should fall under the purview of national security and American morale.

This is not to say that mosques shouldn't be built anywhere, just that it's up to the city where to draw the 'crime' scene tape, and this might apply to all new religious construction in that area. Since religion got us in this mess, it would make sense during a time of war to have a moratorium on new religious construction in the area, at least till the war is over, Osama is captured and Ground Zero is restored. If nothing else, the timing is all wrong, and the location is suspect.

If there's to be any new structure built, I would recommend not a religious community center, but a secular museum *for everyone* which pays tribute to those who died (and survived). This museum could demonstrate the danger of religious dogma and irrational hatred, similar to Holocaust museums which remind us of the dangers of our own human frailties, ignorance, and capability for destruction.

This would help heal wounds, and wouldn't be perceived as a flag planted by Islam on the soil of their destruction.

-dB-

Koran Cookout

Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville Florida had planned a Koranic cookout on Saturday, 9/11, which would be the 9th anniversary of the September 11 attacks by Muslim extremists.

All Terry Jones wants to do is burn some privately-owned Korans as a form of protest, a protected-right in America. It's destructive, but it's also powerful symbolism.

Let's keep things in perspective here. On 9/11/2001, 19 members of an Islamic death cult, driven by their religious ideas and with religious rituals the night before (including shaving their body hair to enter Islamic paradise) used our own American civilian-filled planes as missiles, taking out important symbolic targets such as the World Trade Center, damaging the Pentagon (our seat of national security), were probably going to attempt to take out the White House, and killed thousands of Americans and started what is effectively a holy war. Cheering crowds in the middle east celebrated their 'victory' over the west, including members of the marty's families, as the death of a martyr in Islam helps secure a spot in Paradise for his family. If this was just a group of rogue extremists, how were they so well funded, celebrated so widely, and where were the outcries from Muslim 'moderates' afterward?

Are people actually concerned about the symbolic and *legal* Koran-burning by some Pastor on the 9th anniversary of 9/11?

Again, this is powerful symbolism, but the reason we need to allow this freedom of speech and protest is because while I may not exactly with Pastor Jones's reasoning (or his own wacky faith), I do feel Islam needs to be reminded that their laws don't apply to secular America, nor do they apply to individuals who disagree with them.

The fact that Muslims often will kill to intimidate others into submission is all the more reason to never back down to their threats. You can't make an army of those who follow a death cult happier by submitting to their Draconian laws, and they're already plenty motivated to destroy those who oppose them.

A symbolic protest-burning of the Koran 9 years after the 9/11 attacks is by no means going to fuel any more fires than are already fueled by the ongoing war. What do we care if our enemy combatants are offended? We're already at war with the militarized forces of Islam *because* of the 9/11 attacks, and let's not forget, they tried to take out the World Trade Center in 1993...it was just lucky for us that they failed. A legal protest by one American and his church-group is little to be concerned about.

9/11 already happened and we've been at war for years, and Osama Bin Laden remains at large. We are currently in a holy war with Islam (even if people wish it weren't the case). While not all Muslims are extremists, moderate Muslims should understand the symbolism behind Paster Jones's upcoming Koranic BBQ, and American Muslims who understand our rights as Americans known that book or flag burning (of your own private property) is protected 'speech'. Any reasonable Muslim should understand the situation we're in as a nation....and should be more concerned about reforming Islam than trying to silence its critics.

If someone wants to burn their own copies of the Bible, I say, go for it. If you want to burn your own copies of Darwin's 'Origin of Species', you have that right, even if I disagree with you.

While I generally disagree with this form of protest simply because I think it's a waste of paper and materials, I do understand the power of symbolism. Muslims are fond of burning effigies of Bush or Obama or the American flag. Desecration or symbolism is something they *understand*, perhaps this is why there's such an uproar.

The very fact that Muslims go ape-nuts crazy when their 7th century ideals are offended is all the more reason to never relent, lest they actually get what they want: Submission. This is what Islam literally means, 'Submission'. This was explained by Ibn Warraq, author of 'Why I am not a Muslim' and Parvin Darabi in her book, 'Rage Behind the Veil'. Both are former Muslims and who shed much-needed light on the real goings-on in Islam, which is the inside look at Islam the west often doesn't see (though we see the destruction inspired by it).

What is first a protest against book burning symbolism, a protected right in America, can easily become the protest against women not wearing Hijab, or any kind of Muslim criticism in books or other media. It is somewhat of a slippery slope, but modern day people with free-speech rights will *always* offend Islam. We have to understand that there's simply no way to avoid offending some radical Muslims, especially since we're at war with some of them and still trying to find Osama Bin Laden (unfinished business). To focus on minor offenses via free-speech is to miss the point. Islam needs to change and reform and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Like a spoiled child who finally receives discipline, it's ill-advised to refrain from discipline simply because they make a loud noise.

That said, let's remember that Muslims killed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for merely making a critical movie about Islam entitled 'Submission'. Van Gogh was stabbed through his chest and shot in the streets by a Muslim extremist. Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote about this in her book, 'Infidel', and she is still under threat of death if certain Muslims find her due to her friendship and work with Mr. Van Gogh.

Some Muslims wanted to kill Salman Rushdie for writing 'Satanic Verses', and I am sure there are those who are still seeking to end his life, for merely believing enough in Islam to fulfill the fatwah for his death issued by Muslim leaders.

Cartoonists such as Danish Kurt Westergaard who dared portray the prophet Mohammed were threatened with death as well. Should we never dare draw Mohammed again? No.

The best way to combat this ridiculous extremism is to respond in large numbers and insist on defending our rights to free-expression....Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims...especially those in free, secular countries like America.



While some people like Pastor Terry Jones seek to use their Constitutional rights to hold a Koran-burning in protest on 9/11, something I think many would understand, Muslims often seek to silence and kill those who offend them.

Muslims do not get to abridge the rights of non-Muslims, especially in a secular nation, simply because they're offended. As long as Islam is unreformed and killing people for merely expressing ideas, it's all the more reason to offend them early and often, and challenge their barbaric ideas and oppression at every turn.