The “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy and the “US vs Them” dilemma

Actually, it should be called “The 2-blocks-from-Ground-Zero Not-exactly-a-Mosque” controversy. But if that were the case, there might be no as much controversy as there is right now.

The “Ground Zero Mosque” topic is right now the hot one on the news. Which is no surprise after the 9/11 attacks. To many, the building of a Mosque in/near the place in which many died because deranged Muslim fundamentalist killed thousands of people is a slap in the face to the American people.



Of course, by “American people” those who oppose the construction of the Mosque mean “non-muslim American people”.

It’s very easy to feel alienated against a minority group, especially if this group believes the same thing than those who killed so many people. However, it’s necessary to recognize that the Muslims that want to build this Islamic Center (that’s what it’s called) are not the same kind of people who flew planes into the towers. Yes, I know, they believe the same thing, the same nonsensical story very near to a Greek myth. But they are not willing to kill for it. At least they haven’t shown that.

According to The Economist

Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modeling his project on New York’s 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions.

Doesn't sound so bad. Even though he puts some responsibility on the West for the 9/11 attacks (I say "bullshit", but let's put that aside), an interfaith understanding is much better than to have a faith-based everyone-against-everyone.

Also, let's not forget that the ones who are going to benefit from it are Americans, muslim Americans, yes. Not al-qaeda jihadists. So, even if I dislike the construction of a religious place (which I do), I support it.

The US constitution provides freedom of religion to everyone, as much as it states a separation of church and state. If we are going to work with that "Wall of Separation" in mind, it's only consequent to protect freedom of religion. So that, in the future, Wiccans, Baha'is and other religions (less obnoxious, let's hope) can also worship in the way they want (without messing with others, let's hope)

Of course, not everyone understands it the same way. Notorious American moron Sarah Palin stated:

"Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.”

What the fuck does "refudiate" means? This woman has no idea how to use the English language, yet, she feels like she can interfere with other American's rights? Is this the person so many people wanted as Vice-president?

Anyway, Palin didn't like the idea of the (not a) Mosque (near, not in) Ground Zero. Pretty predictable. As much as average Americans shouldn't be victims of the rage caused by the American government, average American muslims shouldn't be a victim and see their rights shortened, by the rage caused by religious extremists.

If you still think that the "Mosque" is un-American, or an insult to the American people, compare it to going against the First Amendment of the Constitution. What do you think is more "un-American"?

Finally, what pisses me off the most about this issue is to have to speak out in favor of a religious group. It's certainly easier to put them all in the same bag and call them all "terrorists". But it wouldn't be the intelligent thing to do.



She is also a Muslim. Never forget that.