Are you aware that it is customary for islam to build their mosk or place of worship on the exact site where the people they have defeated worshiped? The Trade centre was America's economic heart... kind of like a capitalist place of worship.
"Place of worship" is a pretty serious stretch, "the exact site" is an even bigger one, since the mosque is not being planned for the site, just nearby. When I first heard about the controversy I thought it was AT the site, and then I could really understand the feelings about it. But it simply isn't on the site.
The decision that let this happen was a decision by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, that a nearby building wasn't historical. If it wasn't than they had no grounds to say it was. There decision isn't an endorsement of Islam. It would be inappropriate for the commission to base its decision on anything, but whether the building is to important historically to modify or replace.
I'm not a giant fan of his, but Bloomberg is right when he says
""This building is private property and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship,"
and
"The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right, and if it were tried the court would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. constitution."
Even though it isn't on the site I can still see why people are upset, but the constitution protections of freedom to worship, and the property rights of the owners of the property, make it wrong and illegal to stop the building of the mosque. I would wish that the people building it where more sensitive to people's opinions, perhaps not building it, or at least acknowledging the concerns, and trying to allay them rather than just dismissing them totally like they have in a couple of interviews that I saw on the topic, but what grounds do you have for not allowing religious use, and for telling people what they can do with their own property? |
