subject: A New Yorkers Thoughts on the Mosque Controversy [print this page] Since, I pretty much can't read any newspaper without hearing about this gosh darn mosque, I feel compelled to share my personal thoughts on the matter. I have to say, this debate is extremely perplexing and as disappointing as it is heartbreaking. And it shows above all how US citizens are victim to "media-cation." I live in New York City, and I work near Ground Zero. And I take personal offense to this issue, not because I'm a Muslim, because I'm not. But because I am a human being who sincerely cares about others, and the great laws of this nation. As we all know, the catastrophe of September 11th is something that has affected thousands of lives, not even including the over 3,000 lives lost.
However, the argument being presented by surviving families is one based upon sensitivity. The argument, though wholly valid misses the larger point. The criminal masterminds of 9/11 were Muslim extremists. Al-Qaedais a group, not a country. These criminals were not directly affiliated with any 'Muslim nation,' and since that day, it is a non-negotiable fact that no Muslim nation has declared war on the American people. Religious extremism in any religion is never condoned by true and peaceful practitioners. Which brings me to my point. The sensitivity issue being presented in regards to the proximity of a Mosque near Ground Zero, implies that these families have not come to terms with the fact that radicals committed this heinous crime. The Muslim faith, though it was used as a mask for justification, is not to be blamed. The controversy of this Mosque inherently strips dignity away from those practicing Islam. This building is at the mercy of those seeking to symbolically categorize(whether deliberately or inadvertently) the Faith... with inhuman crime. As such, these mean-spirited metaphors, used by divisive political figures suggesting the "ironic pain" this building inflicts are completely baseless. And it is so frustrating to watch people get so fired up over commentary that directly hinders any kind of reasonable solution or dialogue. An example of such a figure would be Newt Gingrich. And I recently read an article by Conor Friedersdorf who sums it up beautifully. He basically says that figures like Gingrich only offer an emotional release for people to feed upon. Which is incredibly unhealthy and disturbing! The stipulations the founders of this building are being asked to abide by, no other faith has to adhere to. How do we even dare suggest it? This is the United States, a free nation, a secular nation, a nation that seeks to protect the oppressed. And as far as location again is concerned, this is New York City, there is pretty much no place in the world as diverse as us. We should use the creation of this building as a pillar of understanding and growth. To get passed the point where we judge upon faith versus action. I'm deeply sorry for the families of September 11th but location sensitivity is not a good enough argument in this case. So, I propose this. Public televised debates! Maybe if debates were offered on controversial topics like Park51 in the same manner presidential debates were televised it would be a great way to debunk leaders who intentionally mislead their audiences. Even though we live in an age where information is at our fingertips, we rarely see political figures have to explain their ideas against an opposing viewpoint. For now, opinions from people like Gingrich are, in my opinion as reliable as spam mail. Their sole purpose is to gain political popularity by purposeful manipulation, while inducing hate for another human being. It's no wonder this country is still talking about this.
