- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The answer to whether a mosque should be built TWO BLOCKS away from, NOT "AT" ground zero should be based on the contract of the builders and the city. If there is a contract and both sides signed it, whether before or after 9/11 happened, then the mosque should be built. I don't know whether a contract was signed and whether both parties approved, but if it was signed, according to law, you can't deny the right to build the mosque.
Considering all the hype for this debate, if a contract was already signed, disallowing the mosque to be built two blocks from ground zero is religious intolerance and prejudice against moderate Muslims in disguise.
Sarah Palin said on Twitter that the mosque at ground zero is "an unnecessary provocation. It stabs hearts." It stabs the hearts of the victims and their families of 9/11. Now if it was a Christian 13-story cultural center, NO ONE would be protesting and it wouldn't "stab the hearts" of anyone. This is obviously a sign that the Islamic religion is being prejudiced as enemies of the U.S. considering that 9/11 was done by "Muslims."
As a summary, supporters say they want to build a cultural center and mosque 2 blocks away from ground zero
Protesters say we don't want you to build it here because it would be like pissing on the victims of 9/11 (why? because we think Islam is full of extremists with bombs under their shirts and would love to kill Americans....!!!news flash!!!: RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE)
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!