Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
Isn't the site of the proposed mosque on property once leased to Burlington Coat Factory? I don't know who the owner was. Silverstein's lease only includes the Port Authority owned land where the Twin Towers stood (and the Towers themselves along with adjacent structures).
The proposed mosque site is a couple of blocks away from Silverstein's lease. It is however, still a part of "Ground Zero." The building was damaged and left derelict by the terrorist attacks. Human remains of the victims were recovered from what is now the "mosque site."
No " Dawa" (a call to convert to Islam) is appropriate on any land destroyed or left derelict and unusable by the terrorists on 9/11. Constructing a mosque on the site where victims were recovered is inappropriate as well.
No one is being kept from building a mosque. The only argument involves the location.
A Chicago mosque was denied a site that the local Chamber of Commerce deemed should be used for commercial redevelopment to benefit the whole community. The fact that about 1/3 of the Chamber of Commerce members were Muslim themselves made this a non-issue.
Wanting to relocate the site of a mosque development doesn't make one a "bigot," NOT EVEN coadie. |
If one's opposition to one's occupation of an area is based solely on one's religion, race, or gender, that seems to be fairly bigoted to me.