The "Ground Zero Mosque"

Yup, it's about that time.

I've carefully tiptoed around this issue for a while now, ever since it came up in the media. The initial accusation (from both sides) was that the former site of the World Trade Center (Ground Zero) would be turned into a mosque, or house of worship, for those of the Islamic faith. For those who are unsure, radical Islamic extremists were behind the attacks on the Trade Center on 9/11.

Here's the reason for the quotes in the title - by "Ground Zero", the media MEANS to say "two blocks away from Ground Zero", and by "mosque" they MEAN to say "Islamic Community Center with a mosque inside of it". It is not, as commonly portrayed, a golden-domed mosque going up on the very spot the Towers stood. It will resemble the surrounding architecture of New York in every way, at least on the exterior.

So why the issue? Well, in the 9 years since the attacks, the area of lower Manhattan where those iconic symbols of American might once stood has become, more or less, sacred ground. I've been there. Seen the memorials. Entered the closed-down chapel across the street that now serves as a sobering reminder of that tragic day. Observed the cracked and shattered gravestones outside said chapel. This is a Christian house of worship that, out of respect, declined to rebuild and instead dedicate the site to the Americans who died on that day, and those who continue to die overseas as a direct result of that day.

One of the "pro-mosque" (if I may) arguments is that "it was there before". So was the church, and they have enough respect to say "We'll take it elsewhere". Now, I'm a fan of religious tolerance. Big fan of religious tolerance. But in this case, I place the interests of my country over that of a generally foreign religion that contains the fringe groups that have continually attacked this nation, physically and verbally. I'm not stereotyping, before anyone has a chance to toss that at me. There are good, peace-loving Muslims out there. Maybe if the Center was headed by someone other than Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, I'd be slightly less critical of the plan. But to show you my issue with Rauf:

Rauf, Sept. 30, 2001: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
Correspondent Ed Bradley: OK. You say that we’re an accessory?
Rauf: Yes.
Bradley: How?
Rauf: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

Calling the U.S an accessory to 9/11 is typical radical Muslim. Add to that the fact that Rauf not only refuses to speak out against the terrorist organization Hamas, but actually condones them, and you have a shrouded figure with ties to enemies of the State that's operating a high-profile building with a possible anti-American agenda. That doesn't sit right with me.

I'll close this part of the post by saying that I am against the building of the Center. I respect the victims of the 9/11 attacks, our soldiers overseas that are fighting Islamic extremists, and the families of the 9/11 victims.

Next, we move onto everyone's favorite American icon: Rosie O'Donnell. Yes, Rosie O'Donnell. The same Rosie O'Donnell who said, in support of the mosque, "Radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical Muslims".

Whoa. Whoa. Hold the phone here, Rosie. "Radical Christians" are "just as dangerous" as radical Muslims? "Radical Christians" don't bomb people who don't share the same ideals they do. Radical Christians don't take a symbol of an Islamic country's power and glory and kill 3,000 people in an act of war.

Taking it a step farther, when asked the very same things I just pointed out, O'Donnell replied "We're over there killing people right now in a war that's been going on for 6 years."

Congratulations, Rosie. You just called the United States government a "radical sect of Christianity". Do I even need to point out the flaws in that statement?

An Era of Political Partisanship

It is painfully clear that there is a canyon-sized rift between Republicans and Democrats everywhere today. Turn on a lamestream media channel, and you'll see it from the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz. They hate the other end of the spectrum more than they hate the insurgents we're fighting overseas. Republicans are fear-mongering, scare-tactic using, bigoted racists. Democrats are spineless, hippie-loving, money-hounding, anti-American anarchists. It's a "fact of life". You're bred to have a strong distaste for the other side. However, it wasn't always this way. Believe it or not, up until 2000, divisive partisanship wasn't nearly as prominent as it is today.

The event that sparked the atmosphere in Washington today is the 2000 presidential election. Election Day and the 36-days of Hell that followed (as described by Karl Rove in Courage and Consequence) set the tone for the G.W. Bush Era, and that tone carried over into the Obama Era. You see, Democrats were so sore over the embittered Al Gore winning the popular vote and losing in the Electoral College because of Florida, that they never accepted Bush as a legitimate president. The love-him-or-hate-him Harry Reid was a rejector of Bush's legitimacy, as were Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt.

Now, in no way am I blaming the entire descent into name-calling and mutual degradation entirely on the left. If it was all them, the country would be dominated by the GOP once voters realized their immaturity. No, it takes two to tango, and Republicans have made two mistakes for every one the Democrats have.

I digress. The bottom line is, everything needs to change. Compromises need to be made. Critical legislation is being delayed or shot down because of a lack of cooperation. I disagree with the decision to block benefits to 9/11 aid workers. That was Republicans shooting it down because Democrats wouldn't compromise. Benefits for the unemployed took months to pass, again Republicans blocked them because of a lack of compromise. This is on both sides of the aisle, and it needs to change fast. It's been happening for 10 years, and instead of blaming the financial collapse on President Bush, let's blame it on that. It's because of the bitterness that the proposed regulations on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fizzled and died, leading to the collapse of the financial market after bad nonprime and subprime mortgages were given.

For the good of America, please, put the differing views and petty games aside.