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?