. . . All The Information Available

  I Believe it is imperative that we make decisions after we have all the information available, and not just follow the crowd. Even if you believe you have made your decision on the Mosque near Ground Zero question, this article has information you possibly don't have. 
   There are only two mentions of religion in the Constitution, or the amendments thereto. The first in in Article VI of the Constitution, last paragraph:
   "The Senators and the Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution: but no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
   The second mention is the first clause of Amendment I to the Constitution of The United States of America:
   "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
   What seems on the surface, to be an easy choice, is not so easy when all the facts are known. I am torn between the Constitution, which I believe affords the right to build the mosque, but whereas the same 1st Amendment gives the right to free speech, we can't, won't and don't condone someone shouting "Fire" in a crowded building. Just because the right is given by the Bill of Rights.
   I am for the peaceable worship of God via any religion. I know that already sets me against various other religions which don't believe in any god or gods, or whose ways of worship are repugnant to me, However, I acknowledge their right to worship the way they want in The United States, because of that wonderful 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights. I must say here, as I say often, that I don't condone radicals in any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zen, Wicca, or whatever. It is my opinion it is the radicals who cause the problems because of their overzealousness. They are the ones shouting fire.
   I set out on this dialogue to point out there are multiple sides to every question. I do not believe the building of a mosque at or near Ground Zero is shouting fire. There is a malady called Islamophobia in the United States today which should be directed at Radical Muslims, not all Muslims. In years hence we will look back at the outcome of this controversy, and only then will we really know what the answer should have been. I am a Constitutionalist, and I strongly support their right to build it there.
   Dave Skibowski

Build the Ground Zero Mosque
by Fareed Zakaria
August 06, 2010

   Ever since 9/11, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terror is to prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam, the ideology that motivates young men to kill and be killed. Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam—one that is compatible with modernity—fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden.
   As the conservative Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes put it, “The U.S. role [in this struggle] is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.” To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. Except, apparently, in New York City .
   The debate over whether an Islamic center should be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center has ignored a fundamental point. If there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it.
   The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical —but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf’s views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism—as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonalities among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that in any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, argues that the United States is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.
   Rauf often makes his arguments using interpretations of the Quran and other texts. Now, I am not a religious person, and this method strikes me as convoluted and Jesuitical. But for the vast majority of believing Muslims, only an argument that is compatible with their faith is going to sway them. The Somali-born “ex-Muslim” writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s advice to Muslims is to convert to Christianity. That may create buzz, but it is unlikely to have any effect on the 1.2 billion devout Muslims in the world.
   The much larger issue that this center raises is, of course, of freedom of religion in America . Much has been written about this, and I would only urge people to read Michael Bloomberg’s speech on the subject last week. Bloomberg’s eloquent, brave, and carefully reasoned address should become required reading in every civics classroom in America . It probably will.
   Bloomberg’s speech stands in stark contrast to the bizarre decision of the Anti-Defamation League to publicly side with those urging that the center be moved. The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center . Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?
   Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation.