I tried searching the forums, but I apologize if this has already been treated in another thread (moderators, please feel free to close/merge as appropriate).
I was surprised there hasn't been much mention of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" here in the Backroom. Technically speaking, the mosque will be constructed two blocks away, as a 9 story building looking down on Ground Zero in Manhatten. All the same, I personally understand why people have issues with this.
Traditionally, muslims have built mosques on sites where they conquered a landmark from an enemy. For example, they built the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock over the ruins of the Jewish temple in Jersulaem, so that no temple could ever be rebuilt. They converted the Basilica of Hagia Sophia (Cathedral of Holy Wisdom), what was essentially the centralized site for Eastern Orthodox Christians at the time after they conquered Constantinople in 1453 (then renamed to Istanbul). into the Ayasofa Mosque in an effort to forcibly convert the city's inhabitants to Islam.
Even the name of the group, Cordoba House, invokes images of Conquest.... Cordoba was the capital of Muslim Spain.
I know that in a free society, you cannot forbid people to practice their religious practices, and if it's a religious practice for these people (not necessarily all muslims) to build a huge "We Kicked Your Ass and This Place Is Ours Now" shrine at the site of a massacre like the 9/11 bombings, I suppose as long as they operate within the law it's technically their right.
But I ask you, let's not focus on the "Can they?" Let's focus on the "Should they?" Where does nationalism/zealotry need to take a back-seat to good taste? Would anybody have a problem if Fred Phelps opened a sister chapel on the grounds of the camp in Srebenicia and named it the "Church of the Almighty Who Gives the Heathens What They Deserve"?
Bookmarks