I will not say the same shit. I will not say: "In this country we have freedom of religion!". We do not have freedom of religion we have an old document that says we do, many in the USA do not have freedom of religion. It is also too simplistic for the people who don't have a reason for their objections to a mosque somewhat spatially near the wound in Manhattan. I will not say: "Islam is different than other religions, it is significantly more dangerous!". Islam is whatever Muslims (and non-Muslims) make of it. It is an idea, if that idea is used to kill people than is it any different from our ideas of law and war? Do we not justify our own killing? Every breath we take is a breath stolen from someone else, freedom=inequality.
I would like to side-step to explain the phrase" "immutable ontology". First the word immutable means to never change...EVER. The second word traditionally in philosophy means the study of the body or bodies. Recently in philosophy it has become the response to the question: "What Am I?", "What is Human?", or "What is Being? or to be?". The way I like to use ontology in this phrase is to imply a bordered area or metonym (when used in this fashion a metonym is the area which a word represents[if you and a friend both picture a chair in your mind's eye, you will never picture the exact same thing, but you will both agree that each other's picture was a chair]). These definitions of ontology and metonym are not in most dictionaries, so please don't think that this is something I didn't look up. These words attain different meaning depending on what stimuli you expose yourself to. In my research ontology and metonym are great functional words for communicating ideas.
So you have probably figured out what I'm getting at by "immutable ontology" by now. The idea that something has the potential to not change: whether it be ideas, non-living or living things. The modern world pits humans against impermanence, locking them in a losing battle to attain security through immutable ontologies. These privileged identities of security are illusory. Reality is random and nothing will ever change that. Existentialism teaches us to adopt a lifestyle based on the assumption that you could die tomorrow. This kind of idea is one of acceptance of death, and therefore to live your own life better. This seems to be a better response to paranoia.
Instead responses to paranoia usually take different directions, but are easily mapped. Both groups create an immutable ontology concerning Islam. The reasoning for this creation is because of a media blitz after 9/11 that blamed Muslims to the extent that the USA went to war with a country completely unrelated to the attacks(as of the time of this writing the US is still engaged in the occupation of Iraq, and with that massive military base it'll be a wonder if they're not there for good). But lets just ignore the flawed reasoning that led to United Statesians associating Islam with terrorism to the point of crippling paranoia, when terrorism has a slight fraction of the body count the United States military actions have racked up. If it is more likely the United States will murder than a Muslim will murder in the name of Islam, than at what point does the racism become some Freudian protection of the ideal self image.
So both groups construct an immutable ontology of Islam as uniquely violent and uniquely worse than other world religions.
Group number one's immutable aspect of Islam is that: "Islam did 9/11". Therefore group number one thinks that a mosque being built near the world trade center site would mean that Islam not only did 9/11, they won the war! Pretty soon it'll be like red dawn, only this time it'll be like green dawn or Quran dawn. We'll have to take to the hills and use Cuban revolution tactics to destabilize their regime! Wolverines!
Group number two's immutable aspect of Islam is that: "Islam is uniquely violent over all other religions". In this respect the mosque represents an action of bad taste, that should be deferred for later. For example: making a joke at the expense of a recently deceased celebrity, and then asking 'too soon?'
My personal opinion is that Mosques are not a fucking issue. This is exactly like gay marriage: another non-issue (wedge issue) brought up for no apparent reason and the agenda setting corporate media shoves it down our throats for fucking months before an election. If people wanna build a center of worship to zuul at ground zero more power to 'em if they can afford to put it up, who gives a shit? At a very basic fundamental level you personally: how often are you personally going to walk by that site? New Yorkers like to think they're the big apple, but they ain't that big United Statesians are spread pretty wide and NYC is just another city. If you don't spend time in NYC: SHUT THE FUCK UP! It has no affect on you whatsoever!? Why do you want to play the role of policing Muslims? Just because you can get away with it? Just because thats the role TeeVee told you to play? Is this Zimbardo's prison study? Ok, not you you, but the individual people, wtf can they think their interest is in this issue that they can tell people what they can and can't build? The last thing that bothers me about this issue is that these people telling people what they can and cannot build are the same fuckers who thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I still can't stress it enough ladies and gentleman: read about 9/11. Read the crazies and read the whitewashes, but to be honest with you the in-between is just a bunch or bullshit, its actually more like a bullshit sandwich though where the normality such sources convey is the bread, lulling you in to a false sense of security before the taste of bullshit fills your mouth and nostrils.
In my opinion they should build whatever they can fucking build on, near, and around ground zero. Not that I think the immutable ontology of capitalism (infinite growth) is real, but because when you live in a city sometimes you can sense its soul. To have such a wound on the city, cannot be good for its soul. I would like to see a museum that would quickly be filled with bullshit regarding 9/11, but it would provide a geographical space in which to struggle for the visibility of certain subordinated truths from that day.
I wanted to talk about one last thing which I will label "Apocrypha": The World Trade Center worship/spiritual center. The world trade center had at least one non-denominational center of worship. So I would like to point out that Islam already was practiced at the WTC. People have opposition to this mosque, because they believe that it represents a change from the status quo, but hopefully this can help them realize that there has been no change if we continue to allow worship of any deity on or near the world trade center.