http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/06/mann.mosque.ground.zero/index.html?iref=obinsite

Recently, many Americans affected by the 9/11 attacks have been protesting a controversial mosque, which is actually a cultural center for performing arts, lectures, and prayer for Muslims, that is proposed to be built three blocks from ground zero. There opposition is based off of strong emotional sensitivity to the connection between the Islamic faith and the attacks of 9/11.

Some of the main arguments against the construction of this center is the emotional turmoil that it will inflict on the family members of the victims and heroes. In a nation that should honor its heroes, any symbol of disrespect, no matter the connection, should be of heavy consideration. It is very true that “Muslims” do not equate to “terrorists”, but in a nation that is so traditionally Caucasian, a representation of the “face of the enemy” on the hallowed grounds of ground zero will inevitable stir up fear and anxiety. This is not something that one, no matter how open-minded, can ignore – it is evident that this emotion exists. Those who dismiss this as nonsense forget that emotion in itself is a rather irrational concept.

On the contrary, this country has always been based on religious freedom. Always. And no race, culture, or religion should be treated differently by their government. That is a most fundamental building block of the United States of America. The idea that this mosque would indicate a victory for the terrorists is a rather ignorant concept (apologies the lady above whom I’m sure is suffering more than I). We must acknowledge that we are not a white country. We are a country that included Muslims, who we know are not all terrorists.

Bottom Line: Is withholding the principles of this nation worth the emotional turmoil of some?

Let’s not blow the bottom line out of proportion. This is not eternal suffering at the expense of Armageddon. It is an oversimplification of reasoning versus emotion. While it may be simple to dismiss emotion in any case of politics, we must acknowledge that without it, we lose the fundamental humaneness of our society. Perhaps politics is best carried out with little emotion, but an absolute emotion-free society is meaningless. It is this balance that has people debating.

My verdict is that since it is not the end of the world yet, we must, as a people, hold strong to our virtues and allow any culture to practice their faith freely. To do this, it will hurt, but this is where I believe the true strength of our nation is displayed. Perhaps it is easier to ban anything that we dislike regardless of principle. But we should not do what is easiest, we should do what is right. By no means am i insinuating that those who are sensitive to this issue should “suck it up” and “cope”. I urge them to stay strong and fight hard, for the greatness of our nation has always been exemplified by the ideals of the people.

If we can no longer hold strong and begin to waver from our principles due to foreign threat, then that would be the considerable 9/11 victory.

Lastly, I urge my fellow Americans who practice the Islamic faith to also acknowledge the sensitive nature of this proposal. It is not to be dismissed as unreasonable. Many out there are skeptical, yet still learn to accept it order to allow all walks of life the freedom that we cherish in this country.

Children given birth in the United States of America by illegal immigrant parents are dubbed “anchor babies”. By the 14th Amendment, they become a US citizen therefore gaining US right and privileges, in turn, giving their parents benefits as well. This has become a controversial issue due the ongoing debate on illegal immigration and the resurgence of such due to the recent Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 (making illegal immigrants… illegal). This is not a disagreement on the legality of these children, it is whether this should be legal. Or put simply, whether the Fourteenth Amendment that makes this legal should be changed.

Several points are presented by both sides. The major point for changing the Amendment is that it was made at a different time for a different reason. This is a valid argument because the original purpose was to give rights to slave-children born in this country. In that scenario, the Americans [unjustly] hauled the slaves to this land, and then must “suffer repercussions”. In the case of “anchor babies”, the Americans are trying to keep the immigrants out, but they go through hell to get in, and so we are forced to deal with these repercussion – all the reasons why we want to have stronger immigration control. This argument is not to rid of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is simply to tweak it so that foreigners cannot take advantage of our humane policies.

But this leads to the major point for making no amends – humane policies. Those in favor of leaving things as is tend to remember the Amendment as one that gives human rights to those who have done nothing wrong – the children – who have no control over where or when they were born. And so, how can a country as great as ours, one that stands for hope and opportunity, turn away from those desperately seeking for their chance at freedom? But how can any nation, powerful or not, welcome what is slowly deteriorating their economy and way of life?

Bottom Line: Would you sacrifice your way of life for absolute strangers?

If your answer is no, it does not make you a terrible person. In fact, I would even consider that more practical, and perhaps an answer of yes is too idealistic. But this will not quench the debate because the lingering emotion of babies that are denied a complete life is overwhelming. We want to allow them in, but we also want to maintain our way of life. This debate is between this tradeoff. Currently, our nation is in a shade of grey, as it’s been with everything, compromising between the two, but always taking heat form both sides (compromise never makes either side happy). And the topic becomes increasingly complicated because it’s never an issue of simple majority. If 98% of Americans answer yes to this question, and 2% answer no, sometimes the No’s will speak louder, not because they are more passionate, but because obstruction is what really draws out a response.

In the end, laws and Amendments are only society’s way of trying to dictate in words how a people should act for the betterment of society. In this country, that betterment entails life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as economic growth and prosperity. With these anchor babies, their presence is threatening because as a country, we no longer have the luxury of welcoming all in need.

My Verdict

I would vote to leave the Amendment as is. If you look back, the idea of nations and classifying people into citizenship seems absurd because no one really owns this planet, but it is necessary. In order for a society to function, all those living around one another must work together or else no roads will be paved, outside no emergency response. If there was a loan family in society who spoke with no one and was okay living without any human contact… this would clearly never work for a multitude of reasons. Since citizenship is necessary, it makes sense to deport those who’ve defiantly entered into your territory after you’ve clearly said, “no”, but what of those who did not make this choice and were birthed here?

My answer to the bottom line, as is probably most of yours – yes, but only to a certain degree, and depends on a lot of things. It does not make us naive to believe this. We are only naive if we think that this is easy. For those who agree with this should realize that a fundamental characteristic of a land of freedom is sacrifice. Sacrifice some of what you have for those seeking the same. Because if not, if the country stood for working your hardest to obtain all that you can and in turn allowing others to do the same, then it would be a simple survival of the fittest – those who cannot compete, go die off. Abiding to this would be taking the humaneness out of society. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.