I'm not sure if I'm understanding your objection to the building of this Mosque/Community Center correctly.
My objection to it is that its a tactless move showing either little forethought, or if there was forethought, abject jerkyness.
Is your issue with the fact that they want to "build bridges" with non-Muslims?
No, my issue is that I believe the "build bridges" argument shows that these people are either idiots or that they're simply lying.
Let me explain, once again...
If one is "Building Bridges" who is that most likely referring to in regards to who they're supposedly going to reach out to; those that have a misunderstanding of Islam and have a negative view towards it in the wake of 9/11 or those who have no issue with Islam at all and think its a great religion and doesn't understand why everyone else is so bigoted?
My guess, based on how "Building Bridges" is used in this context and how its usually used in these situations, is for the former of those two options.
Which is why they're either idiots or jerks.
Who are the people most upset with this mosque's location primarily? Those who have a misunderstanding of Islam or have a negative view towards it in the wake of 9/11.
So the very first act in your attempt to "build bridges" with people....is to piss them off beyond all belief and make them feel as if they're defiling or disgracing a place of extreme importance to them.
This is like saying you want to make friends with someone, and your first act is to call their mother a whore. Doing that means you're either dumb, not realizing that people don't like to have their mother called a whore, or you're a dick and you just wanted to put up an act.
If they "wanted to build bridges" they would've placed this a few blocks away, close enough that its within walking distance so people could visit but not so close as its literally on top of where the devastation happened and will instantly cause the emotions to flare into many peoples minds when the words "Muslim" and "World Trade Center" enter into their head at the same time.
That somehow that is an offensive thing to do because some Muslims killed people?
No, that to many people this is extremely offensive because "Some muslims" killed people in a suicide bombing attempt, that they did because of their belief in their religion, which was spurred forward due to their hatred for the rest, that was due to their belief in their religion, that was cultivated by Osama Bin Laden, whose war against the United States is based in his belief for his religion. And thus when you combine the thought of "Muslims" with the thought of "World Trade Center" its natural for a lot of people, even those that aren't the "All muslims are terrorists types", to immediately conjure back up emotions of rage and anger that they had on that particular day.
I find it offensive because much like thinking "Firefighter and World Trade Center" makes me immediately feel emotions of respect and sorrow the notion of "Muslim and World Trade Center" immediately brings forth emotions of anger and rage. Why? Because while the firefighter instantly makes me think of an identifiable characteristic of some of those serving in the rescue, "Muslim" instantly makes me think of an identifiable characteristic of those that carried out the attack.
What if there was no such reason? What if they just wanted to build a place of worship, period? Should the whole of Islam be guilt-tripped for what a few deranged individuals (who do not speak for Islam to begin with) did?
First, if they really "just wanted to build a place of worship" and they just HAPPENED to have choose to buy a piece of land on which the largest terrorist attack ever on this nation was perpetrated by 20 follows of their religion that performed this act DUE to their religion, and didn't even THINK of that notion in any way shape or form when choosing the location.....again, I'd call them likely idiots with an IQ of 40.
Second, no... I don't think the whole of Islam should be "Guilt tripped". However I do think they should be polite and respectful, or at least not be surprised by the reaction when they're not that.
You don't set up a "Southern Pride" stand selling numerous things with the Stars and Bar's and General Lee's portrait on them right outside of a major Black church. Not if you're wanting be respectful and polite.
You don't sit outside a Kosher Deli in downtown New York with your head shaved handing out pamphlets and speaking about the greatness of the Third Reich's pre-WWII political philosophies. Not if you're wanting be respectful and polite.
You don't sit on the location where a family was killed by a drunk driver and down a bottle of Jack Daniels. Not if you're wanting be respectful and polite.
And you don't go to the location of the most devastating attack in this countries history that was carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam and build a mosque. Not if you're wanting be respectful and polite.
Is everyone that has pride for their heritage of being from the south someone who agreed with slavery or was responsible for it? No, its still generally not polite nor tactful. Is everyone who is bald and agrees with early 1930's Germany policies guilty of murdering Jews or necessarily agreeing with the policies regarding Jews? Nope, but it still not exactly tactful. Because a drunk driver killed someone is ALL drinking of Alcohol bad? No, but its still not a good place to do it.
And just because not all muslims are terrorists doesn't change the fact its a tactless and disrespectful act to put it where they're putting it.
It doesn't mean they shouldn't be ALLOWED to do it....it means I don't think they SHOULD do it by their own choice, unless they want it to be clear their intention is to do nothing but inflame and disrespect.
I don't understand why you want to collectively punish the entire Muslim community by associating them with the terrorists.
How is this collectively punishing the entire muslim community? Hyperbole much?
For the record, I'd have no problem with a beer company building a museum next to a memorial of drunk driving victims.
So you're saying that's a respectful and tactful thing to do? Not asking if you have a PROBLEM with it, asking if you think that's respectful or an action showing tact.
Just like a gun manufacturer can't be held responsible for the Columbine massacre and would be entitled to build a gun museum nearby.
Yes, they'd be entitled to do it. And they'd be disrespectful and tactless assholes for doing so.
As for the Japanese, what would be so wrong with them wanting to "build bridges" with a nation they were once at war with?
Because THEY WOULDN'T BE BUILDING BRIDGES!
Do you honestly think, 10 years after Pearl Harbor, that building a museum dedicated to Japanese Culture would build any bridges? With WHO? The people who already have no problems with the Japanese for their attack on Pearl Harbor? There's no REASON to build bridges to them, there's already a bridge there. Which means it'd be for the people who were mad at the Japanese...the very people who you'd PISS OFF by making said building, thus assuring no bridge would be built.