Views

Point Counter Point:
Should a mosque/community center be built in the vicinity of ground zero?

Yes


Ryan Kiefer
Online Copy Editor

Before I get into telling you why this shouldn’t even be an issue, the phrase “Ground Zero mosque” is intensely misleading, and I need to clarify why.

The building is not a mosque. Park51, as the official developers call the project, will be an Islamic community center. The majority of the building will contain non-religious spaces, including a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, fitness center, art store, food court, and several other spaces. It will also contain a prayer space which may be referred to as a mosque, but that doesn’t mean the entire building is one. If there is a chapel in a Christian-run hospital, we don’t call the entire complex a church. We call it a hospital, and call the chapel a chapel. The same logic applies here. We’ll call Park51 an Islamic center.

It’s not planned to be built at Ground Zero either. The center will actually be built a few blocks north, replacing a building that was damaged on September 11 and has been largely unoccupied for some time. The new center will not be visible from Ground Zero, and it is not much further away from the site than Masjid Manhattan, an actual mosque that has been located in lower Manhattan since 1970 without complaint. New York Dolls, a strip club, is also two blocks away from Ground Zero and has strangely garnered fewer complaints than this project.

There is no law that prevents this building from being built. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Law students will be happy to point out the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which expressly forbids Congress from making “no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This applies to state and local governments as well, which means there is no legal reason this building can be prevented from being built because it will be used for Islamic purposes. This same rationale allowed the construction of a shrine to Shinto, the national religion of Japan, within walking distance from Pearl Harbor.

Ultimately, this issue grinds down to an irrational fear of Muslims that has now become engrained in the American populace. Saying that Park51 shouldn’t be built because Muslims fund it stereotypes the whole of Islam as an extremist group. Islam is a beautiful, multi-faceted, peaceful religion, and is not extreme in nature. The actions of a few idiots should never define a whole group of people.

Instead of condemning Park 51 as an unnecessary provocation by Muslims (who aren’t even remotely related to al Qaeda), shouldn’t be we be working to understand and welcome a group of people who we as a country have discriminated against? Because of this, I support the construction of the inaccurately nicknamed “Ground Zero mosque,” and I hope you will too.

Ryan Kiefer can be contacted at ryan.a.kiefer@gmail.com

Graphic by Kristin Zavala

No

Courtney Kuchan
Staff Writer

As Americans, no matter ethnicity or background, we are given the right to freedom of speech, religion, and protection of our rights. As Americans we honor common courtesies for the men and woman who died for our country, and others’ rights to grieve the death of a loved one.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an American. What Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is proposing is not American.

The man behind the proposed Muslim community center and mosque in eye-view from the sacred 9/11 Ground Zero has Americans fuming. Rauf claims the future center is positive step toward building a bridge between religions in the United States. Instead, it’s causing an opposite reaction; this extremely inappropriate proposition is a constant reminder of the pain and suffering already felt by all Americans. He is pouring salt in already open wounds.

I am fully aware the center passes legal standards and religions should have the freedom to worship wherever they choose, but for Rauf to take advantage of the law is inappropriate. Is it justifiable to place a Hitler monument or German cultural center next to Auschwitz, although it’s legal? No, it is thoroughly inappropriate. Rauf and his group boasts about their rights, but similarly the victims of 9/11 had the rights to go to work safely and return home to their families. 

I deem the structure devastating because Rauf’s agenda is deceptive and misleading.

First, mosques are seen as a symbol of victory in the Muslim history. What number of Muslims will see the mosque as a peace offering, or a trophy for a victorious terrorist attack?

More confusing is that this could have been an opportunity to attempt harmony and a real peace offer with the states. Why didn’t Rauf fund a memorial dedicated to the victims at the center or on Ground Zero, or donate money to families of the victims or the upkeep of Ground Zero? If his goal is to “build bridges,” why does he refuse to meet with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to look at the alternate locations New York is offering him to build on?

Rauf knows exactly what he’s doing. If we continue to turn our cheeks to the issue and use rights as an excuse, we are weakening the strength and pride of our country and failing to defend the fallen. The allowed construction of the mosque will send a message that terrorists have won. We will let the honor of the 9/11victims to be overshadowed by disrespect and betrayal.

Courtney Kuchan can be contacted at courtrk10@yahoo.com

Back to Your Future

Rob Siebert
Editorial Assistant

Fundamentally, Moraine Valley never changes.

There are some new buildings, an enlarged campus layout, a bigger student life center: things freshmen don’t even blink at. But the “vibe” is still the same. Still, for a returning student like me it’s a little surreal.

The folks at registration would call me a “reverse transfer student.” To me it’s a bit more complicated than that. I went to another school, graduated, went to work, realized it wasn’t for me, left, and came here to start on a new path. 

Scottish novelist J.M. Barrie said “Man’s life is like a diary in which he means to write one story but ends up writing another.” Smart guy.

Moraine Valley wasn’t where I planned on being at this point in my life. It was humbling, and on some level, heart breaking to come back. This was, after all, where I started. It’s been five years since I was last a student here. The building blocks of my career have crumbled, and now I have to rebuild.

When I came back to campus last week, a student for the first time in a long time, that surreal feeling was there, along with some confusion. “We have an M building now?” “What’s that big stone pavilion thing?” “Crawley has a building named after him now?”

But there was something else, too. A feeling I wasn’t sure would be there.

I felt at home.

In a lot of ways, I grew up during my time at Moraine. I learned a lot about adult responsibilities, perseverance, teamwork, and met people that are my best friends to this day. This school changed me in some of the best possible ways, because I made the most of my time here.

At the risk of not sounding cool, I love this place.

In December 2009, the world chewed me up, spit me out, and left me questioning everything I thought I knew. So I came back to a place I knew would welcome me back with open arms, and help me get back on my feet.

And when I’m done, I’ll be able to say: “Alright, here I come again. I’m more prepared, wiser, and not about to get chewed up like before.”

So look out.

Rob Siebert can be contacted at robertsiebert85@yahoo.com

The Future of Energy

Wendy Grupka
Views Editor

A weighty concern plaguing the minds of ecologists as well as the condition of the Earth is the global dependence on non-renewable resources for energy.  The utilization of coal, oil, natural gas is so engraved into our culture that when faced with the negative impact these fossil fuels have on our environment it seems to be much simpler to turn a blind eye and ignore the issue.

The air that fills our lungs, the water that quenches our thirst, and the food that satiates our hunger: all this is to be compromised by what has become a blissful ignorance.  Humankind’s ignorance has been momentarily interrupted by the horrible catastrophe that has befallen all the denizens of the Gulf of Mexico. If only for a moment, the sight of muck covered beaches, piled high with masses of oily, decaying local bird and fish, has awakened our sympathy and revealed the ugly reality that we have forgotten an a most important ward: Earth.
           
The truth of that matter is humans are using up non-renewable energy sources at an astonishing rate, when an agreeable answer to the question, “What happens when we run out?” has not been found.  It is in the midst of environmental hardships that alternative energy sources become a glimmer of hope on the horizon; and as an ever-adapting species the responsibility falls on us to solve this energy dilemma. 
           
According to the Energy Information Administration or the EIA non-renewable resources are, “Fuels that cannot be easily made or "renewed," such as oil, natural gas, and coal.”

A report compiled by the EIA in 2005 stated that the U.S. consumed 100 quadrillion BTU's of energy which is growing at a rate of .7% annually.  To get an idea of how enormous this amount is 1 quad is equal to about 8,007,000,000 gallons of gasoline.  This usage is extravagant but it is the global consumption that is truly an indicator of how dependant humans have become on fossil fuels.  In 2008, the world consumed 446 quadrillion BTU's of energy, oil accounting for 37%, coal about 25%, and 23% natural gas. The remaining 15% was comprised of alternative sources and nuclear energy.

This dependency has its reasons; insofar coal, gas, and oil are relatively inexpensive in spite of what seem to be ever-rising gas prices.  The methods for extricating said resources have been, over decades, engineered to close to perfection.  In the U.S. it is apparent that our cities and suburbs are built to facilitate our automobiles. New roads are built and fixed year round to connect places of work, entertainment, and residence.  Its seems that the American way of life would be near impossible without the miles of concrete expanses and the inefficient, metallic machines used to traverse them. 

The automobile, in U.S. culture, is as much a necessity as it is a way of life and it is this integration of non-renewable energy sources into our natural world, which causes so much environmental damage.  The cloying air - so high in particulate matter it irritating our lungs, causing a fit of coughing and wheezing.  The rain can come down so cruelly that the delicate sun seeking leaves stand no chance of survival; acid rain has this effect on plants and animals alike.  Depending on where you live these hazards of pollution may not be as evident but with our use of unclean energy on the rise it is only a matter of time until we all begin to feel the effects firsthand. 

The EIA defines renewable resources as, “Energy resources that are naturally replenishing. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time. Renewable energy resources include biomass, hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action, and tidal action.”

This means they could keep being produced year after year without running out or negatively affecting the environment.  The downside of these otherwise benevolent sources of power is their cost.  Since mainstream energy is relatively inexpensive and alternative sources are hard to find, often more costly, and have not been integrated into our society, the switch from fossil fuels to clean energy is not a simple one.  It basically boils down to economics.  When the demand for clean energy outweighs the demand for non-renewable energy the switch will become evident.  Depleting reserves of fossil fuel will cause an inflation in the cost and when demand for cheap energy grows perhaps it will spur more funding and development of wind and sun farms, electric transportation, and completely sustainable cites. 

Assistant professor of biology and a current leader of The Green Team here at Moraine Valley, Michelle Zurawski thinks, “to fully switch is unrealistic”, since “change is a mental hurdle that has to be overcome before anything new can be implemented.” 

It may be folly, but if enough people could overcome the comforting grasp of the familiar and push for change, the Earth and the lives of all who inhabit it would reap the benefits.

Wendy Grupka can be contacted at wgrupka@yahoo.com