I have a question based on the sensitivity vs responsibility arguement.

Lets say I went to someone's house and killed them then the police shot me down right there on the spot. My parents decided to buy a plot of land next to the other dead guys parents then built a statue (lets imagine they could do that) saying: "In memory of XYZ"

My parents would be perfectly allowed to build whatever they like based upon having these "Amercian freedoms", but in the circumstances, would it be right to specifically next to the other persons house based upon what had previously happened? It would clearly be insensitive when they probably be fine with building it just not in that exact radius.

Is it right to build a Chruch next to a Abortion clinic.....No

Is it right to build a mosque as part of the building....? This debate is going to rage on for years. Tbh I would be suprised if it ever gets fully built. In America thing's take years as it is to build...

You mean like Britain?

1/2. Two very large buildings in the way. Sure you may be able to see top few floors of new building, but it will just look like any other tall building. After all the Mosque will only be part of one floor, not the whole building. Can you show me the plans of the new build to demonstrate what will be so offensive?

3. I just have to disagree with you here. I would never associate the terrorist action with anyone else but that specific group that carried out the attack. I have Palestinian family, yet I don't blame anyone but Israeli government laws and the extremist elements in Israel for their grievances. So I already have a real life example and already prove your point to be wrong.

Do we label Germans as being a hateful people because not too long ago they nearly wiped an entire religion off the face of the Earth?

If a man that called himself a radical Christian said that it is Gods will that he kill all the black people in United States, even though no where in his religion does it say to do such a thing, do we still label him a Christian?

A group of people that call themselves Muslim preach and do things that can not be found in the religion, in fact they go against what their religion asks of them. Just because they call themselves Muslim does not make them so. The people responsible for 9/11 are just as likely to blow up a Mosque in Iraq and if given the chance would kill most of the Muslims in the United Sates for being false in their beliefs including the ones building the Mosque in NY. So no building a Mosque near ground zero is not a victory monument, it is simply a place where people can go to pray and learn the true peaceful teachings of their religion.

Of course this is all under the assumption that their building a mosque which they aren't, it is a youth center open to anyone.

Do we label Germans as being a hateful people because not too long ago they nearly wiped an entire religion off the face of the Earth?

If a man that called himself a radical Christian said that it is Gods will that he kill all the black people in United States, even though no where in his religion does it say to do such a thing, do we still label him a Christian?

A group of people that call themselves Muslim preach and do things that can not be found in the religion, in fact they go against what their religion asks of them. Just because they call themselves Muslim does not make them so. The people responsible for 9/11 are just as likely to blow up a Mosque in Iraq and if given the chance would kill most of the Muslims in the United Sates for being false in their beliefs including the ones building the Mosque in NY. So no building a Mosque near ground zero is not a victory monument, it is simply a place where people can go to pray and learn the true peaceful teachings of their religion.

Of course this is all under the assumption that their building a mosque which they aren't, it is a youth center open to anyone.

Your example does nto make sense as the family of the killer is not the same relation as the other billion Muslims to the terrorist who plotted and performed the 9/11 attacks and the killer's actual tomb is not the same as a new Mosque.

Your example is a logical fallacy.

You wouldn't call these protests terrorizing?

When you see the hate on these people's faces, I'm sure it terrorizes the shit out of the other side, who haven't done anything wrong. They try to control the actions of others through fear. That's the basic definition of the word.

Why haven't they been protesting the mosque that's already right there? 
And let me question you about the ptsd comment.

How do you quantify that into a value? 

Where is the line? How many people do you need to have, and how mentally imbalanced do they need to be? 

If there is one person suffering, does that qualify?

Because of the undefinable nature of your evidence, I find it hard to take into consideration. 

I believe that those people should be allowed to live happy lives, but by your earlier statements comparing one level of violence to another and implying that it wasn't a big deal, they should deal with it. Right?

If you had read the first sentence correctly you would have noticed I was talking about the sensitivity vs responsibility argument. I wanted to know how far these "American Freedoms" will stretch.

I was just curious as to if it would or would not be allowed.