Of course not. The vast majority of Japanese were not in favor of what the military were doing. In the same way, the vast majority of Muslims are not in the least in favor of what the terrorists are doing. A mosque near ground zero is just as appropriate as a church or synagogue would be.
It was closed after the attack on Pearl Harbor, though, wasn't it. It bothers me more that there are so many Americans defending this mosque than that the Muslims want to build it. It shows a screw loose.
It was moved in 1951 after demolition was threatened. Go ahead and go ogle it and read the rest of the story.
Is it within 300 ft.? I am really saddened that the people are so self loathing as to readily accept a monument to the hijackers that killed 3000 Americans in a single day.
Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, not Shinto extremists. If it was Shinto extremists that blew up Pearl Harbor then yes they'd be just as offended at that, as the Muslim mosque being built on ground zero.
A mosque isn't about race though, it's about religion. Try learning the difference before asking questions like this.
It seems the shrine may have been there prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. If that is true, I have no problem with it and if the shrine went up after wards, I have to consider where a very large proportion of the citizens of Hawaii came from and am not surprised they brought their religion with them.
Sorry, but I refuse to fall for your attempt to further insult anyone, of any political party, just to get some sort of cheap thrill.
@ Racist Liberal: The question ask er is not lying about the Shinto shrine. I looked it up and here is the link:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1437
By their logic, no churches should be built in the US. We committed a huge act of genocide when we killed/raped/evicted the Native Americans, and we did it in the name of religion. Now we're going to build churches here?
The old Shinto Shrine was moved. A proposal for a new one is being discussed.@ Cleetus 300 ft is 2 New York city blocks. Interesting. What part of uninformed don't you understand?
People need to chill. The mosque might not be too popular but allowing them to build it is essential to preserving the rights the Constitution allows us to have. This is like a less extreme version of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Although the Neo-Nazi's decision to march in a predominantly Jewish community was certainly not popular the Supreme Court still upheld the Nazi's right to freedom of assembly. Taking that away certainly would have been much more dangerous. People need to realize that it's just a Muslim community center/gym facility that's being built, not a bomb factory or an Al-Quaeda war room. Their right to build it is protected under the Constitution and if we take away their religious freedom what will stop them from taking away yours?
Izumo Taishakyo Mission of Hawaii
Shinto shrine at 215 N. Kukui St. - Will it away, conservatives! Tell Glenn Beck to say it doesn't exist.
While you're at it, will away the Mosque ALREADY AT ground zero!
Masjid Manhattan at 20 Warren Street.
The Muslims have a time machine! And they traveled back to 1970 to install a Muslim mosque in the ground zero vicinity JUST TO EMBARRASS conservatives! Sort of like the forefathers crafted that dang Constitution, then used their time machine to slip it into the archives just to embarrass Dubya. The conspiracy runs THAT deep!
My feelings are irrelevant - I don't live in New York.
That said, everyone needs to sit down, shut up, and sniff the maple nut-crunch: both sides are right, and both are wrong.
1. The Imam and the Park51 group certainly have the legal right to build a religious center (i.e., church, mosque, synagogue, whatever) anywhere the building codes allow for it.
2. However, considering the location, its recent history and sentiments, it's pretty rude, uncouth, insensitive and insulting to use the letter of the law to tick off your prospective neighbors.
As to the question at hand, please refer to the links below - the people who want to cite these as "proof" of some kind of "unreasonable anger" on the part of the [non-]racist tea party (...) need to grow up and go 60 seconds of research: like the Greek Orthodox church destroyed at Ground Zero, both of these shrines were built long before the Pearl Harbor Attack.
Thus, the real question is: Would it have been appropriate -- in 1951, ten years after Pearl Harbor -- for a Japanese group to build a Shinto temple on the site of the Arizona Memorial, or as close to it as possible? The answer - obviously - is no: would it have been "legal"? Almost certainly. Would it have been appropriate and/or "right"? Certainly not.
This question never came up, however, because post-war Japan has a keen sense of decorum...
Are you angry that there is a shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor?
