Absolutely incorrect and here’s why.
First, your scenario that you lay out does not include in any way that Catholics actually molested any children AT said school or AT said day care. However, Muslims unquestionably DID attack the World Trade Center. To properly compare the two people would have to be stating that Muslims should be barred from building mosques near ANY sky scrapers because some muslims attacked a sky scraper before. To date, I’ve heard exactly zero people suggesting such a thing.
Second, part of the reason SOME people are upset about the Mosque being built in New York is due to their belief of that location having a sort of “monument” or “national land mark” type of feel, similar to the U.S.S. Arizon in Hawaii, feel to it. That it is a place that people across the entire country will, and already have, wish to travel to to remember the history that happened there and to confront their emotions that the event stirs up. Based on that, SOME of us feels that placing a holy site dedicated to the ideology that was used, granted in a way that is considered extreme, to justify and incite those attacks and those that participated in it is adding undue additional burden on the emotions of thousands and thousands that will travel there for emotional release and remembrance and will then be confronted with triggers that dredge up the worst memories of that time.
Even if we assumed your analogy wasn’t flawed and that the daycare or school had kids that were actually molested by catholics attending them it would still not be a fair, direct, exact comparison to suggest one must be for one and against another because of the above reason. A place that was frequented by a number of molested kids is not going to become essentially a national land mark that people the country over attempt to visit and should be free of triggers that stir up the worst of feelings or engorge the worst of feelings further when arriving there. I have a historical correlation I can point at with regards to it happening for Ground Zero, by pointing to the Arizona. I can even point to Ground Zero and people visiting there over the past decade. Point me to a situation where a place where kids were molested or killed is frequently visited by thousands upon thousands of people yearly for the purpose of seeing said place?
Thirdly, the scale. I think it’s realistic to say that there’s few Americans over the age of 8 that don’t know of 9/11 in some form, shape, or way. A molestation can happen in a town and 5 years later the majority of those in that town barely remember it unless they were connected to it in some way. The amount of people its going to affect in a negative way is another legitimate difference and another legitimate way one could feel differently with regards to the banning, or the tactlessness, of one but not the other.
So I have given you three distinct ways in which your scenario….that a catholic church opens up next to a place that is frequented by children without any mention of any possible Catholic molestation of any of said children….is not directly and equally comparable to a mosque at ground zero….a situation where said religion unquestionably had an impact on that specific location. Please, if I’m wrong in any of those arguments, highlight it for me. If I’m not wrong but you have a counter, please enlighten me. However simply saying “They’re the same” doesn’t exactly cut it.
