Ron, if you read the original post by vectis, he says in his opening sentence:

"Am I the only one that feels that Graound Zero is a war grave and should never be built on."

So, are you saying that he is a troll for suggesting it? I would disagree with you, even though I disagree with his suggestion that it should be a war memorial. He does have the right to voice his opinions about, and I don't think his opinion is that different from many, though certainly not all, Americans.

Now, I said:

"...people must first share the belief that this is sacred, holy ground. I think it would be very difficult to reach a national consensus on that point."

I didn't mean to anger anyone with that statement, and perhaps I should have been clearer in what I personally think of the site (which isn't the same thing as the point I quote above). I believe the site is now of great national significance, and is deserving of an appropriate memorial that honors the civilian loss of life in the attack.

I much prefer to leave the gruesome details of the attack itself out of the memorial, and to focus on the uplifting aspects of how the attack changed us, and how we wish to memorialize those who died. One thing that deeply bothered me in the wake of the attacks was the emphasis and attention being heaped upon the firefighters, police, and paramedics. Now, that is not to say that they weren't deserving of our admiration, etc. but I did feel that attention took away from all the others who also were "just doing their job" that day who also were lost. Not much attention or honor has ever been given to the janitors, the secretaries, the restaurant dishwashers lost that day.

As to the idea that the site is sacred or holy ground, as I said, I think it would be very difficult to reach a national consensus on that. I believe many, maybe even a majority of Americans consider it sacred, but I think there are also many (especially those with religious beliefs that say that sacred ground is something only to be associated with their god (like a church, temple, etc). Even if we could reach something nearing a majority in the polls agreeing it was sacred ground, I don't think there will ever be much agreement in how to treat it as such. In other words, someone like vectis will say, it is sacred, should not be used for commercial buildings, and should have a war memorial. Others will say, not a war memorial, but a memorial of some sort, and I think we can have commercial uses of the site. Still others would say the memorial, should be an American memorial, and that America is a Christian nation, so the sacralization of the site should be in a Christian vein. Others would say that wouldn't be appropriate, because people of other religions died, so we should have a memorial that honors the religions of all the people who died...

I like the idea of a national monument much more than sacred ground for those reasons. This wasn't an act of god, but an act of terror.

I agree that the dust or vapors or souls or whatever people wish to call what the people who perished, whose remains were never recovered, was dispersed surrounding the site. But that included all of lower Manhattan, so is all of that area to be considered sacred for that reason? Where should the boundaries be drawn where the sacred ground ends, and non-sacred New York begins?

I mean no offense to anyone by participating here, and I don't think anyone is trolling in this thread. I think people are expressing their views about how we should memorialize the dead, while honoring the living, and doing a very fine job of it. We need not have a flame war over this. People have the right to their feelings about the day, about the circumstances, about what they would personally like to see in a memorial, and what they wouldn't. There is nothing "trolling" about that, so long as we all remain largely civil.