A Mosque at Ground Zero?

Yara wrote:

Which gets me back to my point: the fact that people are entitled to rights doesn't mean that it's always desirable or convenient to exercise such rights. Suppose I accidentally ran over someone's kid and killed him. Understandably, even if I'm not to blame in this case, the parents will be angry at me. So I decide to have my new house built. What do I do? I can build it wherever I want, but I chose to built it just next to the parents' house, and I say I'm doing so in order to improve our relation.

Is it going to be helpful in any possible way? I'd be likely generating more sorrow, angry and bringing back dreadful memories. So if I do want to both exercise my rights and foster peace, I'd better have it built elsewhere.  
========================================

Despite the lip service, some people don't regard law abiding and patriotic Muslims as any different from terrorists, not really. Imam Rauf didn't run over anybody with his car and he didn't drive any planes into the WTC. Let me tweak your analogy a little:

Somebody who is not you runs over the child with a blue Toyota Corolla.  You also own a blue Corolla and due to a growing family you move to a location a few blocks away from your old house two and a half blocks away from the farthest corner of the lot of the grieving family. It's a really nice house and you let everybody come and swim in your pool. The grieving family can't see your house, and they'll never see the Corolla unless they actually go out of their way to do so.  Nonetheless, some of the family members feel that blue Corolla burning at their back two and a half blocks away, and would like you to know that just because you can drive a blue Corolla doesn't mean it's the right thing to do in their neighbourhood. In fact they think you're insensitive and that you should move or at the very least they should get to come over and park their cars in your garage so the Corolla doesn't stand out so much.  Understandably, not everybody agrees with this this.  

Opponents are hung up on the 'fostering peace' and 'building bridges' rhetoric.  Is it the community centre proposal or the response to that proposal that is damaging these processes?  Certainly no one will ever get over a bridge when one party is trying to build it and the other party is trying to knock it down on the other side. It's not them dealing a mortal blow to good faith relations, it's you.

YourValentine wrote: Great post, Yara, I could not agree more.

On CNN you can watch a video interview with the Imam Feisal Rauf. If this is bridge building, I'd rather not cross his bridges. Basically, he tells the interviewer that Americans should fear retaliation from the "radicals" who might think "Islam is under attack" if the Cordoba House is not built as planned.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/new.york.islamic.center.imam/index.html#fbid=yY0qa8Bnm6U&wom=false
==========================

He's just stating facts YV.  It's not a 'veiled threat', it's precisely what any security expert will tell you and precisely what many people, including me, concluded weeks ago.  He didn't use it as a reason to push ahead, he simply stated the obvious fact that he has a tremendous responsibility to consider all the ramifications at home and abroad in moving forward in any of the possible directions.  I have tremendous sympathy for his position.  No matter what he does, it's going to be imperfect in the eyes of some, and since opponents are only worrying about their own personal views it does fall on him to navigate the many complexities of this on his own. Ironically, if (when?) the centre is forced to move he will need every ounce of what few seem willing to credit him for now: tremendous good will, pure intent, skillful diplomacy and a peacemaker's heart.  I'd probably be too hurt to do anything other than just walk away and allow poison to seep into any wounds to the Muslim community caused by this.

Yara wrote: "Muslims are killing muslims - in Palestine (Fatah vs Hamas), in Iraq and many other parts of the world. Muslims are killing non-muslims -"


And non-Muslims are killing Muslims as well as non-Muslims. In the Palestinian Territories, Jews kill Muslims and in Iraq and Aghanistan Christians kill Muslims. I don't understand the relevence of this unless this is an anti-Islamic rant.

"Islamic extremism is an actual, serious problem which has to be dealt with: it is not true that this kind of extremim is something "on the fringe"."

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not extremists, and yes, it is 'on the fringe', whether you like it or not. Furthermore the centre organisers are NOT extremists.

"It is not. It's been shown over and over again that way too many Muslims are either supportive of, or condescending to, acts of hatred."

That is extraordinarily debatable. Have you spoken to any Muslims? Because you will find that many (I would say most except I haven't spoken to most Muslims) do not support extremism. It should be noted that the Florida pastor, a non-Muslim, wants to committ an act of hate and that those who are either supportive of, or condescending to, this act of hate (as well as other acts of hate aimed at Muslims in the US in recent times) are non-Muslims. So don't spout the nonsence that "it's been shown over and over again that way too many Muslims are either supportive of, or condescending to, acts of hatred."

"In order to build bridges it is important to accept the facts, as bitter as they might be: Islam is today probably the most violent religion in the world."

Forgive me if I don't accept this 'fact'. I don't accept that at all, but even if it were true (and I don't beleieve that it is), it does not justify burning holy books.

BTW, I could easily argue that Christianity is still the most violent religion, or that extremism (of any form) is the most violent, but it doesn't get us anywhere. You obviously dislike Islam, I dislike forms of Christianity as well as extremist Judaism and Islam; this thread is not about that.

"These people do enjoy a lot of support - and they wouldn't thrive if they didn't - and they have been killing in the name of Allah for all too long."

Oh please. I don't care what you think of Muslims or Islam (although your recent comment that Muslims should be grateful that the US is not going after them was horrifying to say the least and your comment that Muslims have international responsibility is also highly questionable), but at least get your facts straight. Islamicist terrorism is a new phenomenen. As for enjoying a lot of support; considering that most victims of Islamicist terror attacks are Muslim, do you really think that Muslims support that?

I've spoken to quite a few moderate Muslims (which you obviously haven't) and they are probably more sickened by extremist Muslims than anyone on this site.

Muslims are just like you. Very few support murder.

"The people who blew up the World Trade Center were Muslims and they did so in the name of their god."

They are extremists and they also did so for political reasons. They have nothing to do with the centre organisers.

"Extremist muslims have carried out terrorist attacks in Europe as well and continue to do so in the Middle East and Africa."

Most terrorist attacks in Europe have been carried out by non-Muslims. In Africa, most violent attacks are non-religious in nature. In the ME, until recently, most violent attacks were also non-religious in nature.

"Even moderate Muslims have been over and over again on record saying that the attack was barbaric and all, but that the U.S had it coming - even such intellectuals as Tariq Ali have done so, apparently forgetting that the terrorists didn't attack a thing called "U.S", but innocent people."

Oh please. I've spoken to plenty of moderate Muslims, and none have condoned the murder of innocents. Those who believe that the US had it coming are not referring to the murders of 3000 people (including Muslims), but the idea that the US was attacked. Do I agree? No. Do I understand what they mean and do I understand the difference? Yes. Imran Kahn released a documentary in which he spoke about it. I guess you think he is pro-extremist.

"So if this is about improving the relations between Muslims and people from other creeds, one has to acknowledge that there's a spill over effect: even if you're as a Muslim is not to blame, the terrorist attacks carried out in the name of your god have been so many that you can't expect people not to be defensive in some way or another,"

You can expect people to understand that most Muslims are not terrorists and you can expect people to not be Islamophobic. You can expect people to not committ hate crimes. Even on this thread, it hasn't occured to you that the centre organisers have nothing to do with 9/11. I don't know whether it's because of bigotry or ignorance, but perhaps you could do some research and perhaps you could realise that the terrorists and the centre organisers are NOT one and the same.

"PRETTY MUCH AS I CAN'T EXPECT, AS A JEWISH PERSON, TO BE GREETED WITH JOY BY PALESTINIANS OR MUSLIMS IN GENERAL. It'd be naive, it'd be irresponsible, it'd be stupid. I should be prepared for a lot of defensiveness and work hard to build a common ground between us."

Perhaps, but it's a slightly different scenario, isn't it? I've met Palestinians, and yes, there was defensiveness on both sides, but Muslims come from different parts of the world. If I talk to an Indonesian Muslim, he would be far less defensive, and I probably would be as well.

"The opposition to the building of the centre is not based on fox-news brainwashing - it is serious and legitimate, and it comes even from most of New Yorkers who are fairly liberal in their political views."

It may be serious, but is it legitimate? IMO it is not. Muslims already work there; there is already a mosque at the Pentagon (which nobody at Faux 'news' made a fuss over); it's not on Ground Zero; and the Muslims who want to build the centre have NOTHING to do with 9/11. At all. Just because you are 'offended' by it does not mean that your opposition to it is legitimate. They have the right to religious freedom.

"Of course the people behind this project are entitled to build the center wherever they want. They have substantial political and financial support, including from a billionaire Mayor who happens to be Jewish."

Yes, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for Bloomberg, not just based on this though, but certainly largely based on this.

"It's not as if it were a fight between the underdogs and the all-powerful right wing media. It's not, and it's never been."

I would suggest that the right-wing media is more powerful than you give it credit for. If it weren't, why don't more people ask the following question; who cares if Obama is Muslim or not?

GratefulFan wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so.


=========================

"For me this entire argument structure is such a non starter that I can't even apply it to Pastor Whats-his-name. Probably largely because to me it's not an argument. It's a statement that needs a whole bunch more sentences to make it anything at all. It's like me saying 'Just because 71% of Americans want the community centre moved doesn't mean moving it is the right thing to do'. True, but so what? People say it like they've just said something profound and binding when they've literally said absolutely nothing at all. Worst of all, it appears to shift the burden to the organizers. That really couldn't be more unreasonable and disingenuous, unintended or not. The people making that claim have the burden to support it, not the other way around! Exercising their rights as Americans is not the right thing to do? Prove it then. Make your case. Anybody else who would like to limit or remove the rights of fellow Americans takes on the burden of evidence and understands the need for a process. Emotion and rhetoric are not evidence and they're not a process. Perhaps there is a case to be made on security grounds, or on principles of sanctions designed to force a change in the larger Muslim community. I don't think so myself, but at least that would be an argument, and any actual argument would be a welcome 10 steps up from 'it's offensive'."

I completely agree!

"Yara in a previous post said the group should move so they could 'get even more respect'. To which I said 'ha!' at the time. More respect up from zero respect? Up from negative respect? Too many people don't even respect this group enough to acknowledge that asking them to move for what in many ways are arbitrary, even selfish reasons might be a really big thing. That asking them to voluntarily accept less freedom and diminished constitutional rights just might be a really big thing. That to accept they are to retreat somewhere more palatable to people who are in many cases thousands of miles away, retreat in their own neighbourhood, might be a really big thing.

People don't even respect this group enough to acknowledge that this is a freedom of religion issue, claiming they fully support freedom of religion, and then retreating behind 'not the right thing to do'. By definition and by default all of those first amendment rights end with a firm period, not a 'but'. Indeed that is their very essence. If you truly support both the letter and the spirit of freedom of religion in any given situation, you just walk away. You don't have to walk away happy, but you do have to walk away. If however you feel there are extraordinary circumstances which mean an accommodation or exception is warranted, you are completely within your rights to express that opinion or make that argument by any and all peaceful and lawful means. For example, Americans sometimes employ free speech to try and limit the right to bear arms in certain circumstances. But they don't do so while claiming to support the right in that specific circumstance, because in that given instance they don't, or they wouldn't be trying to limit it! It's like holding a placard in your left hand that says "I SUPPORT THE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" and a placard in your right hand that says "GUNS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN DC!" It's muddled, incoherent and intentionally or not, it's completely disingenuous in spirit. No reasonable person would ever conclude anything other than while you may generally support the right to bear arms, you don't support the right to bear arms in DC. And you don't have to. But you need to take basic responsibility for the position in the interest of truth and fairness."

Absolutely. People who claim that this is not a freedom of religion issue ignore not the fact that there has been opposition to the building of mosques in several cities, not just NY. The reality is that there are people who are opposed to the idea of Muslims building a mosque, full stop.

>>>> GratefulFan wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so.

=========================

...People say it like they've just said something profound and binding when they've literally said absolutely nothing at all.<<<<

.
On the contrary, it's saying a lot. It is saying, in this case, that this pastor has the same rights and privileges as everyone else, including the organizers of this community center and that along with those rights come the responsibility to do the right thing. It is in no way restricting the rights of them to do so, is not unreasonable, disingenuous or unintended. It's about looking at the effects  their actions will have on others. And I posted it here specifically to show just how similar the two situations are, despite some who say they have nothing to do with each other, or that those opposed to the center are islamophobic. Many against the center, myself included, are also against the burning of the quran.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "And I posted it here specifically to show just how similar the two situations are, despite some who say they have nothing to do with each other, or that those opposed to the center are islamophobic. Many against the center, myself included, are also against the burning of the quran."


The two do not have anything to do with each other. The burning of a Koran, or any other holy book, is by its nature a hateful act as well an act of religious extremism (this pastor is no different to those he claims to hate). It is also an act which could lead to violence, as has occured in the past. The centre is not by its nature a hateful act, and nor does it have anything to do with religious extremism.

As for whether it is possible to be against the centre and not be Islamophobic, I'm not convinced anymore. When I first heard about the issue, I would have said yes, but now? I'm yet to hear a really good reason against the centre which is not coloured by bigotry or ignorance.

Regarding ignorance; you yourself have made comments on this very thread in which you separated Muslims from Americans (when Muslims can be American), implied that there was a conflict between Islam and the West (there isn't) and implied that Islam was against democracy (which is nonsence) and that by accepting this centre, Americans were somehow compromising their values and freedoms (which is incredibly offensive as well as absurd).*


*I was going to respond to this when you posted it, but I wasn't emotionally up to returning to the thread.

GratefulFan wrote: Yara wrote:


Which gets me back to my point: the fact that people are entitled to rights doesn't mean that it's always desirable or convenient to exercise such rights. Suppose I accidentally ran over someone's kid and killed him. Understandably, even if I'm not to blame in this case, the parents will be angry at me. So I decide to have my new house built. What do I do? I can build it wherever I want, but I chose to built it just next to the parents' house, and I say I'm doing so in order to improve our relation.

Is it going to be helpful in any possible way? I'd be likely generating more sorrow, angry and bringing back dreadful memories. So if I do want to both exercise my rights and foster peace, I'd better have it built elsewhere.
========================================

"Despite the lip service, some people don't regard law abiding and patriotic Muslims as any different from terrorists, not really. Imam Rauf didn't run over anybody with his car and he didn't drive any planes into the WTC. Let me tweak your analogy a little:

Somebody who is not you runs over the child with a blue Toyota Corolla. You also own a blue Corolla and due to a growing family you move to a location a few blocks away from your old house two and a half blocks away from the farthest corner of the lot of the grieving family. It's a really nice house and you let everybody come and swim in your pool. The grieving family can't see your house, and they'll never see the Corolla unless they actually go out of their way to do so. Nonetheless, some of the family members feel that blue Corolla burning at their back two and a half blocks away, and would like you to know that just because you can drive a blue Corolla doesn't mean it's the right thing to do in their neighbourhood. In fact they think you're insensitive and that you should move or at the very least they should get to come over and park their cars in your garage so the Corolla doesn't stand out so much. Understandably, not everybody agrees with this this.

Opponents are hung up on the 'fostering peace' and 'building bridges' rhetoric. Is it the community centre proposal or the response to that proposal that is damaging these processes? Certainly no one will ever get over a bridge when one party is trying to build it and the other party is trying to knock it down on the other side. It's not them dealing a mortal blow to good faith relations, it's you."

GF, I think this is one of the best posts you've ever written! Bravo! :D

I would comment on this post, but this post says it all! It truly is superb.

>>>> Amazon wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "And I posted it here specifically to show just how similar the two situations are, despite some who say they have nothing to do with each other, or that those opposed to the center are islamophobic. Many against the center, myself included, are also against the burning of the quran."

The two do not have anything to do with each other. The burning of a Koran, or any other holy book, is by its nature a hateful act as well an act of religious extremism (this pastor is no different to those he claims to hate). It is also an act which could lead to violence, as has occured in the past. The centre is not by its nature a hateful act, and nor does it have anything to do with religious extremism.

As for whether it is possible to be against the centre and not be Islamophobic, I'm not convinced anymore. When I first heard about the issue, I would have said yes, but now? I'm yet to hear a really good reason against the centre which is not coloured by bigotry or ignorance.

Regarding ignorance; you yourself have made comments on this very thread in which you separated Muslims from Americans (when Muslims can be American), implied that there was a conflict between Islam and the West (there isn't) and implied that Islam was against democracy (which is nonsence) and that by accepting this centre, Americans were somehow compromising their values and freedoms (which is incredibly offensive as well as absurd).*

*I was going to respond to this when you posted it, but I wasn't emotionally up to returning to the thread. <<<<
.

Whether burning someone’s holy book is hateful is not the issue since the issue is a person’s right to do so. And, the post is not JUST about someone’s right to do so but about their responsibility to resist if what they intend to do is highly disturbing or provoking to their neighbors. Like the community center. They are the same from opposite sides and many against one are equally against the other.

About my comments on this thread… we could all pluck chunks of words from others and show how they are bigoted or ignorant. It’s the context that defines the meaning. And while I do not intend to search these pages for the comments you say I made, I am comfortable enough with my sense of fairness to know they were not intended as you perceived.

It is very much the issue whether or not burning holy books is hateful. That it is by its nature a hateful act is what differentiates it from the building of the centre. The building of the centre is not by its nature a hateful act. It is not by its nature a disturbing or a provocative act. Furthermore, many New Yorkers have no problem with the centre as they recognise that it is not a hateful, provocative or disturbing act.


You keep on trying to link the two issues, but simply because you are offended by the building of the centre, does not mean that they are similar. GF said it best in his recent post, so I will simply end by saying that if the neighbours find the building of the centre to be 'highly disturbing or provoking', they need to ask themselves why and they need to figure out a way to get over it. However, nobody needs to ask why burning holy books is offensive. That should be obvious.

@GratefulFan I agree that the Imam is in an uncomfortable position and I did not imply that he was threatening the country. However, as an American Muslim he should not consider how Muslims elsewhere feel about the issue. It's grotesque that an American Muslim tells a TV interviewer that somewhere else people might feel that "Islam is under attack" . When he mentioned national security the interviewer even did not seem to get the point. How can a religion feel insulted when free citizens discuss the location of a cultural center? How can a religion feel insulted at all? And even if there are "radicals" in Pakistan or Indonesia or wherever who are offended - why would US citizens have to take it into account? They do nothing wrong - they execute their right to voice their opinion in public and if some "radicals" have a problem with that - well, tough luck. Nobody in their right minds can accept that dropping a specific location before the center is even built can insult anyone except for raving maniacs. If the imam says he does not consider to drop the location because it's his right under the constitution and he thinks that the 9/11 victim families are overreacting, he is perfectly entitled to do that. He should not insist that it's a matter of bridge building, though,  when it's obviously not. It's his bad luck that the targets of his bridge building happen to not like the idea. Continuing to insist on this rhetoric only enrages the opponents who feel patronized.

I think we all agree that this pastor in Florida is a nutcase who only wants to add fuel to the fire. I wonder if he knows that he stands in the tradition of the Nazis and Ku-Klux-Klan. If the Muslim leaders would speak out against flag burning, hate killings, death threats etc in the same way as the complete American public and political leadership spoke out against the Quran burning we probably would not even have a discussion like this.

As has been pointed out before, the heart of this dispute is not freedom of religion (because this center could be built almost anywhere else in NY without controversy) it's about the site of the center, close to the 9-11 site. The 'freedom of religion' argument is a smokescreen IMO. Look at it this way: after Pearl Harbour there was a huge wave of hatred against the Japanese on the west coast of America and in Hawaii. After the war, when the Arizona museum was opened, it took decades for any sign or recognition of a Japanese p.o.v. because it was simply too painful for survivors/veterans to deal with that. Right or wrong, that is how people felt. Those feelings cannot be ignored or dismissed; they were very real. Now we have a similar situation, yet the views of many victims/survivors look like they are being trodden on or ignored, in the name of 'freedom of religion'. Again, you can argue the rights and wrongs of that, but the emotions are real and they need to be recognised and understood.

Holly2003 wrote: "As has been pointed out before, the heart of this dispute is not freedom of religion (because this center could be built almost anywhere else in NY without controversy) it's about the site of the center, close to the 9-11 site."


I disagree. I think that freedom of religion is exactly what this is about. Not only have many of the comments in opposition been dominated by Islamophobia, but there are several other cities in the US in which people have been in opposition to the building of mosques. Not to mention the hate crimes that have been occuring recently. Add to it the the fact that the Muslims already live and work there; there already are mosques in the neighbourhood; the multi-faith community supported the original proposal; the Pentagon has a mosque; and the organisers have NOTHING to do with 9/11.

"Right or wrong, that is how people felt. Those feelings cannot be ignored or dismissed; they were very real."

The Japanese were treated disgustingly. Yes, those feelings that you speak of may be real, but it does not mean that they are relevent. Just because you have a feeling does't mean that anyone else should care. It is simply not a good enough reason. I mean, there is a belief that people who have such feelings should automatically be listened to (and obeyed). Well, it doesn't work that way. Whether it be with the Japanese, or with the centre, people have the right to their feelings; but they do not have the right to expect other people to consider these feelings. So yes, their feelings can certainly be ignored or dismissed.

"Now we have a similar situation, yet the views of many victims/survivors look like they are being trodden on or ignored, in the name of 'freedom of religion'. Again, you can argue the rights and wrongs of that, but the emotions are real and they need to be recognised and understood."

The problem is that these 'victims/survivors' did not provide any real, concrete reasons for why the centre should not be built. Saying that they are offended or that they have feelings is irrelevent; just because you have 'real' emotions does not mean that they shouldn't be 'trodden on or ignored.' As I said above, you may have the right to these feelings, but it doesn't mean that people need to care about them.

Plus, what does 'recognised and understood' mean? Nobody is lessening the horror of 9/11 and nobody is suggesting that 9/11 families all support this project (although some do). Beyond this, their feelings aren't important. That might sound harsh, but that's the way it is.

Those feelings should be ignored? Wow. That's as narrow minded as any opinion I've heard this far. I lived in Northern ireland for 30 years where disputes similar to this occurred frequently. Quite simply, right or wrong, if one side chooses to force through their rights at the expense of the other side, hostility and violence will be the result. That's the reality that these ivory tower debates don't take into acount. If the Japanese had tried to force the issue at PH, hostility would've been the result. It takes time for people to get a sense of perspective about the past. 9-11 was only 9 years ago and feelings are still running high. Ignore that at your peril.

I strongly disagree this has anything to do with freedom of religion: do you deny that if this was not close to the 9-11 site there would likely have been no dispute?

Holly2003 wrote: "Those feelings should be ignored? Wow. That's as narrow minded as any opinion I've heard this far."


I didn't say that. I said that it is perfectly okay to ignore them. Just because you have feelings does not mean that other people should care. If you think it's narrow minded, well, that's your choice; but I think it's egotistical to imagine that everybody should care how you feel. It's like with freedom of speech. You may have the right to free speech; you do not have the right to expect me or anyone else to listen to you. To do so is egotistical.

"Quite simply, right or wrong, if one side chooses to force through their rights at the expense of the other side, hostility and violence will be the result."

They didn't force through their rights. They went through a proper planning process. BTW, hate crimes have been occuring against Muslims recently. But I guess it's the fault of the Muslims.

"If the Japanese had tried to force the issue at PH, hostility would've been the result."

Except that the organisers have not forced any issue. If anyone has, it's Faux 'news' who made an issue out of it months after it had been approved and reported.

"It takes time for people to get a sense of perspective about the past. 9-11 was only 9 years ago and feelings are still running high. Ignore that at your peril."

How long should people wait for? 10 years? 20? 50?

As I said before, feelings are not a good enough reason. As for your last comment, well shockingly, hate crimes have been committed. Nothing can justify that.

"I strongly disagree this has anything to do with freedom of religion: do you deny that if this was not close to the 9-11 site there would likely have been no dispute?"

I absolutely do think it is about freedom of religion. I don't want to repeat what I wrote about freedom of religion in my previous post, so I will simply say that many of the comments in opposition are Islamophobic, and in several cities, people have objected to the construction of mosques.

Add to it the 'Obama is a Muslim' rumours spread by the right-wing media which are disgusting because not only does it not matter what religion he is, but it also suggests that Muslims are disloyal and un-American. It's horrible. In this climate, whether or not there would have been a dispute if it hadn't been near to the 9/11 site is not that important IMO.

I didn;t say or infer 'it's all the muslims fault' -- I noticed you misinterpreting or (less charitably) misrepresenting the views of others like this, please don't do it to me.

Ivory tower discussions about freedom of religion don;t change the real-life facts on the ground. The center-builders are forcing their views on others,regardless if they are doing it legally. They are ignoiring the views of many New Yorkers and many Americans. If you and they want to go down that road, you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course. As I said, cause and effect: emotions are running high and if it takes 20 or 50 years then that's better than the violence and hostily that could ensue if this center is built.

As for the freedom of religion angle, there have indeed been other incidents of anti-muslim feeling in the US -- hardly unexpected of course, but totally unacceptable. You've yet to make a case that these are connected to this particular site. Just because Fox News and other right wing crackpots have joined in the debate doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons for complaint. And you're ignoring the huge elephant in the room, the 9-11 site which is a stone's throw away from the proposed center. You can't see the wood for the trees.