The wise editors write, “Those who oppose its construction are letting unfounded, unnecessary fear dominate their judgment.”

You don’t say. But what about studies and undercover studies which consistently prove that almost all mosques teach hatred of non-Muslims. Is that an unfounded concern? The core essence of Islam --and this is not made up, but is simply true – is that Islam is superior to all other religions and the goal of Muslims is to see that this superiority IS practiced throughout the world. You can deny this all you want or you can read the Koran and Hadiths instead. One is true and the other is YOUR emotional, unfounded response.

The wise editors write, “Prejudice and discrimination. Like it or not, to some degree, these two character flaws are features of American society and culture.”

It almost sickens me to read this in the context of the editorial. Last I’d heard we had a black president, and a Jew almost was our vice-president, and we have innumerable women and Hispanics in high positions of government. But, what of Islam and “prejudice and discrimination”? What sayeth the wise editors about Islam and discrimination?

Do they say: In Saudi Arabia it is illegal to wear a cross? Do they say: In most Arab countries it is illegal for a Jew to step foot? Do they say: In most Islamic countries women are second class citizens? Do they say: In most Islamic countries homo sexuals fear for their lives? Do they say: In most Islamic countries non-Muslims live in fear? That in Egypt the Coptic Christians cannot repair their churches and are being killed. That in Iraq the Chaldean Christians are being killed. In Iran the last remnants of the Zoroastrian community is dying out. In Yemen the once thriving Jewish community now numbers less than a dozen people. In Sudan all non-Muslims and many dark skinned Muslims are being raped, pillaged and murdered.

No, our wise editors do not speak of these examples of prejudice and discrimination instead they take Americans to task. Americans who see Islam clearly for what it is: A discriminatory, highly prejudicial religion that IS intent on destroying our value system, our laws, and changing our freedoms into their repressions.

Talk about putting the horse before the cart. This is more like putting the horse and cart in front of a speeding train.

From the ignorant student body to this? Taking a view held by the majority of Americans and chalking it up to prejudice and discrimination? Could you even do us the favor of addressing that side's actual arguments instead of making sweeping generalizations?

The tone of this editorial is just obnoxious. You sound fed up with those who won't come around to your obviously morally superior position, which is annoying in itself, but it's even more annoying when you can't bring yourself to give the other side credit for its legitimate arguments, and you don't in this editorial, to say nothing of the insult you have just leveled at 9/11 victims' families who oppose the mosque. I'm sure they would not appreciate being told their opposition is based on unfounded, unnecessary fear.

Stop writing like this. It's divisive, crude, and it hurts your credibility. It's not journalism, it's being a jerk.

Cherry-picking one's facts and history is not enough to pretend that solid arguments against building up this mosque of division and strife do not exist. Oh yes, it is a mosque. Adding a Sunday school room and a bingo room to a church doesn't make it less of a church.

"The issue here is clearly the perceived connection between Islam and terrorism"

"Perceived"? As in not true? "The actions of a small group of unstable and insane extremists that are not representative of Islam or the Islamic community"?

It is true that not all Muslims are terrorists and many of them are extremely decent, kind and peaceful people. I am willing to think that about the overwhelming majority of our Muslim people on campus. On the other hand, the "unstable and insane" group world-wide, is far, very far from being as small as you assert with no evidence.

Islam at its frequent worst is a conquering totalitarian ideology, just as despicable as National-Socialism or Maoism.

Since 2002, Pew Research has led a vast, professional and respected Global Attitudes polling of Islamic countries regarding their support for terrorism. That support in 2003 (couldn't find the data for 2002, when support was even greater!) showed that in countries such as Jordan and Pakistan a MAJORITY of Muslims supported Osama bin Laden, while sizable minorities (hardly definable as a "tiny, despicable group of crazed extremists"), supported him in other Islamic countries as well, particularly Indonesia and Morocco among the polled countries.

Since 2003 this type of overt support of Osama bin Laden has diminished somewhat, being still amazingly high though, but it is not clear whether it diminished because many Muslims around the world don't like him as much as they used to or because they despise his post-9/11 weakness.

So yes, it would be unfair to paint all Muslims with the "terrorist" brush, but it is also unfactual and wishful thinking-like to claim that radicalism within Islam has just as statistically insignificant a presence as, say, within Buddhism.

Many Americans know this and cannot be conned into buying the whole "Islam is peace" nonsense, regardless of whether the one trying to sell it is George W Bush or B H Obama or Daily Illini.

Next:

About the argument of the Gournd Zero mosque not being so close to the place of the worst terrorist attack in American history.

This map shows where the mosque is located. Decide for yourself if you think the mosque is close to "Ground Zero". I would argue that Ground Zero would include World Trade Center 7 (a 50 story building) which also collapsed damaging 20 West Broadway (immediately north of WTC7) so severely that it was later demolished (see map)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg

You can see the debris of WTC 7 here and the location of the new mosque:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_Site_9-23-01_with_Cordoba_House_location.jpg

And a PBS site showing the area of damage.

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_buildings_04.html

20 West Broadway was called Fiterman Hall

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_106/fitermanhalllast.html

Now if these two buildings are are included in "Ground Zero" the mosque (at 45 Park Place - which was hit by a piece of landing gear from the 911 plane) is just 1/2 a block away

But that said, the building was given to the Iman by Allah as his wife says. Note how she does not mention that the plane part that hit the building was from 911.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/06/15/VI2010061502265.html

Iman Rauf wants sharia law for American muslims (see p110-111 of his book "What's Right With Islam Is What's Right With America") This is the same sharia law that so called "Islamic radicals" use to justify Islamic terrorism.

Why should we agree that such an in-your-face building is acceptable? Why does not Rauf simply upgrade the existing mosque at 45 Park Place and build the 15 story community center elsewhere? (especially since he states that he wants to be a bridgebuilder between the West and Islam). He already has $100,000,000 and an existing mosque 6 blocks north. Why is that site so important....perhaps exactly because it is so close and actually hit by a piece of the plane?

Finally, the end of your editorial "Those who oppose its construction are letting unfounded, unnecessary fear dominate their judgment." is extremely unfounded and insulting towards the majority of New Yorkers, the majority of Americans, and, most importantly, the overwhelming majority of 9/11 victims' families who strongly oppose the symbolism of this mosque being built at Ground Zero.

Rather than simply recycling talking points from liberal rags, a D. I. editorial should have projected some individual, original thought, and at least some sense of balance between opposing views.

See my comments on freedom of religion, property rights, and state worship in his article. The two initial posters are primes examples of those who through the first two considerations under the bus and they probably genuflect every time they think of the state.

Of what relevance are the laws in other countries? Why do you not care about property rights? Is it my place to tell you what religious artifacts are placed in your home? Or what religion you can practice in your home? Who the hell cares what the victim's families of 9/11 think about this? Do they own the property? Do they have the power to suspect the Constitution. Why don't you raise a fuss about the strip joints near ground zero? The two initial posters essentially prove the DI's contention. Your knee-jerk reactions betray the fact that emotion has completely clouded your judgment.

Our wise editors weren't talking about the rest of the world they were talking about America.

If you are happy merely being less prejudiced and discriminatory than the places you've mentioned, you have my sympathies. I'm glad we measure well against those nations, but I'd be happy if we measured well against our professed ideals.

This nation is about freedom and equality, not just in comparison to those we are looking down upon.

"Those who oppose its construction are letting unfounded, unnecessary fear dominate their judgment."

I think 9/11 provided ample founded and necessary fear.

I don't think anybody has contended whoever's building this thing is prohibited BY LAW from doing it. There does not appear to be a feasible argument supporting that. So most of your rhetorical questions, like the one about property rights, are irrelevant.

September 11 killed thousands and traumatized an entire country, and it is undeniable Islam and a fanatical hatred of the West and its values motivated the perpetrators, just as they motivate thousands, maybe millions, of would-be perpetrators today. It is perfectly reasonable that many Americans object to an entity erecting a shrine to the ideology that led, directly or indirectly, to mass murder, on the site of those murders. It simply feels wrong.

So yes, of course opposition to the mosque is based on emotions, but no, it's not "clouding [their] judgment." Their judgment is sound, it simply does not lead to your desired result.

Which was my point to begin with. You, and these editors, seem to think there is something inherently wrong with arguing the other side of this issue. You think it's all emotional drivel, and they think it's all prejudice and discrimination. Neither one of you cares to engage the actual arguments.

Since the long-compromised Mariam Sobh, I don't remember a D. I. editorial as slanted, uninformed, and absurd as this one. Well, one understands that the median age of the editorial board on 9/11/2001 could have been 9 at the time, but that's not a reason good enough to opine at the level of that age.

Others have said it better than I did, so I won't repeat the thorough debunking they have applied to this piece of trashy pseudo-journalism.

To those who very feebly tried to defend the Ground Zero Mosque provocation: there are thousands and thousands of mosques in this country. Freedom of religion is not being infringed upon by asking that the space where thousands of Americans have been murdered in cold blood, by followers of Muhammad, should not be tainted by the construction of a celebratory mosque.

The same demagogues who talk about "property rights" in this case would rise a stink to high heavens if KKK would attempt to raise its headquarters very close to the place where Martin Luther King was murdered, or if Serbians would attempt to raise a church very close to the stop where the Serebrenica massacre took place.

"Who the hell cares what the victim's families of 9/11 think about this?"

Decent people care. The same people who would protest, REGARDLESS of property rights, if a porn store would be established in or near an elementary school.

Building up a temple dedicated to Muhammad is an outrage of at least the same amplitude.

Well said!! Congratulations to the DI on taking a difficult stand. This nation is about freedom and equality and we should continue to pursue this and not forget the ideals on which our country was founded. Keep pushing DI, more of this country agrees with you than you might think!!

Don't wait too long to realize building a religious shrine on hollowed ground of a vanquished enemy is what we are witnessing. Perception is reality. On both sides. What better way to force Americans to open old wounds and create hatred toward Muslims than playing the mosque card.

The propaganda the Muslims will advance to the world is their innocence in only wanting to build a community center, how bigoted and intolerant America really is, and proof of the real agenda of America's war on Muslims. The propaganda will attempt to rally all Muslims to unity against America. Inciting to riot is what they are really doing. Americans to riot against the Mosque and Muslims to riot against Americans. There are laws against this. Enforce the laws. It is easy to argue against and deny all of the above, but reality is reality.

I would expect hateful groups like the Aryan Brotherhood to threaten to build a shrine at the Oklahoma bombing site to create the obvious hateful outrage that would result and exposure for their cause that would engender support and respect by their followers. Of course there are no real moderates that would do something that evil.

The Muslim world is well aware that the mosque represents victory over a vanquished enemy. After 9/11 Bush did a commendable job of blaming the terror groups NOT the Muslim people or religion. Americans responded with compassion for the people and the religion and hatred for the terror groups. The Muslim leadership is well aware that the proposal to build this mosque will create anger and hatred among Americans. The WANT that. They are doing this DELIBERATELY for Propaganda! .Are those that make this proposal moderates!???!! And why do the liberal media and politicians want this??!!!

What this editorial demonstrates is that just because one attends an institution of higher learning does NOT mean that the attendee becomes an educated person. The editorial board demonstrated not just political correctness (Islam cannot be critcized and muslims are a protected and fovored minority group) but historical naivete. What the Imam is doing is cleverly hiding behind the "freedom of religion" argument (which will bring out the PC fanatics and every gutless member of the political class) to engage in a deliberately provocative gesture which openly and obviously refutes any claims that this mosque is being built to enhance "understanding." Bullfeathers! Vladimir Lenin coined a term for people like the board members who subscribe to this editorial: "useful idiots." How true, how true.

I've already summarized the state religion. That is what motivates your side. Ground zero is now sacred space. The govt. has used one facet of the enemy's motives -- their religion -- to manufacture a global enemy. Communism died, so we need a new one. Despite the fact that we previously supported the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, we overthrew them. The Northern Alliance was previously allied with the Communists, but we backed them. Why? We have always been at war with Eurasia. To question that his heresy. An offense against Big Brother. So, congratulations, you have bought into the mass hysteria. Former allies are now enemies, and any claims that our current enemies used to be allies are dismissed as leftist propaganda (btw, I am anything but a leftist). This is why you are forced to ignore the reasons cited by the 9/11 terrorists -- American occupation of the MIddle East, past atrocities committed against Muslims by the United States (including the overthrow of multiple governments, direct support of Iraq's WMD use against Iranian citizens, etc.), and our unwavering and irrational support of the near-genocidal Israeli campaign against Palestine. In short, blowback. But your emotions are confined to one simple point -- hatred of Islam. You have chosen to ignore the rest because if you acknowledge any of them your religious support of the state will be challenged. There's the side no one, not even the liberals and progressives, want to acknowledge exists.

But again, in terms of the relevant argument to this one controversy, property rights carry the day. It doesn't matter if the whole of the population were opposed to it, the Cordoba group would still have the right to do whatever they want with their property.

Don't be so presumptuous to believe that you know how "demagogues" such as myself, who cite property rights in this instance, would react to other situations. Property rights are absolute. This means anyone who owns property may use it for any reason they want. Your reaction is so much more juvenile than that expressed in the column. It boils down to -- I'm offended, someone protect me!

Relative to the central issue -- whether or not a mosque can be built -- the feelings or thoughts of anyone beside the owners of the property are irrelevant. So, if the families of the victims of 9/11 think they have some right to stop the construction, or that their sentiments should have as much weight as the sentiments of the owners, it doesn't matter. If they acknowledge the right of the Cordoba group to use their property, but nonetheless feel offended, that's fine. I'm sorry that government blowback motivated a group of lunatics to commit the heinous terrorist attack that occurred on 9/11, but this event does not entitle anyone to infringe on the property rights of another.

Honestly I think the problem most people have with this is that strippers and drunks didn't murder those people, the radical Islamics did. There is no way to effectively separate peaceful Islam from radical Islam in the minds of most Americans. It's not really that easy to do. Take the Crusades/Christianity for example - how much farther would a devout religious person be willing to go for the sake of his/her religion? Especially if the enemy has been "identified?" It's a simplistic argument, but at the core human behavior can be simply classified. The struggle is recognizing the difference between extremism and a peaceful religion. And besides some journalist or show anchor drilling this difference into the American person's head, many Americans (those who are most times described as 'uneducated') don't have personal relationships or experiences with Muslims of any type, whether they be peaceful or radical.

Generalization is toxic, but it happens all the time.

The majority of the comments here lump the Muslim world into a homogeneous whole, assuming that the builders of this community center want to destroy the U.S. If you believe that, you prove the editorial's point, that bigotry and racism among the opponents to this center is rampant and fosters a climate of islamophobia. In fact, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric who wants this center, has been sent as an emissary of the U.S. government to promote a moderate form of Islam that preaches religious inclusiveness. In case you forgot, Muslims died in the World Trade Center attacks too.

I looked on trusty google maps and saw that there is a church 0.4 miles away from the Oklahoma City bombings. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the bombers, were Christians. No one complains about this church, and rightly so. Why not? Because to oppose a church on those grounds would be bigoted, as it would lump all Christians together.

We live on a college campus with a substantial minority of Muslim and Arab students. They should be made to feel welcome. Instead, many of the comments above propagate hostility towards them.

Nobody claimed that the builders of the Ground Zero Mosque would want to murder all Americans. However, as sources already cited show beyond the shadow of a doubt, the shady imam involved in this initiative *does* want to bring the Sharia law to the United States. A Sharia law which inherently involves bigamy, pedophilia, stoning women in a sadistic way and murdering gay people, just to begin with. A law modeled according to the moral precepts of the "prophet" Muhammad, the bigamous robber who ended his life abusing a little girl, still playing with her dolls, called Aisha.

Secondly, McVeigh did not bomb in the name of Jesus. Neither were McVeigh T-Shirts sold and popular in the Christian communities, the way Osama bin Laden T-Shirts were sold and popular in Muslim communities after 9/11.

Finally, this "property rights are absolute" nonsense sounds shallow and it is deeply unfounded.

Known pedophiles may own property near an elementary school, yet their property rights are most definitely NOT absolute. It's exactly the same with the demand that Islamic radicalism can be lawfully propagated from a mosque literally built on the ashes of the dead, just because shady Islamists happened to have bought the land.

The imam involved in this radical Islamist provocation is far from being a moderate. He is one of those pseudo-moderate radical Islamists who may not yet fly planes into buildings themselves, but rationalize and encourage such endeavors.

Local Muslims have absolutely nothing to fear from any authority, as long as they are not involved in anything dangerous, illegal, or associated with terrorism. Even mentioning them is nothing more than a transparent diversion.

How about the military fortresses the U.S. erects all over the world in countries it has bombed? How about the army bases in the Hiroshima Prefecture? Maybe you remember that we vaporized 80,000 Japanese citizens in that area? Or the Green Zone in occupied Iraq? Or ... Well, I could go on, but you get the point. It's odd that you are so vehemently opposed to the construction of an Islamic cultural center -- built by a group not connected to the 9/11 terrorists attacks -- near ground zero, but seem to expect the rest of the world to happily comply with the U.S. military's occupation of their land (land destroyed by the U.S. military, of course). Typical of most state worshippers, you treat the U.S. government as a deity.

As for property rights, they are absolute, despite the fact that the American empire has increasingly violated those rights. When pedophiles violate the rights of others, they ought to be punished. However, after they have completed their sentence, owning property in any area should not be restricted by law. Of course, the property owner could refuse to sell his property to a convicted pedophile if he so choose. That is his property right. Furthermore, why does this logic stop at pedophiles. Should those convicted of manslaughter who were driving under the influence be prevented from owning property close to bars. How about murderers? Should they be required to live a certain distance from anyone? Should thieves be treated likewise? Yes, property rights are absolute. Those that deny this invite unending government regulation of their property and private lives.

Jews, Caucasians, Homosexuals, Blacks, disabled = all people who have a higher rate of discrimination and hate crimes than Muslims.

Muslim discrimination is just a drop in the bucket at about 4%, and the statistics have not budged for 9 years, since 2001

source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

... and historically ignorant to compare the presence of the US in Japan - a country which US defeated in war and then helped rebuild - with the building of a radical Islamist mosque, by shady characters which should reside in Guantanamo, not in New York, on the ashes of dead American civilians who never hurt the Saudi Muslim assassins who authored the 9/11/2001 massacre in any way.

No wonder that radical Muslim Ancap defends pedophilia in his intervention. Islam itself is a primitive cult based on legalized pedophilia, starting with "prophet" Muhammad's glorified sexual abuse of a six years old girl called Aisha, and continuing in today's arranged marriages which justify and confirm the sexual abusing of little children:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/03/27/nu-rules-favor-underage-marriages.html

(Note: the information posted above comes from a respected Indonesian newspaper.)

Ancap, you have no idea what you're talking about. Property rights are not absolute.

The pedophile you defend so passionately couldn't buy property near a school, no matter how stubbornly you would speak on his beahld.

Islamo-supremacists must return Muslim-occupied Cyprus and the Hostage Ghost City of Famagusta (home of the desecrated St. Nicholas Cathedral)— then victimhood cultists of Cordoba House can howl about alleged “rights” to build on Ground Zero.

St. Nicholas called— he’d like his cathedral back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nicholas_Cathedral_Of_Cyprus

Russians crush Chechens. Chinese trample Uighurs. Real genocides unfold regularly in Africa. Iran pursues a nuclear bomb. Hamas is openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. So is Iran. Nobody cares.

And yet the only villain as far as much of Quislings are concerned is America. Always America.

But none of these facts matter. Indeed, it’s tiring even to recount them in an environment where big lies matter more than obvious truths, where self-defense is “bigotry,” where restraint is “intolerance,” and where the heirs of Gandhi fling molotovs (both real and rhetorical) in support of al-Qaeda.

Those interested in exploring the history of apartheid Islamo-supremacism in a more scholarly manner may read, “The Legacy of Jihad” @ http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/

Anti-jihadists have consistently denounced the secular-Islam demonization campaign.

When will Quisling Leftists media toadies publicly apologize to the secular Muslim NY Cabbie and his family for inciting the pro-jihad mosque vigilantee to moby violence?

It's past time to take a little ownership for Greg's orchestrated Islamo-supremacist advocacy campaign here.

What gets lost in all Greg's polling demogoguery is that the Muslim cabbie stabbing victim is himself a hateful hater, bigot, inauthentic, xenophobic, neanderthal-- at least, if you go by the criterion set out by Feisal Rauf's media Quislings: Opposing the mosque is "Islamophobia"-- period. Right?

As an anti-jihadist, however, I’m inclined to observe that the Muslim cabbie’s pretty much consonant in his opinion of the Cordoba mosque with a super majority (70%) of his fellow Americans.

That Rauf's proteges will be disappointed to discover the opinion of this Muslim cabbie apostate tells you all you need to know about the two "sides" of this debate.

Own it, Quislings for Islamo-supremacism.

When you begin with the premise that discrimination and prejudice are ingrained in the American psyche, it's hard to take the rest of your argument seriously. Perhaps instead of slamming America because of perceived character flaws or past actions, summarily using both as an argument against those who are offended by the location of the mosque , you should contrast our "psyche" with that of other countries, particularly Muslim countries, where women are abused and other religions are not even tolerated. To call this controversy a debate over "freedom of religion" is ludicrous. There are thousands of mosques operating without incident across our land. Muslims are not denied the right to worship as they please. But in the case of Ground Zero, the "rights" of a group should not be confused with doing the right thing. There are times when human decency trumps entitlement.

Yes, I object to your premise that America is a prejudiced country. I have seen too much of the world to buy it. Ii grew up with children who fled with their families Nazi Germany with only the cllothes on their backs. Was it prejudice that prompted us to open our doors to so many different peoples or the world and allow them to live lives they could not have imagined in their own countries of birth? Why are peaceful protests against the actions or intentions of others slammed when they represent one of the keystones of democracy? Why do Muslims worldwide begin burning American flags and threatening another attack on our country just because some nutcase in Florida says he might set fire to some Korans? (He didn't.) How come in this instance -- and others that crop up -- all Americans are tarred by the same brush (your premise?) while any actions by Muslims -- such as the murder of troops by an Army psychiatrist or the attempts by "shoe" and "underwear" bombers to explode a US-bound plane --are explained away as "isolated incidents.

Maybe the Muslims could try a little "winning the hearts and minds" of the American people by honoring those who lost loved ones in a terrorist attack by Islamists carried out in the name of Allah. Would such a compromise destroy democracy? The mosque is a symbol of the religious fervor that was visited upon us. Would it have been appropriate to erect a Shinto shrine at the site of Pearl Harbor nine years after the destruction of our naval fleet? Or, in your opinion, is everything America does motivated by our inbred sense of discrimination and intolerance???

The next time you mount an argument, try standing on a different premise -- not one so innately prejudicial toward America. It might give a bright person like yourself a whole different perspective. Or maybe the march of time and events will do the same. I probably won't be around for Armageddon. But I know this: a country that wrings its hands over the worst of its past and ties its hands over threats in the present isn't long for this world.

Hey Dosh, I'd first like to say that I agree with you that this article gets off with a generalization. I would not say America is entirely a prejudiced nation. However, I would have to be blind to ignore the fact that a significant portion of American citizens have prejudiced tendencies when it comes to Muslims and Islam.

Yes, there are plenty of mosques across the country. That does not mean there hasn't been a trend in Islamophobia and issues with getting the right to religious expression.

I also have a slight problem with the picture you paint of Muslims. You said:

"...you should contrast our "psyche" with that of other countries, particularly Muslim countries, where women are abused and other religions are not even tolerated."

Man, this just plain false. Did you know that the largest Jewish minority in the Middle East is in IRAN? Of all places!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews

For a guy who gets offended by a generalization about America, you sure like to drop generalizations about Muslims! Go ask a Muslim girl if she's "abused"! Haha.

You also said:

"Why do Muslims worldwide begin burning American flags and threatening another attack on our country just because some nutcase in Florida says he might set fire to some Korans? (He didn't.) How come in this instance -- and others that crop up -- all Americans are tarred by the same brush (your premise?) while any actions by Muslims -- such as the murder of troops by an Army psychiatrist or the attempts by "shoe" and "underwear" bombers to explode a US-bound plane --are explained away as 'isolated incidents.'"

Look bro, I think you should get your facts straight and rethink what you just said. Are you implying the Fort Hood shooting was NOT an isolated incident? Are you saying that deep down, Muslims are inherently terroristic in belief? Talk about tarring Muslims by the same brush!

Also, since when was the American flag a holy religious book? Because last time I checked, Muslims believe the Quran is holy, whereas the American flag is often used as a symbol of American policy. Burning it simply means disapproval of American policy for Middle Easterners! They're not out to insult anyone personally, unlike the old pastor!

After that:

"Maybe the Muslims could try a little "winning the hearts and minds" of the American people by honoring those who lost loved ones in a terrorist attack by Islamists carried out in the name of Allah. Would such a compromise destroy democracy? The mosque is a symbol of the religious fervor that was visited upon us. Would it have been appropriate to erect a Shinto shrine at the site of Pearl Harbor nine years after the destruction of our naval fleet? Or, in your opinion, is everything America does motivated by our inbred sense of discrimination and intolerance???"

Uhh, Pearl Harbor isn't a CITY. You know, with real citizens who need to practice their religion.

Oh, I didn't know it was up to Muslims to win your hearts. Sorry, your Majesty, but apologizing for isolated incidents means we normal Muslims had some responsibility... which we didn't. Shouldn't YOU apologize for the deaths of innocent Iraqi children committed by YOUR people? Shouldn't YOU win Iraqi hearts by honoring the dead Iraqi women and children?

Also, the mosque is a "symbol of religious ferver"? And that's your objection? Hahaha! sorry, but by that logic we need to ban Churches because they are "symbols of Crusader ferver"!

Dude, a Mosque is just a place Muslims go to remember and worship God. If you think that this is inherently "pro-Terrorist" in any way, then I think you need to rethink your prejudices.

A mosque ALREADY exists near ground zero anyway. Sheesh people. Maybe the generalization in the article isn't THAT off...

the fact that Jews are present in Iran does not speak to whether they are "tolerated." The idea that the mullahs are tolerant toward Persian-Jews is absurd on its face. They exist in Iran despite sharia-law enforced humiliations and dhimmitude.

Many idiotarians have apparently been in a coma (both before and after 9/11) since they appear to think 9/11 was the only incident of Muslims attacking non-Muslims. If they weren’t in a coma, there’s no excuse for such gross stupidity.

Muslims must take some responsibility for their global jihad when thousands of their co-religionists over the past two decades kill thousands of innocents of every religion around the world; and when they deprive non-Muslims of their human rights in 57 of 57 Muslim governed countries.

Look. American Muslims may be the very soul of moderation. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for folks to ask for more from (allegedly) “peaceful” Muslims than disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic sharia tradition, as practiced in Iran, Gaza, Kashmir, Malaysia, the Paris banlieue... and (pointedly) Cordoba House in NYC.

A genuine tiny minority of anti-jihadist Muslims may be found @ http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis

Americans remain breathless in anticipation of the vast majority of (allegedly) “peaceful” American Muslims supporting this genuinely tiny minority of their co-religionists... but don’t hold your breath.

+16K deadly Islamo-supremacist attacks since 9/11 don’t lie. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Don't parrot the propaganda lies of Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists your whole life.