[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think that's case. Resistance to the Mosque is pretty much going to be founded in anti-Muslim sentiment or PC "we don't want to offend anyone" thoughts.

Well, hope springs eternal.

For me, I'm having a collision of my own anti-Muslim sentiment with my PC moral relativist side. So I thought I'd hash some things out.

[SpaceMonkey]

Nuke the site from orbit.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I would put them anywhere I would put a chapel or a synagogue, up to and including the top floor of the new tower, provided they meet all local laws and pay the rent on time. I honestly don't see why what happened at the WTC prevents law-abiding and peaceful Muslims from practicing their religion near or at the site.

I'm not sure if you think someone who has a problem with it being two blocks away is being unreasonable.

I gather you do believe someone who has a problem with it being 10 blocks away is being unreasonable. FWIW, I would agree with you.

Now, while you yourself may not have a problem with a mosque actually on-site, would you claim someone who has a problem is being unreasonable?

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I like this picture a lot:

This made my day. I wish they would make something like this. Not that I agree with it, I just think it's funny.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Feisal Abdul Rauf. Here is someone who has said: "I don't believe in religious dialogue.", he supports sharia law, he has refused to refer to hamas as terrorists, and his wife refused to deny that at least some of the money for this center would be coming from foreign countries. None of this makes him guilty of anything, but he certainly seems duplicitous despite his "kindly visage".

With one massive, glaring qualification that turns most people's objection to "sharia law" on its head:

The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.

Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.

My understanding of the "religious dialogue" quotation, at least as I have seen it presented on right-wing wacko blogs, is that he said it in the sense that "dialogue" is an empty phrase if there is no fundamental understanding at the root of it, and the image of Muslims in the West at present lacks that. Thus, he wants to pursue understanding, not "dialogue" or some kind of cultural negotiation (implying compromising religious values).

[finboy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

OT:

If nothing else, the whole thing just strikes me as disrespectful and rude, extremely insensitive to the families and others who detest the idea.

For Allah's sake, just put the mosque somewhere else. How hard is that?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

Now, while you yourself may not have a problem with a mosque actually on-site, would you claim someone who has a problem is being unreasonable?

Yes, I would. There are plenty of law-abiding Muslims in the US, and there is nothing to fear from the simple existence of a Mosque anywhere. Or, to put it another way, if the mere existence of a Mosque strikes fear into the hearts of certain people, it's not the Mosque that has problems.

There are a few fundamentalist wackos Muslims in the US. But, then again, Fred Phelps is a wacko, too. Does the fact that Fred Phelps exists now all of a sudden make it problematic to put a Baptist church in the West Village* ?

* = Or, wherever the gays in Manhattan live nowadays....

[subego]

Let's say for the sake of argument that I'm not afraid, but I just think wanting a mosque on the site itself would be a jerk-ass thing to do.

Is that unreasonable?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by finboy 

If nothing else, the whole thing just strikes me as disrespectful and rude, extremely insensitive to the families and others who detest the idea.

Why should their emotions trump the right to practice religion freely?

Originally Posted by finboy 

IFor Allah's sake, just put the mosque somewhere else. How hard is that?

Do you want other nearby mosques relocated as well?

Edit: ...and of course it bears reminding that what is to be built isn't simply a mosque.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Let's say for the sake of argument that I'm not afraid, but I just think wanting a mosque on the site itself would be a jerk-ass thing to do.

Is that unreasonable?

No, I definitely think that would be the line not to cross. Not entirely sold on the line-of-sight standard.

[hyteckit]

I would like the title to change to Republican's attack on religion and constitutional rights.

[The Final Dakar]

BTW, am I the only person who thinks of Ricardo Montalban when they read of hear Cordoba Initiative?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

BTW, am I the only person who thinks of Ricardo Montalban when they read of hear Cordoba Initiative?

Corrrrrdoban

[The Final Dakar]

I wonder if their seats will feature rich corinthian leather.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why should their emotions trump the right to practice religion freely?

Do you want other nearby mosques relocated as well?

Edit: ...and of course it bears reminding that what is to be built isn't simply a mosque.

1.) Because sometimes people have to put away their emotions to be sensitive to the needs of others. EXAMPLE: Christmas displays. It offends Christians that traditional Christmas displays can't be offered because it's offensive to others. But most Christians haven't taken up arms to make it happen otherwise. Some probably want to, but it hasn't happened yet. Nobody's flown any planes into buildings over whether Podunck, IL can have a Creche out on the lawn of the courthouse.

On the same note, there are plenty of mosques near ground zero already. Why do we need a new, offensive one?

So, to 2) no, they don't have to move them. But if people are offended, the offenders might consider the feelings of others. In the name of tolerance and building bridges.

3) And, finally, no it ISN'T going to be JUST a mosque. It's going to be a symbol of the hatred that manifested on 9/11/01. And if the backgrounds of the sponsors can be believed, it's going to be a symbol of triumph over Western culture. That's how they raised money for it, at least.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by finboy 

1.) Because sometimes people have to put away their emotions to be sensitive to the needs of others. EXAMPLE: Christmas displays. It offends Christians that traditional Christmas displays can't be offered because it's offensive to others. But most Christians haven't taken up arms to make it happen otherwise. Some probably want to, but it hasn't happened yet. Nobody's flown any planes into buildings over whether Podunck, IL can have a Creche out on the lawn of the courthouse.

Do you support this PC behavior (The xmas thing)?

Originally Posted by finboy 

On the same note, there are plenty of mosques near ground zero already. Why do we need a new, offensive one?

No justification is needed to do something legal. There are already plenty of restaurants in my town, why open another?

Originally Posted by finboy 

So, to 2) no, they don't have to move them. But if people are offended, the offenders might consider the feelings of others. In the name of tolerance and building bridges.

What are the people being offended by, exactly?

Originally Posted by finboy 

3) And, finally, no it ISN'T going to be JUST a mosque. It's going to be a symbol of the hatred that manifested on 9/11/01.

Proof?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by finboy 

1.) Because sometimes people have to put away their emotions to be sensitive to the needs of others.

Goes both ways. Shouldn't people who feel strongly about 9/11 have some obligation to put away their emotions to be sensitive to the fact that Muslims who want to worship in that area feel they need a bigger place? What you're really saying is MY emotions are more important than YOUR emotions, which is not a terribly practical way to make these decisions.

[SpaceMonkey]

Remember: the building blocks of tolerance are in acquiescing to every whim of your detractors, no matter how irrational. I think that was in How to Win Friends and Influence People.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by finboy 

1.) Because sometimes people have to put away their emotions to be sensitive to the needs of others. EXAMPLE: Christmas displays. It offends Christians that traditional Christmas displays can't be offered because it's offensive to others. But most Christians haven't taken up arms to make it happen otherwise. Some probably want to, but it hasn't happened yet. Nobody's flown any planes into buildings over whether Podunck, IL can have a Creche out on the lawn of the courthouse.

On the same note, there are plenty of mosques near ground zero already. Why do we need a new, offensive one?

Hm. When I drive around Podunck, IL, I see LOTS of Christmas displays out. On private property, perhaps not so much on public property. Should people be out protesting the 'insensitivity' of these private displays?

I don't think these folks are asking to put a mosque in city hall, so I don't really see how this applies.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by finboy 

If nothing else, the whole thing just strikes me as disrespectful and rude, extremely insensitive to the families and others who detest the idea.

Exactly! As a matter of fact, this reminds me of this one time, when a black family bought a house in my all-white neighborhood and wanted to move in. I mean, come on - that's just disrespectful and rude to the other families in the neighborhood who detested the idea. Didn't they realize that their next door neighbor was mugged by a black person a few years back? And now, adding insult to injury, some completely different black people want to move in directly next door? Talk about insensitive!

For Allah's sake, just put the mosque somewhere else. How hard is that?

Tell me about it. I mean, no one was saying this black family didn't have the right to move into our neighborhood, but *should* they? For pete's sake, just move somewhere else. How hard is that?

[Wiskedjak]

By contrast, the congregation of the United Church just down the street from my house (in a city without a mosque) has offered space in the church to local Muslims so that they can practice their nightly Ramadan prayers locally rather than have to drive 25+ miles to the nearest, crowded, mosque.
Christian churches open doors to Muslims at Ramadan

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by finboy 

If nothing else, the whole thing just strikes me as disrespectful and rude, extremely insensitive to the families and others who detest the idea.

Why is it disrespectful and rude?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Exactly! As a matter of fact, this reminds me of this one time, when a black family bought a house in my all-white neighborhood and wanted to move in. I mean, come on - that's just disrespectful and rude to the other families in the neighborhood who detested the idea. Didn't they realize that their next door neighbor was mugged by a black person a few years back? And now, adding insult to injury, some completely different black people want to move in directly next door? Talk about insensitive!



Tell me about it. I mean, no one was saying this black family didn't have the right to move into our neighborhood, but *should* they? For pete's sake, just move somewhere else. How hard is that?

Thanks for that!

Some people just don't get it, and probably never will.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

By contrast, the congregation of the United Church just down the street from my house (in a city without a mosque) has offered space in the church to local Muslims so that they can practice their nightly Ramadan prayers locally rather than have to drive 25+ miles to the nearest, crowded, mosque.
Christian churches open doors to Muslims at Ramadan

Wow, that is fantastic. I wish this was the norm rather than the exception.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Radical Muslims don't push for mosques. Conservative Muslims do.

Sure....

Feisal Abdul Rauf. Here is someone who has said: "I don't believe in religious dialogue.", he supports sharia law, he has refused to refer to hamas as terrorists, and his wife refused to deny that at least some of the money for this center would be coming from foreign countries. None of this makes him guilty of anything, but he certainly seems duplicitous. Follow the money.

[BadKosh]

How about rebuilding the only church actually destroyed during the 9/11 attack?

FOXNews.com - Decision Not to Rebuild Church Destroyed on 9/11 Surprises Greek Orthodox Leaders

Greek Orthodox leaders trying to rebuild the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks expressed shock this week after learning, via Fox News, that government officials had killed a deal to relocate the church.

The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, once a tiny, four-story building in the shadows of lower Manhattan, was destroyed in 2001 by one of the falling World Trade Center towers. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has, for the past eight years, been trying to rebuild its house of worship.

Though talks between the church and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey stalled last year, church leaders say they've been trying to kick-start discussions ever since. But amid debate over whether a proposed Islamic community center should go forward near Ground Zero, government officials threw cold water on the prospect of any deal with the church -- telling Fox News the deal is off the table.

Confronted with the Port Authority's verdict, Father Mark Arey, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, said it's the first he's heard that.

"Negotiations did break off last year. We were expecting to hear from their lawyers -- we never did. We're still expecting to hear from them," he told Fox News. "We're disappointed. ... 130 Liberty Street was promised to us."

Arey was referring to the address, about 100 yards away from the original site, where the government earlier proposed relocating the church. The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild the church -- in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath.

Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended -- apparently for good, according to the Port Authority.

The archdiocese and Port Authority now offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has claimed the church was making additional demands -- like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes.

"St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location. The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said in a written statement. "On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds."

Sigmund said the "final offer" was made last year, which again included $60 million.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How about rebuilding the only church actually destroyed during the 9/11 attack?

FOXNews.com - Decision Not to Rebuild Church Destroyed on 9/11 Surprises Greek Orthodox Leaders

...

Sounds great! If the church were to come up with its own funding to buy the land and build, they're free to do so, so long as they comply with local zoning. Sounds to me like they're looking for a handout from the government. Socialists!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

"St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location. The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said in a written statement. "On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds."

Sigmund said the "final offer" was made last year, which again included $60 million.

Reading the full article, it sounds as though the church isn't being denied anything, other than the ability to use millions of tax-payer dollars as a means to upgrade ... and that the offered $60 million of tax-payer money wasn't good enough.

How many tax payer dollars will be spent on building the mosque?

[BadKosh]

Would you count the travel costs the US is paying the Imam?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Would you count the travel costs the US is paying the Imam?

If you can document it, sure.

But, I'm more curious about you being ok with St. Nicholas Orthodox Church losing a Honda Civic in 9/11 and expecting taxpayer handouts to buy them a Ferrari.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Would you count the travel costs the US is paying the Imam?

You mean for his completely unrelated Mideast tour? No.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You mean for his completely unrelated Mideast tour? No.

Oh, he's referring to the tour the Imam took on behalf of the Bush admin?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This thread is lolz

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Oh, he's referring to the tour the Imam took on behalf of the Bush admin?

The State Department is sending him on a similar trip for the next two weeks. Now, of course, it's bad because it's the LIBS.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...imam_told.html

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

With one massive, glaring qualification that turns most people's objection to "sharia law" on its head

I see nothing there that I didn't know or that changes my opinion.

Did I miss something?

Edit: Love the way HuffPo sugar coats it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I see nothing there that I didn't know or that changes my opinion.

Did I miss something?

Edit: Love the way HuffPo sugar coats it.

Not sure what you mean by your edit. It's Feisal Abdul Rauf's post, not some kind of HuffPost editorial.

I am assuming your objection to Sharia law is that it deprives people of human rights in the name of religious absolutism. Here is my bullet summary of Rauf's point:

- The goal of Sharia law is to ensure that secular laws/the judicial process do not conflict with the moral imperatives laid out by Muhammad. This attitude makes sense for Muslim societies.
- Where there is conflict, it is because of "some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women"; these aspects flow out of the cultural context, and are not a religious imperative, which is about "justice and fairness".
- Muslim countries need to be encouraged to make changes in this regard that are "responsive to modern realities" and "achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam."

So you are right: he "supports" Sharia law. But not in any way that I think it is currently being implemented. (You might even legitimately argue that his goals are impossible, but that doesn't in any way reflect on whether Rauf's actual position is somehow threatening.)

[subego]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Well then I would say what does it matter if it's insensitive or not? That should really only matter to the people who live there, as after it is finished everyone else is simply going to forget about it anyway.

I can't disagree with the notion that this too shall pass, but I don't get the logic here.

Either it's insensitive, or it's not.

If it is insensitive, why should they not get called on it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No, I definitely think that would be the line not to cross. Not entirely sold on the line-of-sight standard.

There's undoubtedly a fuzzy element to all of this, but the thrust of my argument is that we're now past "yes or no" and are onto negotiating price.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can't disagree with the notion that this too shall pass, but I don't get the logic here.

Either it's insensitive, or it's not.

If it is insensitive, why should they not get called on it?

I think the issue is more like, insensitive to whom? Should they be "called out" for not being sensitive enough to people who don't live in New York but think a radius of some arbitrary number of blocks around Ground Zero should be "hallowed ground"? Or is it enough to just be sensitive to the people who actually live and work in this now apparently sanctified area of the city? I come down on the latter. I fully believe that people should be sensitive to reasonable complaints. None of the complaints I've heard about this sound reasonable.

[pooka]

Scary ****in' times when the righties got the lefties standing up for organized religion. This is the shit Dr. Venkman was trying to warn us about.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Not sure what you mean by your edit. It's Feisal Abdul Rauf's post, not some kind of HuffPost editorial.

My bad. I read the article and didn't even look at the author.

I am assuming your objection to Sharia law is that it deprives people of human rights in the name of religious absolutism.

Close, but I would object regardless of whether it denies civil rights or defends them. (see below)

- The goal of Sharia law is to ensure that secular laws/the judicial process do not conflict with the moral imperatives laid out by Muhammad. This attitude makes sense for Muslim societies.

A government that creates or modifies its laws with respect for made-up beliefs is immoral IMO.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think the issue is more like, insensitive to whom? Should they be "called out" for not being sensitive enough to people who don't live in New York but think a radius of some arbitrary number of blocks around Ground Zero should be "hallowed ground"? Or is it enough to just be sensitive to the people who actually live and work in this now apparently sanctified area of the city? I come down on the latter. I fully believe that people should be sensitive to reasonable complaints. None of the complaints I've heard about this sound reasonable.

Exactly. I'm baffled as to why someone in Florida gives two shits about a building in New York City. Why waste your time and energy on something you'll probably never see in your life a single time? Who cares?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

My bad. I read the article and didn't even look at the author.

Close, but I would object regardless of whether it denies civil rights or defends them. (see below)

Here is my bullet summary of Rauf's point:

A government that creates or modifies its laws with respect for made-up beliefs is immoral IMO.

How do you define "made-up beliefs"? That seems impossibly broad. Do you include "made-up" philosophies about the natural rights of man, as manifested in U.S. law? What exactly are laws grounded in if not beliefs about how society should function?

Regardless: Certainly you are free to believe that Rauf's philosophy is immoral, but my problem with arguing that his building project should be opposed from this standpoint is that, even if I grant you your belief about his philosophy, I can't see any practical significance to it. Saying people should use a peaceful philosophical dispute as a pretext for "trying to push this mosque out of the neighborhood in whatever way we can without using government force" seems to fly in the face of what we usually consider good behavior in a liberal society. He doesn't seem to be espousing violence in the U.S. or abroad, he seems to want Muslim societies to liberalize, and his neighbors seem to love him.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

A government that creates or modifies its laws with respect for made-up beliefs is immoral IMO.

ummm ... have you seen half of the laws in Western society? where do women have the right to choose to walk around topless in public? what possible reason can there be to make such things illegal?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it is insensitive, why should they not get called on it?

you can certainly claim that they're being insensitive, and you might be right. but, I wouldn't expect the government to ignore the rights and freedoms of some Americans because other Americans feel they're being insensitive.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

Wow, that is fantastic. I wish this was the norm rather than the exception.

The United Church is the closest thing to genuine Christianity. That's why they would do this, and not Catholics or Baptists.

[Gee-Man]

One of these comments really stuck out at me:

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The Islamic religion. The idea that terrorists are fringe and the majority of Muslims are innocent is naive nonsense.

It's not naive nonsense, it's simply a fact. There are over 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. It is the world's second largest religion. if it were even remotely true that the vast majority of them are directly or indirectly involved with terrorism, or that the basic tenants of Islam are about mandating all-out war with other religions, then we'd basically all be dead. The human race could simply not survive that paranoid vision of a true clash of civilizations.

We are not, and cannot be, picking a fight with all the practitioners of the world's second largest religion, especially since there are millions living here as ordinary US citizens. The vast majority of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims aren't terrorists, and aren't planning to take over the US through a secret plan to occupy a former Burlington Coat Factory in lower Manhattan. "Paranoid" wouldn't even begin to describe anyone who really believes this is the case.

It is literally impossible to with the war against extremists by lumping all Muslims together into the same "you're all terrorists or potential terrorists" category - we would never gain any trust or allies in this fight if we were to do so.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

How do you define "made-up beliefs"?

Beliefs for which there is no objective proof or evidence?

That seems impossibly broad.

Seems pretty specific to me.

Do you include "made-up" philosophies about the natural rights of man, as manifested in U.S. law? What exactly are laws grounded in if not beliefs about how society should function?

These laws are based upon a rational evaluation of what is necessary and proper for human life.

Regardless: Certainly you are free to believe that Rauf's philosophy is immoral, but my problem with arguing that his building project should be opposed from this standpoint is that, even if I grant you your belief about his philosophy, I can't see any practical significance to it.

I don't oppose it on a legal grounds but I fail to see why I should personally respect their made-up beliefs and corrupt moral code.

Saying people should use a peaceful philosophical dispute as a pretext for "trying to push this mosque out of the neighborhood in whatever way we can without using government force" seems to fly in the face of what we usually consider good behavior in a liberal society.

If "good behavior" means capitulating the corrupt and ignorant desires/demands of backwards zealots trying to spread their corruption and superstitious beliefs…then let it fly. Again, I don't advocate the government violating his rights or anyone actually physically forcing this project out. What I am saying is that people have a moral duty to actively oppose what can be reasonably shown to be immoral, corrupt, evil or otherwise antithetical to humanity and human rights. It's no different than the left opposing the political ideology of the right or vice-versa.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

ummm ... have you seen half of the laws in Western society? where do women have the right to choose to walk around topless in public? what possible reason can there be to make such things illegal?

That's a good question. I certainly don't think it should be illegal. There is no reason to make it so except to give in to those whose backwards beliefs make it immoral to be naked. We shouldn't be bowing to the lowest common denominator. We should be rational in our approach and there is no rational basis for such prudery. I think that we (western society) have been far too tolerant of and prone to irrational laws based upon superstition for far too long. Don't you think it's time to throw this kind of thinking out?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

These laws are based upon a rational evaluation of what is necessary and proper for human life.

Necessary? Maybe. Proper? That's a more subjective evaluation that's not necessarily "rational" but also based on cultural history. In other words, "made-up" based on what seems appropriate at the time ("good behavior"), whether for political or moral reasons. Kind of like religion.

I don't oppose it on a legal grounds but I fail to see why I should personally respect their made-up beliefs and corrupt moral code.

For lack of a better word, you should respect it on the basis of politeness. By "respect" I mean let it be as long as it's not a threat to you or others. Because I don't think you'd appreciate it if some religious sect started protesting some secular aspect of your life that they found abstractly objectionable but didn't practically affect them at all.

If "good behavior" means capitulating the corrupt and ignorant desires/demands of backwards zealots trying to spread their corruption and superstitious beliefs…then let it fly.

Nothing about this requires you to "capitulate" anything, unless you are personally inconvenienced by the presence of this establishment. Are you?

What I am saying is that people have a moral duty to actively oppose what can be reasonably shown to be immoral, corrupt, evil or otherwise antithetical to humanity and human rights. It's no different than the left opposing the political ideology of the right or vice-versa.

This is a great analogy because I think it exposes our difference here. I think it is really nothing like the left opposing the political ideology of the right. Normally, the "left" in this country does not protest the basic needs of the "right" to do their business. The Democratic Party does not go out and protest the opening of Republican campaign offices because they represent some abstract moral threat. That would go beyond "good behavior" or the sense of what is "proper." There is a philosophical/political competition on a completely separate plane. If you want to protest the ideas of the people behind this center, that seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. But to actively protest their constructing a mosque/civic center, especially if it really doesn't effect you personally and they aren't hurting anyone else, seems to me to be very, very petty. Rude. "Insensitive," you might say.