This whole thing really is mind-blowing. Here's something more to cheer you up (sarcasm):

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/19/fla-city-church-standoff-koran-burning/

Sometimes I just want to stand in the middle of my street and scream.

Nicely laid out... Yes. Yet here and there I see some tiny contradictory details (you know where the devil is, right?) that kind of bother me to accept your vision fully...
Topic 3 for example: Feisal Abdul Rauf. He undoubtedly KNEW that... See the difference :(

Sorry I am not picky, but just trying to form my mind about this issue of great moral importance...

With great respect,
Albert (ArchiAlternative.com)

P.S. "It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people understood each other, they would never agree."
Charles Baudelaire

That little op-ed ran somewhere, because I remember reading it. And it's still right.

i'm surprised you suggested it be wise to relocate the mosque. i can hear the same words being echoed in that very moment Rosa parks decided she had a right to choose where she wanted to sit.

This probably won't do any good, but...

It's. Not. A. Mosque.

Very nice post, Ebert, as usual. It's a shame this nation is being driven by the extremes, and not by reason and common sense. This extreme right has even created it's own encyclopedia... called conservapedia.com.

As stated by Abraham Lincoln in one of his many discourses- "A house divided against itself, cannot stand".

Interesting blog post. My only concern is your inclusion of point 2 in this post and the fact that it contradicts the point of this writing.

Dr. Laura was exercising her first amendment rights of free speech. She was not partaking in hate speech as defined by the Supreme Court. While what she said is considered in our society to be offensive, it is also constitutionally protected. In response to her words, many people attempted to get Dr. Laura off the radio or to have sponsors drop her show. The exercise of Dr. Laura's 1st amendment rights upset others and they sought to make her pay.

Now, look at the "mosque." The main concern of this whole ordeal is not the constitutionality of the building. The main concern is the lack of decency that some see by the construction of this mosque close to Ground Zero. I haven't seen any of the more prominent talking heads claim that the Constitution should not apply to Park51. Instead, they believe that Park51 should build at an alternative location. I'm not here to throw in my two cents about whether Park51 is right or wrong, but these two separate incidents show a major point. In this country, people can still become upset over the exercise of first amendment rights when the exercise of those rights can be seen as offensive to some.

So enough with these claims of bigots and hatemongers. People are allowed to express all of their first amendment rights in this country, whether it's freedom to exercise one's own religion or freedom to criticize the questionable actions of others. By calling opponents zealots, you do not lift the debate to a higher level. You play right into the hands of those you seek to vilify.

Oh, by the way, you forgot the rest of Obama's opinion of the mosque. The part you posted is the Constitutional argument that many people understand and accept. Obama had no personal opinion of whether the mosque should be built, noting that he understands why it would be offensive to some.

Ebert: I understand that Dr. Laura was exercising her rights. Why did she object to others exercising theirs?

Wait a minute! There are strip clubs in the shadow of Ground Zero? What an outrage! What will Beck say about that?

You left out:

11. The hatred shown against Islam in the NYC anti-mosque crusade will be used against US troops in Iraq & Afghanistan. The key strategy there is to win "the hearts and minds of the people." But now the Taliban and al Queda can prove that the US hates Islam by pointing to the bigotry stirred up by the reckless right against this mosque.

12. The reckless right's crusade against this mosque shows that the GOP has rejected the "moderation" of George Bush, who consistently asserted that we are not at war with Islam because Islam is a religion of peace. Apparently Bush is not patriotic enough for the extremists who now control the media narrative and the Republican Party.

Thank you so much for your beautiful considerate words.

Thank you for providing a voice of sanity in what has been a jaw dropping spectacle that would have our founding fathers rolling in the dirt and marble they are buried in. That there is an argument over this is an insult to the millions who have died in the two and a half centuries our great experiment has been in progress. That this argument has not opened more eyes to the contradictive and caustic nature of the parties (I don't want to just level the blame on the Republican's and Neo-Cons because I feel that guilt of exploitation and oversimplification falls on both sides, though it seems the republican party is far more efficient at it these days) is a shock to how carefully corralled people have allowed themselves to become without thinking through the logical philosophical and political ramifications of their beliefs.

That being said, I would (as a librarian and an information studies major interested in providing people with source information) could only wish to see a more complete bibliography, or at the least some links to the referenced articles (like you did with Mrs. Palin's tweets) to ensure that the people reading it can see that your articles are sourced and legitimate. Maybe a task for an intern or someone. Just a suggestion from an avid follower.

Thanks for taking the time to efficiently spell out all the issues you and I, and I'm sure many many people have with this nonissue.

Thanks Mr. Ebert for posting your op-ed. I was 21 when I first read it, you must have posted it somewhere on the web, because it was one of the articles from that year that, to this day nine years later, I still remember. I had watched the Maya Lin documentary, "A Strong Clear Vision" around the time people were beginning to discuss monuments for 9/11, and I had always hoped that your green field would have been considered.

Glad you finally found a forum for the piece at the end there.
If the mosque near Ground Zero is wrong because fanatical adherents to that religion committed an act of terrorism near there, then shouldn't any Christian church two blocks from Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta also be considered wrong?

My God Rog, your "A Green Field" op-ed is beautiful, moving and very astute. I wish that it had run and your vision had come to fruition, instead of what is now certain to be. As you know, I do not usually humourlessly invoke the "mighty bearded guy in the sky" for anything. But, that is how good your "A Green Field" piece is. I even capitalised the big "g" man, which I don't usually do because we don't capitalise letters in any of the many Indian languages (as far as I'm aware & I'm aware of most of them).

I also heartily agree with all of the rest of what you said.

As for Sarah Palin -- she & her attitude is "disgustinking" and I'd like to see her "refudiate" that.

I better move on before the crazies turn up, one in particular, you know the one I'm on about.

Good night & good luck folks.

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

Someday, America will be ready to have a mosque built near Ground Zero. Not today. Someday, when traditionalist convictions fueled by hate and greed give way to a new rhetoric of progress and tolerance. Not today.

I wonder if Glenn Beck ever has self-doubts about whether he is really making the world a better. Does he ever lie awake at night wondering if he's really helping people? Or does he see liberals as ignorant and short-sighted, just as we view him?

I would add that the entire controversy has been manufactured by the GOP and its propaganda arm, brilliantly distracting from the their recent success at blocking the 9/11 first responders bill.

This 9/11 fetishism is just a clever ploy.

Roger, if you and I weren't already married to a different person, I'd ask you to marry me.

It's all so, so true. And the blind ones will wrap themselves up in their hatred so tightly that they will never see the green field for the beauty it can hold, never know true peace inside themselves.

For them, the terrorists won. The torch of hatred was passed on.

I agree with everything and am heartened by these points. I still believe they should not be forced to move. But I understand the issue being political and at an inconvenient time for those who would stand with the peaceful muslims and their Community Center. Peace to all.

Relocate? Sorry Roger I disagree. Why not just then have gay couples settle for civil unions?

What people are not understanding is that the real-estate of this mosque was bought at a cheap price because no one was buying it. Relocating isn't that easy. You can't just find a prime spot in the city for the kind of money they bought it for.

Also, relocating will just prove all the naysayers right, and that is just unacceptable.

Mr. Ebert,

For the most part, I agree with you. However, I disagree that the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was in error in choosing this site. Even with the ensuing firestorm, I think the choice was a wise one, and should they stick to their choice it will be a real addition to the area.

Perhaps, it could be something even larger. A symbol of acceptance, just blocks from a scene of hideous rejection.

I'm a Irish-American of Catholic upbringing. I fell in love with Islam and the history of the faith white attending college at DePaul. I ended getting my MA in history, focusing on the "Golden Age" of Islam, specifically Egypt and the Fatimid Caliphate.

My second Arabic class was scheduled for 9/11/01.

It was, of course, canceled as were most classes in those dark days. In the ensuing weeks my class nearly halved in size. Many of my fellow "white" students disappeared. By the fourth week just myself and another white student were left. Funnily, the friends I made in that class worried at first that I was some kind of government mole, an FBI agent sent to keep an eye on things.

We were laughing about that very subject one night outside our classroom building when a group of older white men tried to start a fight with the Muslim students. They spat on female students, grabbed at their hijabs, shoved and poke at the men in the group. They called me a "Sand-N-----rlover" and had similar insults for my classmates.

A security guard scared them off, but it shook me to my core. That hatred, that raw ugly hatred for "THE OTHER" was a pure byproduct of television and media. What did those men know of Islam or Muslims except the fear and terror they'd been soaking up on the news? They came to their bigotry by proxy. They came to their hatred via a messenger.

How many of those 70% who oppose this mosque would ever even see it? How many of them have ever been inside a mosque? How many of them even know a single Muslim by name?

That's the true ugliness of this issue. That Muslims are being vilified and used as props by political homunculi like Palin and Gingrich is simply those vile idiots acting to their nature. But that people are so willing to believe in that hate, to buy into the fear and panic, to be moved to intolerance by merchants of menace, is sickening.

We are better than this, are we not? I hope so, I really hope so.

The Green Field piece most certainly was published on the web, at least. I know because it struck me so, I printed it out and placed a copy on my office door, where it stayed for months and received numerous compliments. To this day, I think it is one of the most moving pieces about 9/11.

Ebert: I couldn't find it with Google, but I'm sure you're right and have rewritten that graf.

I'm going to be laughing when NYC starts turning into New Cordoba. Keep believing that this mosque is about "opening dialogue". Because that's why Muslims have historically built mosques, haven't they? For dialogue i'm sure!

As for your other "points"

The chances, at the moment, of the mosque's location being moved are not likely. They made no mistake in where they chose to build it. Feisal Abdul Rauf could care less about others' sensitivities.

The mindless Dr. Laura has nothing to do with this issue.

One day, and at your age you should already realize this, all the bobbleheads on television are distractions. Your dislike of anything conservative is how people like Beck and Limbaugh become your distraction. As much as you dislike them i'm sure you have an intolerance of any conservative opinion. Actually i'm sure of it seeing your past opinions and articles. Yet, somehow, we're supposed to care about free speech and expression?

Only when it appeals to your silver-spooned (or shall i say, silver-screened) opinions huh Roger?

I wish your paper had run your op-ed column, and that your vision for a green field memorial might have come to pass, with "Just the comfort of the earth, to remind us that we share it." It would be fitting.

I think the center should be built as planned------ all will be well..They thought similar stupidity when JFK was running for pres. - that the pope would be giving him orders--it faded away in time---We need to stand with the builders at this time..if we give in to the detractors..we have lost! I ADORE what you wrote about the actual site of ground zero---it is a PERFECT and most spendid idea! I love the growing some type of memorial communal garden-to be shared in the honor and memory of the victims....! It's an absolutely perfect idea...!

A. Why don't the couple of hundred Muslims who were also killed in the World Trade Center get any consideration?

B. So if the world of Islam is so terrible, why have we expended Billions of dollars and thousands of American lives to establish Islamic republics in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why did Bush Sr. send the Army of George Washington to put the prince of Kuwait back on his throne?

Roger,

I was honestly hoping that you, Sarah Palin, and the President would not comment on this issue. Its one for New Yorkers, plain and simple. But, here we are. So:

For point 1. Governor Patterson and Archbishop Dolan have referenced a time when Nuns did in fact move a site from Auchwitz with at the Pope's behest. If Catholics can show that sensitivity, peace loving Muslims can too.

Also for point 1. The media has much criticized the strip clubs and shopping malls that are or will be built in and around the ground zero site. But strippers and mall guards did not bomb a financial center.

If I build a non-Muslim church inside Mecca and preach peace, what will the result be? Ok, ok, trick question since I can't get in the city in the first place.

And lastly, point 4: please for the love of everything dear, Roger and all those who studied English in college back me up on this: Americans are under the mistaken impression that Barack Obama is Muslim because HIS NAME IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. It is a simple mental association with 2 Muslims that you might have heard about on the nightly news at some point in the past 10 years. Its not racist, its not stupid. Its called being human.

Your op-ed piece is beautiful and brought tears to my eyes. Civility and gentleness seem to have disappeared from the public forum. Of those who oppose the mosque so fiercely, I have but one question: What would Jesus do?

Thank you, Roger, for your clear view.
We, here, in Canuckistan (despite our current despot) are mostly in agreement with you.

Agree, agree, agree. I think that it's unfair that so much focus has been solely on the mosque when Plan51 hopes (hoped?) to build a community center offering an incredible number of services. Much of people's incredulity should be focused on your #10.

For Allah's sake Roger, you defended the sensitivity of Mexican-American students who felt offended by predominately Hispanic kids wearing American flag t-shirts on Cinco De Mayo. Shouldn't the families of the victims of 9-11 be afforded even more sensitivity?

No one is saying Muslims don't have a "right" to build a mosque. I would take our record of religious tolerance against any Muslim nation. There are countless numbers of Mosques in NYC that practice free and unharmed. It comes down to a question of "is it appropriate with respect to the families painful memories to have it right there?"

I would sincerely ask every Muslim and those who defend the Mosque plan, would it be appropriate for a (Serbian) Eastern Orthodox Church to be built right next to the Srebrenica massacre memorial? Even if the people building the chhurch had nothing to do with the crime and had good intentions? I can promise you the outrage would be far greater.

But to be fair to our Eastern Orthodox friends, I would also ask why the Mosque plans have been approved by the City of New York already but they are still stalling on approving the rebuilding of the Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church next the memorial? That was a religious site actually destroyed by Muslim terrorists when the towers fell.

Dear Roger;

Sorry but I can't help but feel the drawn out mosque story is some sort of distraction.

It's kept the removal of combat troops from Iraq off the news along with some truly dire economic reports.

The mosque "controversy" is really just a local zoning issue.

It's being used by both sides to push the emotional buttons of the electorate transitioning from summer to back-to-school to mid-term elections.

I'm not taking the bait.

This is something I wish I had not read just before I head out on a night of drunken escapades. :) It made me think too much about where we stand as a country. The America I knew growing up wasn't so explosive. I feel as if our country is going to collapse under the pressure of so many factions and I fear the day when people with such obscure and ignorant views have an opportunity to decide the future policies of our nation. What ever happened to caring for your fellow man or the respect of others beliefs? Why have we become so Roman? I know I've gone off on a tangent, but it just scares me sometimes...

I give many thanks for your voice Roger. Not sure what many of us would do without it. Well besides not look at our twitters as much.

It is the fate of the sites of many tragedies to become a shopping mall.

So now it's constitutional freedom and tolerance....

Give me a break. Only when it lines up with ones agenda.

Same folks preaching tolerance and constitutional fundamentals here, would have no problem limiting Americans in their pursuit of capitalism and owning their guns.

Roger, great writing, nice piece....BUT...from my cave in Taiwan i see a Trojan Horse, the so-called community center is nothing more nor less than a modern Trojan Horse for global jihadist PR....just PR.....when will America wake up to the enemy at the door? You want another 911? It's coming, my friends, it's coming.

Wonderful piece of writing, Roger. You cut right through the sickening hyperbole that has been surrounding this so-called mosque.

Now watch the right wing fear-mongers spin this as being part of the liberal media machine, despite your clear-headed objectivity.

Kieth Olbermann (who can sometimes be too partisan for my taste) devoted a segment of his show to this subject, and I think he nailed it much the same way you did. Not that it mattered to hate-machine.

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0&feature=player_embedded

Agree with Albert abt #3...

Not sure if RE is being sarcastic there?

Otherwise, I appreciate and endorse all of the rest, including the vision for the site.

"So now it's constitutional freedom and tolerance....

Give me a break. Only when it lines up with ones agenda.

Same folks preaching tolerance and constitutional fundamentals here, would have no problem limiting Americans in their pursuit of capitalism and owning their guns. "

Your use of empty rhetoric is inspiring.

Trigger words like "agenda": Check. Not responding to a single one of Roger's lucid points: Check. Use of strawmen (capitalism, gun control): Check.

Failure to construct anything resembling an argument or response: Check.

I have to emphatically disagree with you on point 3.
The unaffiliated mosque already in the area, Masjid Manhattan, is a tiny and cramped space, too small to serve the needs of the Muslims who live in the neighborhood. According to their website, it "is extremely small and it only has room for 20% of our members during Jummah [Friday prayers]. The rest of the members have to pray on the sidewalk outside the Masjid and are not able to listen to the Khutbah."
Which is more disruptive to the area, an interfaith community center where people can worship and hold services indoors, or a mass of Muslims praying on the sidewalk every Friday?
The Park51 project was grounded in the practical needs of the community. Failure to foresee that a handful of bigots and opportunists would use it to manufacture a national controversy cannot be fairly called "bad judgment."

I must say this is an atrocious read. From someone of such high opinion, I have never been so offended. You're facts are unsupported by any legitimate foundation except for those that are well known. You say people are condemning the building of a mosque, well sure some people are, but this isn't the first mosque in new York! There are several! The issue is clearly over trying to have it open on 9/11 as stated in a press interview and that it's so near to ground zero! You also don't know, or at least acknowledge the fact that the average American confuses Muslim with Islam. Islam by nature has some very peaceful aspects, but also very angry! One section calls of a cleansing of infidels, if they are not willing to submit or convert. Now the bible doesn't say that any person should murder another because of their belief, that's "God's" job. As opposed to Islam, which is the opposite. You're spreading ignorance around by saying the "right" is flamming Muslims, if they are doing anything it's towards the religion, not the people, so correct your statement or remain at stake for libel. I am not saying hating a religion is right, or that I agree, I am only acknowledging that this article is pure slander backed up by little factual evidence.

I would know everything if I guessed too.

Ebert: I understand that Dr. Laura was exercising her rights. Why did she object to others exercising theirs?

I think you're missing one of the points of my comment. It's because she can object to others exercising their freedom of speech rights. Just as they objected to Dr. Laura exercising hers. We can go in circles with this idea, but it's very simple. We not only have first amendment rights, but we also have first amendment rights to criticize those when they use their first amendment rights. Once again, it doesn't appear as if the mosque debate comes down to the first amendment. No one is arguing a temporary suspension of that right. It's a decency issue. And people are supposed to be allowed to object to perfectly constitutional situations that still affect one's sense of decency.

Your green field idea has to be one of the best proposals for the site I have ever read. It seems wrong to be building again at that site, just as it seemed wrong to have an open sore in one of our greatest cities for 8 years.
And this whole thing with the mosque is utterly ridiculous. I join you in repeating the cliche, as most (say 99.9%) Muslims are peaceful, and are great people.

Some thoughts on the list:

1. America has showcased its Constitutional freedoms. No famous conservative has said they cannot build there. The response has been the same as President Obama's backpedal: Muslims have every right to build there. But they shouldn't.

Pope John Paul II ordered the closing of a Carmelite convent outside of Auschwitz? Those nuns had nothing to do with that crime against humanity.

2. To say the First Amendment comes down to this: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death our right to say it", is a platitude that comes from Voltaire, a frenchman whose been dead for over 200 years. Most frenchmen today would simply say "I surrender".

However, if you DO subscribe to that, and if someone you disagree with says the N-word 11 times on the radio to an inoffensive black woman, why is it that Voltaire's statement does not apply?

3. Feisal Abdul Rauf undoubtedly knew where the site of a $100 Million building project near Ground Zero was; he had to, there was damage to it from the WTC attacks.

4. Perhaps anger against building a mosque near Ground Zero is because were it not for 19 Muslims who murdered in the name of Allah on September 11th, there would be no Ground Zero, no deaths of 3,000 New Yorkers, no NYPD and NYFD with glass in their lungs, etc.

No, wait, that must be Glenn Beck's fault.

5. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this conversation; all agree that in America one is guaranteed a right to religious freedom. What is not guaranteed is wisdom.

6. Perhaps Sarah Palin and her meme machine float terms like: Death Panels, Ground Zero Mosque, 9/11 Mosque, because they are perfectly clear.

And since when has the Left not referred to "patriot" as defined as, "those who agree with me."

It was Hillary Clinton who stated "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic..." when not one person had ever said she was not patriotic for disagreeing with the George W. Bush administration.

7. That many Americans and a great many politicians have either never taken a civics class or disagree with what they should have learned there is a sign of the failure of public schools; you cannot teach what you do not know.

For more information, see Mr. Eberts ode to his Catholic school education.

8. George W. Bush spent 7 and 1/2 years saying Islam is the religion of peace.

How'd that work out for him?

Before Muslim nations were bombed by America, Americans died to feed them in Somalia, protect them in Bosnia, and no major Islamic groups marched against Islamic terror after 9/11; there were candlelight marches in sympathy with the United States, but not in opposition to Islamic terror.

Instead, Prince Charles is saying good things about Sharia.

9. I find it appalling that it took less than four years to build the original Twin Towers (according to Wikipedia: "Groundbreaking for the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966. The North Tower (1) was completed in December 1970 and the South Tower (2) was finished in July 1971.").

Today, almost nine years later, a hole still sits in lower Manhattan.

10. In the ten years since 9/11, we have a President named Barack Hussein Obama (who is not a Muslim, didn't serve in Vietname like John Kerry, and is a Christian who spent 20 year in Jeremiah Wrights church but never heard him say anything anti-American in all those 20 years), a mosque going up in a building that was damaged by the landing gear of one of the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center, and a hole remains at Ground Zero. . . if I were a radical Islamist, how well would I think 9/11 worked?

There's a reason New Yorkers oppose this by 70%. . . that's New YORKERS! Fewer New Yorkers voted for McCain/Palin then it would take to fill Yankees Stadium, but they are united in this.

Maybe that's worth wondering why? And not simply blaming Glenn Beck.

Ebert give me a break. You are a huge joke.

Ebert: Any idea why? Or cat got your tongue?

Calling Park 51 a mosque is like calling a YMCA a church. It's to be a community center, not a mosque.

Quoting this person:

And lastly, point 4: please for the love of everything dear, Roger and all those who studied English in college back me up on this: Americans are under the mistaken impression that Barack Obama is Muslim because HIS NAME IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. It is a simple mental association with 2 Muslims that you might have heard about on the nightly news at some point in the past 10 years. Its not racist, its not stupid. Its called being human.

Mind boggling with the amount of animosity shown towards muslims. It's not just the US though. My home country of Sweden also has a lot of issues with trust for Islam, and I have seen various outcries in the news regarding other European countries' state in the matter.

It is a worldwide issue, for sure. Blame the fundamentalists for making it so.

I love your op-ed.

We continue to fill our emptiness with consumerism and everything that can be bought. It seems so easy. Why is it so hard to fill the emptiness in our hearts with compassion that is abundant and free?

We should build the largest, most beautiful and religiously significant mosque outside Mecca and Medina, right on Ground Zero. It will be a pilgrimage site for Suunis, Shi'ia, Sufi and Ahmadiyya, a recognition of everything Islam achieved, and can yet achieve. It will be a landmark in New York, and a patriotic symbol as powerful as the Liberty Bell.

It will also be a gigantic middle finger raised at Bin Laden, proving that America is the Light on the Hill, and he's just another goblin in a cave.

Those who oppose a mosque at ground zero are anti-American, as far as I'm concerned. They let their god-bothering displace their patriotism.

Apples and oranges, Ryan. Nothing in the constitution that specifially mentions the definition of capitalism or the individual ownership of guns.

What saddens me most about the Islamic Center debate is the realization that after nine years, the giant hole bombed out in lower Manhattan is still . . . a giant hole.

Let's get some consensus and build SOMETHING on the site. A garden. A museum. An apartment high-rise (preferably with first dibs for families of the fallen). ANYTHING! Just not the same hole we have seen for the past nine years.

The strawman act of saying the Right hates Muslims gets old. Just like you say Beck distorts things, so does the left. The Left realizes that they have a winner with the whole conservatives are bigots angle. That feeds into a nerve that gets everyone all excited over there on the Left. Of course that is just as "insane" as believing that Obama is a Muslim.

You and I and most educated people know that conservatives have no problem with Muslims building mosques. Why try to act as though that is the issue here?

And after reading your ten things, I have that sort of feeling you get when you read a well-written section in literature, say, something from Cormac McCarthy, where you read the passage and you "know" what you just read describes some truth or idea or opinion that you already "knew"... the neural pathways were built before hand by your own musings and thinking, and so when you encounter McCarthy's prose you are ready to process it and because the prose is good, you can admire the form and debate the content at the same time.

On Facebook, some days ago, I posted a quote of President Obama talking about religious freedom in the USA and gave a nod to "states rights," local laws and ordinances and such. I agreed with the President's pronouncement. My Facebook friends are diverse in their political views, the interchange was thrilling. Public discourse. Your blog post, here, adds light and reason to the public discourse.

You know, from what I heard some of major Cleric in the Saudi Arabia was using this as an example as to why it was wrong to hate America, since we could be reasoned with given our high level of tolerance and open mindedness. Guess we blow that chance.

Also its kinda funny for all of the right wing's hatred of France and the rest of Europe, they actually further drove us into the direction they so hate. France banned burkas, some other nations in the EU are all about going much further than that.

I used to listen to Dr. Laura and read her books.
Someone said that our parents do their best but an incomplete job of raising their children. At some point the adult child must finish raising themselves. Or something like that. At nineteen, reading 'The Ten Stupid Things Women Do To Mess Up Their Lives' and listening to the Dr. Laura show. She helped me start becoming the woman I wanted to be when I grew up.

But something happened a while ago. Instead of talking mainly about morals and ethics she started using right-wing buzz words; and the show became much more about 'liberals' or 'conservatives'. I'm coming around to a point, I swear I am. Her show kind of illustrates what I see as the danger of arrogance and committing to an extreme point of view.

It leaves you no where to go. There's no room for course correction or moderation. You're kind of pinned to the wall by your own hubris; hoisted by your own petard, etc. Admitting a mistake, changing one's mind becomes perilous, rather than merely embarrassing.

And here comes my point. The ten things you know are indicative of the modest even-handedness I've come to know, expect and love in your writing.

How beautifully and typically you is your green field notion. And how typically American the strip mall reality.

I'm so tired.

Tired of my freedom being usurped by the Sarah Palins and the Glenn Becks of the country.

Don't tell me anymore that their freedoms and mine are the same. Wrong as I may be, I'm tired of that nonsense, too.

I'm embarrassed, as an American, to watch hypocrites sanctify The Constitution while denying it to some. I'm tired of being embarrassed.

Why does Sarah Palin have a voice? What has she done to earn it? She's practically an imbecile. Mention education to her, and she rolls her eyes. Who benefits from her constant presence in The Conservative Media?

I'm tired of these questions. There are better ones to be asked and answered.

You can buy souvenirs at Ground Zero. Little plastic, meaningless chotchkies. Little flags and little Statues of Liberty. All Made in China. Crap to put on a desk for when they come to dip a stick in your patriotism to see if you're a quart low. THAT, we can have at Ground Zero. We cannot have a mosque, a synagogue, a temple. We can probably have a Christian church, provided it's non-denominational. I can think of no better place for one of each of those and any other I might have forgotten. A place to kneel and contemplate and converse with yourself or your God.

A place where, when you are tired, you can escape the idiot wind of conservative herd-think.

Roger;

I have to disagree with one point you make: I don't think there is confusion. I think people realize that the site is away from Ground Zero. They don't care. For them it's a little bit like "Animal Farm." All people have equal rights, for some (i.e. white Christian conservatives) some rights are more equal than others.

I judge this in one way: what is one's opinion of what is actually being built at Ground Zero? This is the site where thousands of Americans lost their lives, not unlike the Gettysburg battlefield or the beaches of Normandy. If this is about sacred ground, if this is about respecting the memories of those who died, then why aren't they protesting the fact that this space, which should rightfully become a public commons in memorial, is being mostly devoted to a commercial office building? They say that it's a symbol that the US doesn't back down, that we move forward, etc... Hardly. It's a symbol that in New York City the only crime worse than slaughtering thousands of its citizens is letting real estate go to waste. If people are so outraged about this community center occupying an old Burlington Coat Factory but don't have a problem with a commerical, for-profit entity being built where people actually fell, then their priorities are hopelessly damaged.

I agree with a good portion of this but as an atheist I am growing sick and tired of all this muslim apologism, especially on the part of westerners. I've read the Koran (a translated version which fundamentalists will claim is not truly the Koran) and I don't find it to be a book of peace what so ever, and I dont buy Islam as a religion of peace.

Why are these so called "moderate muslims" not actively running the extremists in their midst out of their midst. So seldomly do you see muslims decrying the extremists of their faith and it gives me great suspicion as to whether or not they harbor the same sorts of thoughts but do not act on them. Islam is another repugnant desert faith based on fatalism, death, moral absolutes and a degenerate form of morality.

I know most people will cry "racism" but it has nothing to do with race, a find a white muslim far more distasteful. I'm sorry I don't buy the assertions of muslims. I mean lets look at their countries. Their countries are often stuck in the same century as their religion was founded and much like the Christians used to when they had power, the Muslim societies wield their religion as an oppressive implement against their people.

I'm just sick and tired of being told to tolerate backwards, insane philosophies.

I am assuming that no. 3 was posted tongue in cheek. Thank you for this.

The fact that the project is being built as a community center doesn't mean that it also won't serve as a mosque. More and more mosques and churches being built around the country are being housed in community centers that also offer other services to their congregants. Its a way of attracting congregants by creating a community presence. There have been some good articles around discussing this trend (if I saved the links, I'd post them here). The way I've seen this particular project reported is as a 'community center and mosque', and all indication is that its part of that trend, and the planned building will serve both functions.

And the importance of the location indeed was understood by the imam ahead of time. He personally described the location as being a means to do what he wanted: help to open up dialogue and bring cultural understanding and tolerance.

Most conservatives I've talked to disagree with this instinctively, not because this is a Muslim project and Muslims participated in the 9/11 attacks, but because the imam is using the site of the mosque to make a political statement. He's saying something to the effect of: "The 9/11 attacks happened partly because America as a country was not tolerant to Muslim interests around the world, and this mosque will help Americans learn about Islam, bridge those differences, and prevent further attacks".

In that sense, it would be equal to, say, if some group wanted to put up a building in the area to make anti-Muslim, pro-war political statements. Its insensitive because, by being political, its putting gasoline on the fire. A lot of New Yorkers, as well as many people around the country, would prefer that the site remain apolitical and find distaste any the attempt to use the memories of the victims for any partisan cause.

Its true that there are conservatives who are vociferous about this and don't know all the details, but many liberals who speak out are equally as ignorant. I'd appeal to you and your readers that a lot of political debate is reactive; commentators shooting off the hip, in response to other commentators shooting off the hip. In the mess of this ugliness, the original issues get lost.

The truth is that the 'mosque controversy' has been used for grandstanding by both sides, by the left and the right. You're rightly concerned about the grandstanding on the right, but around the time this controversy erupted, I would see about ten liberal editorials for every one conservative editorial written. From what I can tell, this started as a local zoning issue in NYC, a few national conservative commentators picked up on it, and that set off a huge liberal firestorm of editorials trying to use the issue to prove that conservatives were mean, nasty, intolerant bigots.

Its also true that every time that conservatives talk about the issue, they insist that they have no problems with mosques elsewhere in NYC and think most American Muslims are good people. They're adamant in saying that they only have a problem with this mosque and this imam. That doesn't stop the left from insisting there's some secret pattern of bigotry behind the right's attacks, any more that it stops Glenn Beck from insisting there's some secret pattern of revolutionary Marxism in Obama's administration.

So you're OK with the left insisting that all these conservatives are secret bigots -- to their insistence that they're not -- but not OK with the right insisting progressives are secret radicals -- to their insistence that they're not? What type of muddy waters are you letting yourself be dragged into?

Cassandra and Chris reflect American values more instinctively and correctly on this issue, let it be said, than Sarah Palin, Howard Dean, Newt Gingrich, Harry Reid and Rudy Giuliani, who should know better.

I'm sure they do know better. I don't believe they are speaking their hearts. They are saying that which they believe will advance some short-term political goal.

Islam is an extremely destructive and oppressive religion even without the help of its extremists. Yes, of course there are Muslims who are good people (the majority I suspect) but I don't think the religion itself is good. Muslims are just as bad as Christians in my opinion. That being said, it's their property and they can build what they want there. But then what a dull world it would be if the right didn't find new and innovative ways to embarrass themselves.

So now it's constitutional freedom and tolerance....

Give me a break. Only when it lines up with ones agenda.

Kinda agree but this applies to people along the entire the political spectrum.

Same folks preaching tolerance and constitutional fundamentals here, would have no problem limiting Americans in their pursuit of capitalism and owning their guns.

Which amendment again was it that suggests freedom to pursue profits at any cost? There's no absolute right and wrong in socioeconomics, in my opinion. As for guns, do you really support no limits to gun ownership? It seems you're saying ANY limit is unconstitutional. Also, a more important point is interpretation of the amendment. You could take a Bork angle and say that the purpose of the amendment was not a wholesale right to own guns so much as it pertains to protecting the right to keep and bear arms connected with militias (obviously, not the view of supreme court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller).

I would like to propose that it would be a great time for the Muslim community to showcase their sensitivity to what their proposed Mosque site means to most U. S. citizens. Putting up that mosque THERE is akin to poking Jesus with a spear to see if he's dead.

I really disagree with most people concerning the Dr. Laura controversy. She simply uttered a word in a simple explicative manner and she did so without malice nor predjudice. I too am tired of hearing how offensive the "N" word is and then turning on HBO or Showtime and hearing EVERY black person in camerashot shouting it at the top of their lungs.

If Jessie Jackson can call the future president a "N#&&@!", then certainly a radio host can say the word in order to get a simple point across.

The Bill of Rights has a parallel with pregnancy. You can't be a little pregnant, and you can't be a little free.

Ok, that's a bit hyperbolic. Of course there are degrees of freedom.

Examples? Physically: Solitary confinement at Ryker's Island vs an Aborigine in the Australian outback. Politically: A US citizen vs one of China.

I agree with what you wrote. I also believe we have the right to protest when we feel something is wrong. Personally I have a problem with a religion that will try and kill innocent people for making a cartoon depicting their God but doesn't say anything when they kill thousands of innocent people innocent people in the name of their god to prove a point. But that is just me and thousands of other Americans. Some of them have even fought against these people and lost loved ones to keep it safe for Muslims to build a Victory Mosque near ground zero. God bless you in the name of Jesus I pray it all turns out for the best.

Reply to: Ebert: 3. The choice of location for the mosque shows bad judgment on the part of its imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf. He undoubtedly knows that now, and I expect the mosque to be relocated.

If Islam was willing to relocate the mosque, this issue would have been defused long ago.

Muslims are NOT willing to discuss anything that would impair the Game Plan of Islam spreading all over the world.

It's a matter of self-interest. They have nothing except Islam. But they've had success in many countries, and have been encouraged by gains in France and Britain. They're not going to abandon a strategy they think is working for them.

Some background: Daisy Khan, along with her husband Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is one of the co-founders of Cordoba House. She says she and her husband will not back down.

"There is too much at stake. Constitutional rights, the development of the Muslims here, how the world is watching the United States. We tell people America upholds religious freedom. We should not compromise those values."

Which is pretty much nonsense. A decision to voluntarily move the mosque away from Ground Zero would not involve any compromise of religious freedom.

But it would be a sign of defeat for Islam, and they're too proud and arrogant to volutarily retreat from the jihad of spreading Islam.

Khan says that the vilification of the plans for the mosque "have only strengthened our supporters. None of them have caved. They are circling the wagons around us. They know they could be next." She mentioned supporters of all faiths.

More nonsense. Islam is a terrorist organization, not a religion. No other religion "is going to be next."

Some of the most serious considerations, Khan says, are the fact that

*** the publicity would hurt Muslims in the rest of the country ***

and that religious freedom is under such serious attack. She and her husband have been in contact with Muslim communities across the United States.

Daisy Khan: "It's a major concern of the Muslim communities because it has sparked anti-Islam and anti-moque feelings everywhere. Six mosques have already been prevented from being established. We have to be careful about every step we take. There are huge stakes in this."

"What gives me strength," she says, is that "we are in a history making moment. Our ideals must prevail. We have to fight for a bigger society."

A bigger society? Or a society that closes its eyes to the truth about Islam?

Let me see if I can put this into the proper perspective.

Islam is creating a false issue of religious freedom. None of the original objections were to a mosque, only a mosque so close to Ground Zero.

But it's become obvious what the true objective here is.

To build a Trophy Mosque at the site of a great victory over the West.

Islam has done this at other places where they won battles that allowed Islam to replace or displace other groups.

Reply to: Ebert: A meme is infecting our society that Muslims are terrorists and hate America; they are the enemy. It is a cliche to say, "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful," but is true.

Actually, Roger, that's not true at all.

Islam is a terrorist organization.

Islam uses religion as a mask, and for that purpose, they promote "peaceful" Muslims to appear in the press. But none of these "peaceful Muslims" have any voice in Islam. They are window dressing.

How do I know this? Because Islam is trapped by a book that was finalized about 630 to 700 AD. No matter what a moderate Muslim says, there will always be a core group inside Islam that uses the Qur'an as the ONLY guideline.

The Qur'an is a terrorist document. It describes stoning and flogging as punishments. Moderate Muslims may say stoning is wrong today, but "Islam" will always say "If the word of Allah as recited by the Prophet requires flogging as a punishment, then the word of Allah will be followed."

In order to understand this problem, you need to start here:

There is ONE Islam.

There may be Muslims who claim to be moderates, or liberals, or intellectuals, but they have absolutely no impact on the words in the Qur'an.

The first Amendment says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." Will anyone say the author of that Amendment intended it to prevent the federal government from passing a law against hijacking a plane and crashing it into the Pentagon?

I think you're going to get some real attention with this blog entry. I'm anxious to see how the discussion plays out, and whether it's picked up by the news agencies.

The death of the professional film critic, one who worked their way up in the world of print to attain the position of ‘film critic,’ is inevitable. The whole concept and structure of professional media has been deteriorating for years. There is no need for financial infrastructure or credibility to establish a news source when anyone can create a website or post an editorial on Youtube. Once more, the public no longer wants traditional media with accountability linked to a reporter, writer or publication. We no longer care about truth and facts in news – the success of Fox News is proof beyond debate. Furthermore, people no longer desire the views and ideas of reporters and critics. We are now a world where the only views, truth and beliefs that matter are those of the individual. Human nature is ego-centric, and we now have a media that can satisfy this trait. The nature of news reporting, editorial writing and art criticism as we knew them have changed – for good or bad – under the terms of the most profitable voice, the consumer.

This being said, there was a time when the voice of film critics made a real difference in what studios made and theaters showed. Without film critics, the Documentary Feature would have died decades ago. Film critics were the reason “Hoop Dreams” gained national attention in 1994, leading to a new era of profitability and wider distribution of independent feature documentaries. Without the Los Angeles Film Critics in 1985, Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil” would have never been released as he envisioned it. By voting Gilliam’s cut of ‘Brazil’ Best Picture and Best Director, they publicly shamed and forced Universal Pictures studio head Sid Sheinberg to release Gilliam’s version of “Brazil.” Prior to the LA Film Critics awards, Sheinberg’s version of ‘Brazil’ was headed to theaters or straight to cable TV. In 1992, Clint Eastwood directly credited “Unforgiven’s” success at the Oscars – and close to $20,000,000 in additional theatrical gross – to the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. By voting ‘Unforgiven’ Best Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, Director and Screenplay, the film became an Oscar contender no one could ignore.

The key thing to acknowledge in the evolution of media from a professional endeavor to a personal one is that we as a culture have lost powerful and accountable advocates in the world of reporting and art criticism. Without film critics, certain classics would have never survived studio interference and mismanagement, and certain film genres may have not survived. It’s a cost worth noting in this debate.

I don't remember anyone having a problem with the fact that there are 2 churches in direct sight of the Oklahoma City bombing. Timothy McVeigh was an army vet, and open white supremacist. and supporter of the KKK. He was raised catholic. He was deeply influenced by the Christian Identity movement. Nobody showed any hatred towards the Army or Vets or white people or the churches after that? Why is this different? Because most of the people practicing Islam are not WHITE? Has anyone tried to move the Catholic Churches away from schools or parks where children play? That should be the real concern!

And the difference between your and Howard Dean's position is ?

It fascinates me to no end just how quickly the attitude even on the more moderate right has changed from Bush's 'We aren't at war with Islam, but terrorists who pervert the message of Islam' to the present 'We are at war with Islam.' Not all rightists think this way, of course, but judging by the rhetoric the percentage seems to have risen dramatically far outside of the lunatic fringe. Islam is the enemy, and to build an Islamic community center so close to Ground Zero is to allow the enemy to plant a flag of victory over the site.

That said, I think whoever had the poor sense to choose that spot should be slapped. While acknowledging their right to build there, if they had two brain cells to rub together they must have been able to to figure out they were deliberately provoking a fight that (regardless of its outcome) would stimulate anti-Muslim anger across the country. To what end do they deliberately provoke such a fight, knowing that no matter what happens with the Mosque, they will stir hatred against their co-religionists?

Moreover, given how much violence and rage has been launched against the west for signs of 'insensitivity' by Muslims...a Pope quoting a Byzantine Emperor who disparaged Islam prompting attacks on churches, a woman who allowed her students to name a teddy bear Mohammad imprisoned in Sudan, with mobs calling for her to be killed, and so forth...I would think they would be kind enough to treat non-Muslims in the way they want to be treated. Apparently for too many Muslims religious sensitivity is a one way street.

I am an Australian living in Italy, so I have obviously not been following this controversy very closely. The gabbering hate-mongers frothing at the mouth are all par for the course, and they will be back once again for the next issue at stake.
But are you seriously trying to tell me that there is a shopping mall planned for the site of the attack? I am very rarely stunned by what I read on the internet with my morning coffee, but this piece of information is mind-boggling.

In order to properly understand these issues, you've got to look at the source material.

I said Islam is a terrorist organization pretending to be a religion.

A terrorist organization uses terror. It may murder, or torture, but the main weapon is the THREAT of being killed if non-Muslims don't leave. In the history of Islam, the most common response has been to move away.

but let me show you what the rule book of a Terrorist organization looks like, and then you can tell me if it should be considered a religion as defined by the First Amendment:

(1) "Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you. Yet it may happen that you will hate a thing which is better for you; and it may happen that you will love a thing which is worse for you; God knows, and you know not.

They will question thee concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: `Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar from God's way, and disbelief in Him, and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it--that is more heinous in God's sight; and persecution is more heinous than slaying. They will not cease to fight with you..." (Sura 2:212).

(2) (Sura 9:5). But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

(3) (Sura 8:39 ) And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

(4) (Sura 8:41): And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.

There's a USC site that's a good source. In the centuries since Mohammed died, some of the ideas have been developed.

Such as Jihad.

"Jihad... includes a religious war against unbelievers with the object of converting them to Islam or subduing all opposition. It is the sacred duty of the Muslim nation to ensure that Islam triumphs over all religions. It is considered a general duty of the nation as a whole, not of individuals.

Individual Muslims may, indeed, call themselves peaceful.

but the duty of Islam, (aka the ONE Islam, the Muslim nation) is to ensure that Islam triumphs over all religions.

That's not a religion as the word is used in the First Amendment.

What you've got to imagine... is a tribe in an area so remote, they've never seen a freeway, or a cruise ship... but they have memorized the Qur'an as children.

They follow the Qur'an... no matter how many Muslims in America choose peace.

Ryan Smith said:

"Same folks preaching tolerance and constitutional fundamentals here, would have no problem limiting Americans in their pursuit of capitalism and owning their guns."

There is an implication in the sentence above that the "pursuit of capitalism" and "gun ownership" could never be mutually exclusive. Which, ironically, is a view closer to those of Marx and Engels than it is to Adam Smith's.

Which, I must assume (much to my own amusement), was not Ryan's original intention. Keep flying that red flag, comrade.

Sadly, I have heard all of the epithets driven at Muslims before. They were the same as were (and, in some cases, still are) directed against Mexican immigrants in the border states, Blacks in most parts of the country, Asians brought in by the boatload to dig in mines and build the railroads, the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Catholics, the Baptists, the Protestants, the American Indians, desegregationists, the Untouchables, the Lepers... Pick a time in history, and a different socioeconomic group will have been subjugated/vilified to a point of frothing-at-the-mouth fearful hatred. These instances have always happened, especially during times of economic downturn.

I do not believe this is right. I do not believe that this is fair. When we have people in leadership positions stoking the flames of knee-jerk reactions, hate mongers encouraging mob-mentality and doing their level best to insure that reasoned debate and understanding of the other parties' perspectives, and supposedly reliable news sources funding partisan politics, how can we expect to behave any differently than a school of panicked sardines? We have no thought process anymore!

Somebody posted this ahead of me:

"Same folks preaching tolerance and constitutional fundamentals here, would have no problem limiting Americans in their pursuit of capitalism and owning their guns."

What kind of argument is this? I'm all for capitalism, as much as I am for tolerance and understanding. Anyone who has read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" knows that what we have isn't even close. Human nature makes a perfect capitalist society as impossible as a perfect communist society. Somebody's always going to want more than the guy next to him, or feel entitled to more. Who knows if their idea of capitalism is the same as yours? It's not? He must be inferior! Also, dude, I don't mind if you have a gun. I have a gun. It's a 20 gauge shotgun, and I use it to shoot food every now and again. It's the easily convertible to fully automatic weapons and Teflon-tipped rounds I don't like. Deer and gophers don't wear body armor. Cops do.

And lest he think that I'm just some Democratic mouthpiece, let me just air out a bit of their garbage:
Woodrow Wilson, with his written approval of the "truth" of D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation," and membership in the KKK, revitalized the white supremacy movement. He re-segregated Washington, DC, and by force of will ended the post Civil-War policies of having black elected officials represent black communities in government agencies. Also, his staunch anti-communist leanings, and racism, shaped this country's dealings with Russia, China and Vietnam.
FDR interned Japanese-American citizens in camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor, tearing families from homes all over the country. German-Americans and Italian-Americans were not affected.
JFK was racist, and avoided passing as many civil rights bills as he could. LBJ was the real spearhead behind most of the major changes that occurred.

If we are going to change how we think and act as a culture, many things need to change:

Education needs to focus less on rote learning of a surprisingly suspect load of facts. Many of our history and science textbooks are woefully out of date. The near deification of most of our most cherished figures completely removes them from the realm of humanity, and allows us to gloss over what in some cases are egregious faults. Our first presidents were slave owners! Lincoln trashed more constitutional rights than Dubya! Warren G. Harding may very well have been inducted into the KKK IN THE OVAL OFFICE! There's way more than that, but I don't have the time. People also need to know about just how their bodies work, too, so they won't end up in serious medical conditions later in life through unintentional ignorance.

Nutrition: Multiple studies, conducted in multiple countries, have shown that the mineral and nutrient qualities of our various foods have seriously decreased in just the last 100 years. An apple a day used to keep the doctor away; now, it takes a coupe of bushels. Our digestive tracts are only about 20% effective, thanks to the onslaught of over-processed "food" from McDonalds, Lean Cuisine and Little Debbie, to name but three. Supplementation is not just something that we should do if we have the extra cash, it's something that we all NEED to do, as is growing our own food. A small victory garden keeps food bills down, and allows people the satisfaction of knowing exactly where their food came from. Folks will still want their Ding-Dongs, I know. I enjoy one every now and again. They should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco. Make it cheaper to buy good, healthy food, and it just might happen.

Medicine needs to undergo a major paradigm shift. Right now, hospitals and medical schools are kept alive by contributions from pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies, making it very difficult for any alternative therapies and treatments to be brought forth. Don't get me wrong; if I'm in a major car crash, or my carotid artery bursts, I want to be in a Western-style ED lickety-split. When it comes time to heal, though, I want some choices that aren't going to cost me an arm and a leg because my insurance policy, which I have dutifully paid for years, doesn't cover anything but what they have to offer. I also feel that, as "Poor Richard's Almanack" said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Preventative medicine, people! It's the future!

With proper nutrition, and good education, supported by policies which encourage free thought and reasoned debate, something as innocuous as a place of worship/community center being put up near a place where, nine years ago, an awful tragedy took place can lead not to a further reopening of old wounds, but in a soothing salve over a gruesome scar.

The quotes from the two strippers really heartened me. It's good to know that with all the hate and ignorance being spewed forth by nearly every media outlet, there is still a degree of true American values to be found in the general populace.

What saddens me most about this situation is that somehow, this is being made out to be an "us" versus "them" scenario. On one side, the Muslims who want to build a Mosque. On the other side, everyone else.

Those Muslims are Americans, too. We aren't talking about a Mosque for foreigners to fly in and pray at. We're talking about American citizens of New York City. People who were just as traumatized by 9/11 as the rest of their fellow New Yorkers. They felt the tragedy. Perhaps even moreso, *because* the bombers claimed to be Muslim. I know that I'd feel sick if the perpetrators of such a heinous act claimed to be my ideological brothers.

Please, let's all remember that these are not outsiders. These are *our people*. When the Towers fell, our people helped each other as best they could. Amazing acts of heroism took place as a matter of course. Some of those acts were performed by Muslims.

We were all one people in the aftermath of that tragedy. Letting ourselves forget that would be another tragedy all its own.

Roger, I've long admired the wise side comments in your movie reviews and was delighted when you started your blog and began to comment on wider issues. I'm disappointed in your post today, however.

I don't think that it is at all fair or accurate to conclude that the "choice of location ... shows bad judgment".

As Justin Eliott has pointed out in Salon, there was nothing controversial about the Park 51 proposal until it was targeted by far-right-wing campaigners. One of the Park 51 proponents even appeared on the O'Reilly Factor in December and the acting host, conservative media personality Laura Ingraham, added at the end of the interview, "I like what you're trying to do."

It may be that in the end the Park 51 organisers will be forced to move the location. If they do, that will only be gravy for the far-right-wing campaigners' real victory, which will have been to have intimidated politicians like Harry Reid and Howard Dean and pundits like Roger Ebert into supporting the main goal of the campaign, which is to prevent Park 51 from being built at the approved location.

The rest of world can only conclude that Americans (not just the loony right) are hostile to Muslims (even moderate ones). I know that is a conclusion that both Pamela Geller and Osama Bin Laden want the world to make, but the long term implications are frightening.

A hindu friend and I talked about this, and we came to the conclusion that one must be a full lunatic to support this mosque.

There is no other option.

George nailed it. When it's the sensibilities of minorities being offended (i.e. the Cinco De Mayo incident), Roger argues through multiple blog posts for more sensitivity and stands firmly behind the minorities. However, when it's minorities offending other people's sensibilities, Roger seems to forget about the "sensitivity" he once wrote so passionately in favour of.

The irony is maddening: while Roger rails against the icons of the right - Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh - for being completely partisan and extreme in their political views, he perfectly embodies the left-wing equivalent. Roger's political postings have become partisan ramblings almost bereft of logic and completely bereft of any self-awareness. What's even sadder is that - judging by the comments - few of the readers realize Roger's views are nothing more than the opposite extreme of Beck's and Palin's.

The hypocrisy couldn't be clearer between Roger's opinions on the Ground Zero debacle and his opinions on the Cinco De Mayo debacle. Both the Muslims responsible for the Ground Zero mosque and the (assumingly Caucasian) students wearing the American flags were acting within their rights - in both instances, the key issue isn't whether their actions are constitutional or legal, but whether they are insensitive. Roger's argument in this posting is that the Muslims are perfectly within their rights and thus should be allowed to build their mosque. Yet, when people made the same argument about the "Cinco De Mayo" students acting within their rights, Roger still criticized them on the basis of their insensitivity and advocated them being sent from class. Is anyone really missing the inconsistency and complete lack of logic at work here?

This isn't a matter of me disagreeing with - and thus disparaging - Roger's views. I do tend more to the right, but I enjoy debate and discussion. I don't enjoy intellectually-dishonest, extreme or partisan viewpoints. This is why I have no time for Palin and why I no longer have time for Roger (specifically in regards to his political rants - I'll always enjoy his reviews).

Please seek out last night's episode of The Daily Show. They played a clip of Charlton Heston defending the decision of hosting an NRA convention in Denver in 1999 after the Columbine tragedy. Interesting parallels and articulated in only the way my father's favourite actor could.

...What's wrong with the location? There's no way the imam (whose TED Talk on compassion is great, by the way; go watch it) could have known it would cause such a firestorm, since it appears that he's not such a cynic that he will believe that people will just MAKE STUFF UP and employ bigotry to protest it. But he's apparently big on interfaith dialogue -- if it were me, I would CERTAINLY not move from that spot.

This is a Rosa Parks moment. Saying that the mosque should move is like saying that she should have sat at the back of the bus to avoid angering white folks. This notion is ridiculous. Sorry.

Roger, you stereotype anyone who is not on the left side to be an ignorant Glenn Beck type. How ironic that you would indulge in such ignorance yourself. Pretending that the imam somehow didn't realize how close it was to the site when it was he who stated that America was mostly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The shame is on you for not researching or "forgetting" to put that as a qualifier in your argument. The problem with building it so close to the site is that Muslims, not the ones who did this as they are dead and those in connection have been captured, were still responsible for the attacks, and many others not in this country. If rogue Israeli soldiers attacked a neighborhood occupied by the Hezbollah, taking many innocent lives with them, you would be outraged if they built a synagogue near the site. If anyone claiming to be a Christian bombed a building you would personally be transported to the site to stop them from building a church anywhere within a five mile radius. But this is "tolerance" because they're Muslims and we're afraid of them. I say no more. We give them this leeway because we've negotiated with them and bowed to their fears and censored ourselves, all to appease them and keep their anger quelled, all the while stroking their egos and allowing them to further push the lines. Even the makers of South Park were pushed to remove an episode of their show from their site because it depicted Mohammed and due to this their lives were threatened. This fear of terrorism in America exists because the threat is real. Not accepting it just lets them further victimize themselves, and it gives the fear they've planted room to grow.

Ground Zero in New York City is not the equivalent of Mecca. There is nothing religious about Ground Zero. It is not Jerusalem, nor Haifa, nor Vulture Peak.

Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and in that country there is no protection for freedom of religion. In the U.S., there is supposedly freedom of religion, however, if you are a non-Christian, particularly if you are non-Christian and non-Jewish, there are many things that limit those freedoms such as social attitudes and prejudices.

Muslims have been in America since the 16th century, coming in with the Spanish explorers and some of them were slaves.

The debate we hear now only shows that despite this long history, there is still a prejudice toward Muslims, a religion that is practiced by one-fifth of the world population and mostly in Asia.

If politicians and other powerful people are speaking out against this building on the basis of religion, then do you suspect that other plans and programs are biased against Muslims and perhaps other non-Christians?

I am not Muslim. I am not Christian or Jewish. I know what it is like to have my religion disrespected in America.

The question really should be how far away from Ground Zero should any religious organization be. The actual planned building is not a mosque, but a cultural center. Will other cultural centers also come under scrutiny? Maybe we should then draw a line on the ground to say how far is far enough and see if anyone wants to cross it. Otherwise, while there should be no reason to deny the request for this Muslim organization. Yet if they want to avoid unpleasantness, it would probably be wisest for them to find another spot.

And if they do decide to go somewhere else one wonders if they will be rejected yet again and again.

Muslims and other non-Christians worked and died in the Towers on 11 September. It's sad that we forget this.

Ebert: Our American traditions are becoming non-traditional.

Connecting Dr Laura and American anger at Muslims is appropriate--the people who seek to exploit religious conflict are the same who want to splinter us by race. They are hateful, fear-mongering and regressive.

Above all, they are completely contradictory. You can't say the N-word 11 times in 5 minutes on-air to a black caller without pissing of blacks. If your right to free speech protects you in spite of how an entire race of people may react, then you shouldn't complain about the sensitivities of 9-11 families if an Islamic Center or mosque is built so close to Ground Zero.

But it's not about free speech or religious freedoms. This is about the 2010 mid-term elections. Republicans are working hard to open up old wounds andass hysteria. Obama's religion is coming under attack, just as his citizenship and birth certificate has been scrutinized. the GOP are using Islam to stoke fears as a get out the vote method, in spite the greater implication that they're attack our freedom of religion. Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and Fox News spread the hate, lies and propaganda. Everything is political

Reply to: Ebert: It does not come down to: "The First Amendment gives me the right to shout the N-word 11 times on the radio to an inoffensive black woman, and when you attack me for saying it, you are in violation of my First Amendment rights."

Actually, that's an excellent example of First Amendment rights. The federal government controls the right to broadcast on radio frequencies, and has claimed the right to prohibit profanity. And constitutional lawyers have argued, for years, that the federal government has no right to limit speech in that manner.

If a person, on the radio, engages in political speech, even if it's offensive, it SHOULD be protected.

Soon, the question will be, "If I attack Islam as a terrorist organization, can I be charged with a hate crime or "hate speech"?" Under Freedom of Speech, there's no such thing as "hate speech," but such laws are already on the books.

The question of whether modern Islam is actually a religion has been raised by:

General William Boykin: "What we are not seeing first and foremost is the fact that Islam is not religion. It is a totalitarian way of life. There is a religious component. But we still treat it as a First Amendment issue when in fact it is a totalitarian way of life."

Lt. Gov Ron Ramsey of Tennessee: “You cross the line when they start trying to bring shariah into the state of Tennessee, into the United States... You could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion or is it a nationality, way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it. . .this is something that we are going to have to face,"

Barack Obama lectured on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. This is exactly the kind of question that could make an entertaining lecture, whether Islam, as it exists today, would be considered "religion" as the term was used in the Bill of Rights.

WIKI: in 1786, the Barbary states of North Africa were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. Having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy for American ships, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli,

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right to engage in piracy] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

This last quote defines the issue.

For centuries, and as long ago as 1797, Islam has claimed the right to declare war on non-Muslims as a religious duty.

There are laws already on the books making such actions a crime. So, what would be the benefit of declaring Islam not to be a religion?

The major benefit, that I see, would be to make American children wake up and stop thinking Islam is a peaceful religion simply because it uses the word "religion".

Claiming a right to take non-Muslims as prisoners, and keep them as slaves... pretty much means Islam isn't a religion.

'A Green Field' is one of the most beautiful, affirmative and uplifting things I have ever read on the tragedy that has led to our world becoming so ridden with division over the last decade.
And it is a testament to your humanity that you thought to write about what the twin towers' site could become, just one day after the attacks.
Thank You.

Hello Roger,

Over the years, I have almost always agreed with your point of view. And this subject is no different...with the exception of the “Green Field” portion of this particular article.

I hope you will indulge me a bit.

I’m sorry Roger, but to expect that the land formerly occupied by the World Trade Center Towers (one of the most valuable tracts of real estate in the world) would be set aside for a green field is just not realistic. Nor is it, in my opinion, warranted. In fact, to many New Yorkers, those buildings were special. Unique. You live in Chicago, Roger. Therefore, it may be necessary for you to equate the World Trade Center Towers with landmarks or structures that are as precious to you in your own city. I suggest you watch Ric Burn’s documentary “New York – Center of the World” if you have not done so already.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/index.html

The Twin Towers were not just any buildings.

And they are going to build on that land no matter what. The question is – what should they be building?

I wrote a comment yesterday on a different site in response to a story about the Anti-Mosque advocate Pamela Geller as well as the recent comments by Sarah Palin. I have re-posted it, word for word, below.

I lived in Soho for ten years. I was 2 blocks away at work on that horrible day. I lost friends. I watched helplessly as people fell to their deaths. I saw the Towers fall in person, up close. And I lived with the strong aroma of burned rubble for many months (if I could attach a color to what I smelled it would be brownish-yellow) that has most certainly shortened my life.

The biggest middle finger we could give to those who sought to destroy our country and all that it stands for would be to build the mosque. Actually, it would also be to build the Towers EXACTLY as they were (but adding fire repellent steel of course).

I understand the feelings of those who lost loved ones. I do. But those who did not lose family and friends or do not live in NYC or were in Alaska at the time should just SHUT THE FUCK UP. Maybe instead of preaching hatred they should ask themselves why after nearly ten years, two wars, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars that ground zero is still a giant fucking construction site.

And Freedom should not just be some slogan or name of a building. It’s the guiding ideal we as Americans supposedly cherish above all.

God, I miss my friends. And I miss those buildings too...

I suppose, Roger, we also disagree that the mosque should now be moved because in your words:

“...the far right wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims. One buried motive for this is exploitation of the insane belief of 20% of Americans that President Obama is a Muslim. Zealots like Glenn Beck, with his almost daily insinuations about the Muslim grandfather Obama never knew and the father he met only once, are encouraging this mistaken belief.”

President Obama would have been well advised to stay out of the matter. Instead, he should have stuck with his first response: That it was and is a local issue.

But now that he has weighed in, he shouldn’t back down and support, as you suggest, a different location for the mosque. That would be hypocritical, cowardly and play right into the hands of those who use hate to get what they want.

http://gawker.com/5616421/anti+mosque-leader-pamela-geller-is-just-standing-up-for-south-park

I get so tired of the left attacking Glenn Beck and saying he distorts the facts, but never brings up where he went wrong. Every time I watch the show he has solid facts and historical perspective unlike when I watch Maddow, Olberman, or the occasional intellectual blanks fired on this blog. Ebert...Beck would absolutley smoke you in a debate. I'd love to see it happen.

Ebert: I'd love to discuss his historical opinion that Charles Darwin is the father of racism. And you know those "99ers?" The jobless whose employment benefits have run out? I'd ask to see the solid facts behind his statement that they're lazy, shiftless bums.

Two things.

First off, your first point is also exactly the first thing I myself thought of when all this blew up. 'American Exceptionalism' refers to the idea that America is 'better' than other countries, that it is exceptional, presumably because of the strength of its values and convictions. This episode proved to me that if America ever was exceptional, it is no longer. No better and no worse, morally speaking, than any other stable, first world country.

Secondly, I found your ending passage, your planned tribute to the WTC to be by far the most beautifully written and conceived proposal I've yet seen. Bravo. And yet, how fitting that a shopping mall will be built there instead. A more accurate symbol of the present-day values and convictions of America could hardly be imagined.

Its really a little sad the things that have been said about this whole issue. Opposing a mosque that is being built near ground zero of 9/11 attacks seems to be just a "reason" to oppose the construction of a mosque. I believe it has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks because of the simple fact it shouldnt. I still cannot believe people associate the terrorist of 9/11 with islam. They're not muslim terrorists, they're not muslims, and they were not doing it in the name of islam...they were just simply TERRORISTS. Just because some mentally disturbed ignorant people fly a plane through the twin towers and scream out "ALLAH" while they do it, does not make them muslim.

And for the Imam, i think he brought this onto himself. People have died there, innocent people from all different religions and nationalities, and the main conception of the whole ordeal is that "radical muslims" did it. Although they are wrong to think that muslims are responsible, who are we to tell the families of the victims who to blame and how to mourn. They have lost their relatives and loved ones....what ever the imam's motive for building the mosque at that location, which i predict is to show the world that muslims are not responisble for the attack, building the mosque on ground zero is the wrong way to go. People who have lost families in the 9/11 attacks have the right to blame who they want and also have the right to challenge the construction of any building there. whether they are right or wrong is a different issue, the main issue here is the sensitivity of the whole topic. When you are sensitive about a subject, the smallest thing can bring you pain. And therefore building a mosque at ground zero without first studying how it will affect the families of the victims is a big mistake.

@the mosque: I'm conflicted about the location. On the one hand, it seems in poor taste, or like asking for trouble. On the other hand, maybe they were trying to reach out and didn't expect it to backfire. Totally their right to build it, of course, but ... well, one assumes that if they had known it was going to blow up like this they would have put it somewhere else. Or maybe they thought it was 'far enough away' (and what is that, exactly? four blocks? six? a mile? 'not in MY America'?) not to matter.

As for this Dr. Laura stuff, I've encountered a curious lack of knowledge about the first amendment. It means that you can say whatever you want and the government can't stop you. It DOES NOT mean that other people are obligated to give you a forum or a platform. It also DOES NOT mean that no one can call you an idiot or a liar. That's their free speech.

You wrote: The imam would be wise to chose another location, because the far right wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims.

I've learned the hard way that there's nothing you can (or should) do or say that will ever satisfy the "far right wing".

Roger:

In #9, I think you should include Ted Olson -- whose wife famously was killed on 9/11 -- who is keeping the faith where "conservative" does NOT equal "using the Constitution as toilet paper and behaving like a weasel on crystal meth in public".

@the mosque: I'm conflicted about the location. On the one hand, it seems in poor taste, or like asking for trouble. On the other hand, maybe they were trying to reach out and didn't expect it to backfire. Totally their right to build it, of course, but ... well, one assumes that if they had known it was going to blow up like this they would have put it somewhere else. Or maybe they thought it was 'far enough away' (and what is that, exactly? four blocks? six? a mile? 'not in MY America'?) not to matter.

As for this Dr. Laura stuff, I've encountered a curious lack of knowledge about the first amendment. It means that you can say whatever you want and the government can't stop you. It DOES NOT mean that other people are obligated to give you a forum or a platform. There is no Constitutionally protected right to using millions of dollars of other people's broadcasting equipment. It also DOES NOT mean that no one can contest your claims or call you an idiot (or a racist). That's their free speech. Basically: crazy lady says 'N-----!': free speech. Other people say 'Get that racist off the air!': also free speech. Crazy lady says 'refudiate': free speech. Other people say 'You're an idiot!': also free speech.

Damien -

"And lastly, point 4: please for the love of everything dear, Roger and all those who studied English in college back me up on this: Americans are under the mistaken impression that Barack Obama is Muslim because HIS NAME IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. It is a simple mental association with 2 Muslims that you might have heard about on the nightly news at some point in the past 10 years. Its not racist, its not stupid. Its called being human."

It has nothing to do with studying English or being human. The 20% of Americans that believe Barack Obama is Muslim do so because they are ignorant and led by the nose by the racist GOP who do all that they can to associate Obama with "The Other" in the hopes of tarring him.

Sadly, it works. It is the same reason that so many Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. I guess the bright spot is that ONLY 20% of Americans are so stupid as to think he is Muslim when one of the bigger 'controversies' during the election was that Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor 'hated' America.

I think we should allow the mosque to be in its place it was originally intended, but also build a place where people of all religions affected can go, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and more. Athiests and agnostics would also have their own area with a reflection room. This would show anyone from the Middle East who is being seduced by someone claiming the intolerance of the U.S. that we are capable of progress, of acknowledging we are all in this together. Also, there would be a cafe in the building serving food indigenous to each religion. What better way to fight prejudice then to break bread with people?

In my opinion, both issues come down to decency, a quality almost completely gone in our society. Dr. Laura's rampage was repugnant, but we should celebrate it as constitutionally protected free speech, and move on. The mosque idea is completely insensitive, but they absolutely should have the right to build it there. We should celebrate the freedoms of Dr. Laura and the mosque proponents, but the decent things would be for Dr. Laura to shut the f@#! up, and for the mosque to be built elsewhere. Linsday Graham of Georgia, a conservative, once said, "I thing burning our flag really stinks, but I will defend the right to do it for the rest of my life." I agree.

People are mad at an Islamic community center being built two blocks away from Ground Zero, yet I haven't even heard a peep from these same people about the 55,000 square foot retail mall they plan to build RIGHT ON TOP OF GROUND ZERO. Sweet balls, people are fucking stupid!

@Damian Sarcuni: Good on you for parroting another right-wing false equivalence between this controversy and the "Auschwitz nuns" (as the Wall Street Journal so tastefully called them). That Convent was not near but inside the camp, and in a building that was used to store Zyklon B. If you can't see the difference, I give up.

Pope John Paul II also exercised his legitimate and lawful authority as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church over an order of Catholic nuns, with the full support of the leadership of their order. Last time I looked, Sarah Palin's Twitter feed does not trump NYC planning law, the Constitution and private property rights.

And if you want to talk about "sensitivity to victim's families", perhaps you could repay the courtesy to Ted Olson and others who've explicitly stated that Park 51 opponents DO NOT SPEAK FOR THEM.

I actually want to disagree with point five. I'll quote it again for anyone reading.

"5. The Bill of Rights has a parallel with pregnancy. You can't be a little pregnant, and you can't be a little free. Nor can you serve yourself from it cafeteria style."

While I've a lot of love for America, as an outsider (Australian), I've never understood your treatment of the bill of rights and the constitution as holy writ. They're very well thought out political documents, certainly, but they're not the be-all and end-all of political thought. The question should not just be "is this constitutionally correct?" but also "is this morally right?"

And we're all a little bit free, and all a little bit in chains. I can't stab someone, or walk around naked, or not pay tax. And neither can someone in the US. And you could still swear in Soviet Russia.

The difference is one of degree, and often the society benefits by the restriction of freedom, even freedom's enshrined in your constitution. Australia has pretty much banned firearms, for example, and we've not been invaded by the king of England yet.

I'm not really commenting on the mosque, here. Mostly because I agree with everything else you've said.

Just an outsider's perspective on an odd aspect of American political thought.

Dear Roger,

First of all, I wanted to thank you for writing such a beautiful and heart-pounding piece!

I am a Muslim and I love America just as much as any other American does.

First of all, I acknowledge and 100% agree that the Mosque (community center) is 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. It's not next to the Ground Zero. No doubt about that. However, I do believe that the mosque should be re-located. I understand that the politicians are using this issue to their advantage, but as a Muslim, my question is why build it there.

There is no benefit..2 blocks away or 10 blocks away, it doesn't make a difference.

However, what is really heart-breaking is the hatred I have felt in the last few days as a Muslim. First and foremost, I consider myself American. I don't consider someone else Christian or Catholic or Jewish or Hindu etc. etc. I consider them an American. However, I am not considered an American. I am considered a Muslim who is just as much responsible for the terrorist attacks as those who did it!?

I understand that the media paints a dirty picture, however, what is wrong with the general public? Have they no common sense?

I felt just as much pain as anyone else on 9/11. Not because I lost someone. No. Because MY country was attacked. More so, attacked by people who used my religion as an excuse.

I agree with your point that majority of the Americans have probably not spent much time with a Muslim.

Anyhow, I agree that the Mosque should be moved a bit farther because of those who died that day, not because the Mosque will be used by people who are of the same religion as the attackers! Some of the comments posted here reflect the perception the general population has, that the Mosque will be used by Muslims, and Muslims are the ones who attacked. Whoa! Hang on a second there!

So in final closing remarks, I, as a Muslim support the idea of moving the Mosque in honor of those who died. And ask the general population to get to know someone who is Muslim so you can better understand that they are just as much human and American as you are.

I remember when I visited New York City that what was very close to the World Trade Center - was a Burger King that had internet access. THIS is what being in a big city was all about! That and the view of the Statue of Liberty from southern tip of Battery Park. To get to the best view of the statue, you passed the guy in the park with about 200 watches lined up on a blanket for you to buy. They were all very shiny.

("Canuckistan". I liked that, Mrs. Anderson.)

So here in Canuckistan I'm remembering New York City (recollections saved under the URL) and thinking that I agree with what the President said, at least what he said first. And never mind the mosque, the world would be better without the rabble-rousers, be they political or religious, making their offensive little psychic circle radiate harm from what could have been a little green park.

I just read an article about how Archbishop Dolan is willing to help Muslims come up with a "compromise" and move them to a new location. Uh... talking someone into leaving their own property because you don't like them is not a compromise. Unless there is a real possibility of them being forced off their property, which thankfully (because we have FREEDOM OF RELIGION here) there isn't.

But you know what? It wouldn't matter anyway, because no matter where mosques are built, no matter where this community could possibly move, someone is going to complain about it. I live in Houston, TX, and when a Muslim community built a mosque in a field in the middle of freaking nowhere, their nearest neighbor decided to hold pig races every Friday (the Muslim sabbath) in protest. The mosque I go to is adjacent to my neighborhood, and I stopped going to my home owner's association meetings because I got sick of people finding excuses to bitch about it.

I agree with those who point out that this is a completely manufactured issue. Did you know there is a mosque 4 blocks from Ground Zero already? And that it's been there for 40 years? Hardly anyone knows about it because--like this new community center--it doesn't affect anyone who isn't a Muslim that lives in that local area. And you know what? It's overflowing with people who live and work in that area, and need a place to worship. Hence the need for another venue in that same neighborhood.

Allowing the Sarah Palins of the world the kind of power to relocate this group of people just so that she can gain some political points is appalling.

I don't agree with 3 & 4.

They should be replaced with the failure of our politicians and ex-presidents, Republican and Democrat, to come out, for once, with one voice and say Muslims are Americans, and like all Americans, are not to be held accountable for the sins of anyone practicing their religion. It's a core value of this nation.

@Mark A. Stevens: Nonsense. I wonder if you'd be contorting yourself in the same fashion if I referred to Dr. Laura using a spectacularly vulgar and offensive colloquial term applied to both female genitalia and thoroughly disagreeable persons of either gender. (I'm being coy because I rather doubt the term itself would pass moderation here, despite being used rather freely on cable dramas.)

1. This issue has never been about the Constitutional right to build a mosque at this sight. It has always been about the location and the insensitivity of those wanting to build it to the people affected by and on 9/11.

2. This is not a "right-wing" issue. In fact, over 60% of those in NYC who are "left-wing" oppose the building of this mosque at this site.

Wow. 46 comments already, as I write this, and

not one mentioned Israel or the Mossad.

The whole reason that "Muslim" and "Islam" are divisive, angering words is because of Israel and Israel's Mossad (with traitors here in the USA) performing the terror and falsely blaming Muslims and Islam.

You want a religion of terror? You want a country totally EXclusive, not inclusive? Check out the facts about the Jewish supreme bible, the Talmud. They preach that anybody who is a nonJew is an inferior being. In Israel, basically anybody who is not a Jew cannot be an Israeli citizen.

If any other country did that, they'd be attacked as anti-semitic anti-everybody. They'd probably have their government infiltrated and overthrown. But Israel, owned by the bankster Rothschilds, can do all this and gloat that they control us, as Begin, Sharon, and Netanyahu have done.

The "mosque" issue is just another Divide & Conquer issue. It keeps Americans distracted from what really matters.

What really matters: Who controls the money of the world. Who "owns" both major parties. Who owns the major media, the major movie companies, the major publishers.

Learn that. And then the American Solution is a click away -- on my name above.

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and their ilk are today's versions of Lonesome Rhodes (but much scarier).

I,d like to know , since when has this been a "local issue" when the sentiments of a whole nation are involved?

Re: #3: Giving in to a heckler's veto simply encourages more heckling.

However wise the decision to site it a couple of blocks away might or might not have been, it would now be very foolish to put it anywhere else.

Please let's stop this idiotic comparision between America and Mecca.

Saying that another country is doing something wrong by not allowing for religious freedom does NOT make the oppression of religious freedom and freedom to practice religion in America; whether it's right next to ground zero, or thousands of miles away from it.

To compare the current situation with other countries is like saying "well George W Bush wasn't bad because just look at the dictator in North Korea. The North Koreans have it much worse". Comparing wrong with another wrong does not make the original wrong a right.

Roger, I sincerely disagree that building the mosque at the planned location is a bad idea. I think it should be built there and stand as a testament to America's freedoms; the freedoms that are being challenged by the fear and hate mongers that are driven by hatred and bigotry towards a religion.

The famous quote "Principles only mean something if you stick by them when they're inconvenient" is a quote that everyone should keep in mind.

What is the principle of religious freedom mean when so many people aren't willing to stick by it in this time of inconvenience.

I really believe that the mosque organisers displayed an immense error of judgment, lack of sensitivity, and lack of awareness by choosing this particular site. The alternative is that they knew what they were doing and wanted to stoke up bad feelings, and that is a horrible thing to ponder on.

"By Chad on August 20, 2010 1:32 AM
The Bill of Rights has a parallel with pregnancy. You can't be a little pregnant, and you can't be a little free.
Ok, that's a bit hyperbolic. Of course there are degrees of freedom.
Examples? Physically: Solitary confinement at Ryker's Island vs an Aborigine in the Australian outback. Politically: A US citizen vs one of China"

And you accuse Mr. Ebert of Hyperbole?

The issue of exercising US constitutional freedoms has nothing to do with Australian Aboriginals or Chinese citizens. You do understand that, legally speaking, Chinese citizens are not granted constitutional protections correct?

The issue here is that AMERICAN citizens who are all granted rights endowed by the constitution are being discriminated against. You dont have to like Muslims or Islam. You do have to grant them the same liberties you yourself enjoy. There are no "degrees of freedom" as you say for American citizens. We all enjoy the freedoms and protections of the constitution equally.

Interesting use of the strippers in your opinion piece. Too bad you left out the fact that if those women practiced their craft (heck, who am I kidding? They'd only have to be accused of infidelity) in a nation with Islamic sharia law, they would be dragged out into a field somewhere, buried up to their waists, and have rocks thrown at them until they died. This religion's misogyny should be considered inexcusable in an enlightened age, and it's a wonder to me why people consider the tweets of a rube like Sarah Palin to be more important to discuss than Islam's misogyny.

You raise good points about the whole debate. I was not aware that a shopping mall was being built at Ground Zero...sadly, I doubt there will be any protests over that.

However, the First Amendment guarantees freedoms for the protesters as well as the Muslims. The people in government (including Obama) have come out in support of the proposed building. There has not been any true violation of a first amendment right. A government official would be required to shut down the project for that to happen.

Now, what is slightly more disturbing is the treatment of the protesters themselves. Nancy Pelosi announced she wanted to "investigate" how they were being funded.The protesters are exercising their rights in the same manner that the Muslims are, with the exception of a few bigots who are trying to use the issue to flame anti Muslim rhetoric.

Let me put it this way: does the Muslim's freedom of religion necessarily overpower the right of the people to protest? Even if you disagree with their statements, aren't they still correct in exercising their rights of assembly?

Thank you for this column, Mr. Ebert.

My only real quibble with it is I think you could have helped readers understand that this community center (which will house a mosque) is being organized by Sufi Muslims.

There isn't a monolithic "Islam" any more than there is a monolithic "Christianity." If I say I'm a Christian, do I mean I'm a Baptist, Presbyterian, United Methodist, United Church of Christ, etc.? Is my theology fundamentalist, evangelical, liberal, conservative? Understanding where I'm coming from as a Christian will help to understand the things I do in the name of my religion. Same goes for Islam; when someone says they are a Sufi you should know that this mystical, inclusive form of Islam is about as far as you can get from the jihadist form of Islam.

We can question the imam's reasons for establishing the community center so close to Ground Zero, but knowing that he is a Sufi should be included in how we frame our answers to such questioning.

Yes they have the right to build the mosque there. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I have not heard ANYONE claim otherwise. However, if you believe for ONE second that the people who are trying to get it built don't know EXACTLY what they are doing, then you are flat-out mad. I think it's rather obvious that building a mosque in the shadow of the Trade Center is seen by a "victory" for the Muslims. Do you really believe that it never crossed that Imam's mind that it would be insensitive, and cause an outcry to build it there? No, the choosing of the site is absolutely intentional, and it shows their true character for trying to put it there. If they build it, in a sense, those who seek the destruction of America will have achieved a small symbolic victory. But what do you expect from a religion who's prophet was himself said to have personally beheaded hundreds of people.

Do not build again on this place. No building can stand here. No building, no statue, no column, no arch, no symbol, no name, no date, no statement. Just the comfort of the earth, to remind us that we share it.

Beautiful and honest. Instead we get Baby Gap, Starbucks and Juicy Couture. But these business are OK for "hallowed ground", right? Along with strip clubs. God forbid we build a community center 2 blocks away.

If the USA has one last ounce of hope left in its failing arsenal, it will be because it heeds the warning from the servants of God and starts to OBEY. People keep missing the point about 9/11. GOD HATES THE USA. It was God that sent those planes like fiery darts out of the sky on that terrible day, and it will be God that will send this nation to its final destruction (which is IMMINENT). Those insane, evil Muslims that attacked the WTC were mere instruments of God's wrath, USED to punish EVEN MORE evil people. Islam is a false religious system -- anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that. It's too late to pray for this sinful, filthy nation, and how dare the lukewarm, hypocritical right wing "religious" object to the building of that disgusting Mosque. Only when the USA has a national day of repentance for allowing divorce and remarriage, gay rights, abortion, fornication, adultery, etc., will there be ANY hope for the USA.

First, let's clear some misconceptions. The mosque is not being built "on ground zero". It is a part of a larger complex. Any arguement against it should, for the sake of fairness, at least attack the project as a whole. The mosque is singled out because the marriage of the terms "Muslim" and "Ground Zero" is exploited for an emotive effect. But I wonder if those who are protesting this mosque would also protest a Christian church being built in the vicinity of, say, a bombed abortion clinic. Secondly, regardless of how you judge the "senisitivity" of building a mosque near Ground Zero, the undisputed fact is that the property was up for grabs. Anyone had a right to buy it and use in any legal way they wanted. Period.
Now, to go a little off topic, but touching on another point you made Roger, do you know what white racists hate more than a Black man in office? A white person who takes the side of African-Americans on a specific issue. I found this out the hard way. A few months ago I wrote an entry on my blog commenting on the Bernie Goetz story 25 years later. My stance was that his reaction was far disproportioante and he went way beyond what a reasonable person would call "self-defense" and that he got away with it, in part, because his victims were urban black teens. Wow, did I get attacked for that one in the comments. They went beyond disagreement, I was called names and insulted so much that I had to take the post down. So Sarah Palin should understand that such attacks go both ways.

Hey, your right, all hate is wrong, look at your comments to see that there is no hate there, Mr. Ebert, do you agree with the hate on the comments below?

Sometimes it amazes me, Roger that you simply don't get certain things. You are such a smart guy on other issues. This whole issue is not about rights.. it's about respect for the dead. Would you have been OK with a Shinto shrine being built at Pearl Harbor just after the bombing if a loved one had died there? Of course not.

and what about this "so called" moderate Iman. Why isn't he giving interviews clearing up the misconceptions of his ideology? Why isn't he denying that he thinks the US was complicit in the 9/11 attacks? or that WE created Osama BinLaden? Why isn't he denying that he wants Sharia law here in the US? Why isn't he explaining why he refuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization? Why isn't he clearing up the questions about where funding for the mosque is coming from? His silence speaks volumns. Can anyone explain this to me? Where is he?

If the Koran professes understanding of others feelings and denounces confrontation... why are they purposely disregarding the majority of the US populations feelings by wanting a Mosque built near holy ground when there isn't a single muslim living within a mile of that spot? The Muslim community expects us to be tolerant of their wants and needs but I see no effort for reciprocity.

Can you imagine how much goodwill the Muslim community would receive if a spokeperson (if they have one) came forward and proclaimed to all US citizens that they had decided in hindsight that it would be an insinsitive gesture to build there and enough pain has been caused my radicals in the name of their religion. Somehow I doubt if this will happen.

Robert, with all due respect, you completely miss the point of the vast majority of those who want the mosque relocated. You hit upon it yourself in your 9/12 op-ed.

"Let this field stretch from one end of the destruction to the other. Do not build again upon this place. No building can stand here. No building, no statue, no column, no arch, no symbol, no name, no date, no statement."

A mosque is a building, a symbol, and a statement. One that fair or not, will always be tied to the 9/11 hijackers in the city of New York. Nobody has suggested that Muslims be expelled from New York or prevented from worshiping. They are just requesting the mosque be moved to a less sensitive location...which you would seem to agree with, and which those in charge of building the mosque should be able to acknowledge if they're really interested in building dialog and healing the wounds from 9/11.

Hi Roger,

I am a conservative, and I think you'd surpised at how much we actually agree on many areas.
It is my hope that liberals and conservatives could come to see each other as Americans who love the country. No, I do not believe that liberals are secretly trying to turn this country into communist country. By same token, we as conservatives are not trying destroy the country by taking it back to stone ages.

I knew there was a reason I like Mr. Ebert. Bravo, sir.

There is way too much finger pointing and over-yelling from both sides of the political spectrum these days. Common sense isn't very common anymore. People have cause to be offended by the presence of this mosque/Muslim Y/whatever it may be, being so close to the WTC site. However, blaming all Muslims for the actions of the 9/11 hijackers is akin to blaming all Christians for the actions of Eric Rudolph. Likewise, Abdul Rauf has the right to build this facility wherever he wishes, but the wisdom of choosing this provocative location escapes me. The name "Cordoba House" evokes the Muslim conquest of Cordoba, Spain, and adds to the provocativeness.

Roger Ebert, you are a brilliant man. Had I a hat to tip, it would be in your direction, sir. I am far more offended about the 55,000 sq. foot retail mall (as if NY even needs another!) being erected on Ground Zero than any sort of religious site anywhere near it. It proves to profit from tragedy and is no better than the street peddlers who frequent the site selling photos and cheap 9/11 "memorabilia" to unwitting tourists.

The visionary approach in "A Green Field" penned on September 12, 2001 is more in step with my own ideas. Many Americans right now should be entirely ashamed of themselves and the ideas they're propagating. Kudos to you for responsible journalism--so very rare in these modern times.

There is a simple lesson that would do everyone well who chooses to learn it--tolerance is not an option! "Tolerance" means that we should secretly despise the actions of those around us and merely "put up with them" as we support our own motives. An attitude of this nature is inherently flawed. Instead, we should adopt acceptance. This is not so difficult as it may appear. All of the energy we would otherwise spend on furtive hate could be directed toward positive goals as we work with those around us, instead of only pretending to do so.

I cannot, for the life of me, even imagine why this mosque is even an issue. The state of affairs for more pressing matters in this nation should be making headlines. Perhaps if our education system (as a whole) was up to snuff, most Americans could have properly-researched opinions. I suppose I am asking for too much, because we are collectively lazy. We would much rather regurgitate others' banal drivel without ever questioning whether or not there is any truth to it. For this reason, I am often embarrassed to be an American (but I defend the offending parties' rights to be as they are).

The Muslims had a golden opportunity for some positive PR for their Mosque and cultural center, if they had proactively chosen to move the center to a different location. It would have shown compassion and sensitivity.
Instead, while they have every right to their religious freedom, their attempt to construct the Mosque and community center near Ground Zero is insensitive, inflammatory and foolish.

This is what I wrote on my facebook page:

Look, there are mosques all over the city. There are a bunch already within a five block radius of ground zero. Why? Because there are alot of Muslims who live in New York. Black American, arabic, indonesian muslims. A whole bunch of 'em. and 99.9% of them, I guarantee, were horrified by what happened on September 11th. And a few died in the attack. Not just in the towers themselves but on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

To insinuate that it's disrespectful to victims of that attack to open a community center (it's not a mosque, never was) near ground zero implies that Muslims deserve less respect because of what a very few of them are doing in the world. And even though the US is the big, grand target, far, far more Muslims have died at the hands of these cretins than any God fearing American Christians have.

Seriously, let's consider this. If critics are saying that Muslims shouldn't be allowed build a mosque near ground zero because the people taking down the towers were Muslim, then there should not be a single church down South. Not a single, solitary one. Because the people responsible for lynching African Americans for a hundred years or more, were all church going Christians. And the attitude that that was ok was far more prevalant than the idea that what Al Qaida is doing is ok. Particularly among American Muslims....who are the ones who plan to build this community center in the first place.

Look, one of the reasons I love New York is it's diversity. The fact that so many cultures exist side by side in somewhat relative harmony and respect. I get irked when people who don't live here start talking about what America means and adopt New York like we're their kid sister and we need to be protected from bullies. Because,to me, America is about being free to be who you are and being allowed to express that without reservation. And telling people who are members of the one of the largest religions in the world, "you can't build that here" goes against everything that makes America great as far as I'm concerned.

And this doesn't mean, because some may think so, that I'm not all for going after the bad guys with everything we've got. Because Lord knows, I damn well do. I just don't think in doing so, we should stigmatize people who have nothing to do with the issue because it's easier and more comforting to do so.

I think something very important is being lost in the Dr. Laura situation. She can say the N word if she chooses, the gov't won't throw her in jail for it. That's what the 1st amendment is about, the ability to speak your mind without threat of reprisal from the gov't. You can't have your 1st amendment both ways. If the American people don't like what you're saying, we have every right to tell you all about it. Dr. Laura, and the right, miss this every time. Dr. Laura can say whatever she wants, but she doesn't get to hide behind the 1st amendment when she doesn't like what people are saying back.

I agree with your post, except for the part about moving the 'mosque'.

As Captain America once said:

"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.

"This nation was founded upon one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences.

"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth , and tell the whole world--

"--'no, you move.'"

The American Constitution has served for 250 years by not changing due to the political winds of the day
I see no reason to change it now &
I see no reason not to stand behind it's principles

Roger, Let's look at it this way, would a japanese shrine at Pearl Harbor in 1950 be offensive, Yes. Are all Japanese bad, No. Did we intern good and bad Japanese, Yes. Is this a war against Bad Muslims, Yes. I suggest Good Muslims step out of the way, because we intend to destroy all bad Muslims because they started a war with U.S.

Hi Roger. Thank you for writing this well-argued post. We needed a thread on this topic, and you have started it off exquistitely.

I disagree with all 10 of your points, as it happens, and can't wait to jump in and address them. Tonight...

A big picture thought first. 70% of New Yorkers, and 70% of Americans generally, disagree with you on this topic. (As 70% disagreed with you on AZ law, etc.) You have two choices her. Either:

- 70% of Americans are stupid, haters, racist, and/or bigots who completely and utterly fail to understand the Constitution of the United States - as it is consistently portrayed in left media, blogs, and Twitter.

or

- Your fellow citizens have valid concerns and points that you are failing to recognize or acknowledge. And, in the spirit of the Coffee Party bridge to civility that you promote, you should acknowledge their (our) valid concerns.

Me, I see valid points on both sides of this debate and have yet to totally sort out my thoughts. I acknowledge, for example, that Imam Rauf has a reputation as a moderate and likely has good intentions for the center. I also recognize that the center has potential to be seen as a Monument to Victory by many in the world, and that is troublesome. You have a right to build a mosque, but not a monument to victory, etc. Working it out...

Two more thoughts:

1. I notice that the Left media has now substituted "Park 51" for the original name "Cordoba House" or "Cordoba Initiative". That is a deft political trick to avoid the discussion about what the association with Cordoba implies about the intent of the center. (Monument to Victory) Clever, but it won't deflect the discussion.

2. I think, in point 10, that we are interchanging the terms "Ground Zero" and "World Trade Center".

To me, WTC is the specific footprint of the specific buildings that were hit by the planes and is the pit enclosed by the fence.

But "Ground Zero" could be a broader term that extends out beyond the fence. Everywhere that the debris field & ash cloud touched could be "Ground Zero". In that context, the Park Place site fits that description. By now you've read that the landing gear of one of the planes went through the roof of this building. That makes it Ground Zero to me.

This is going to be a good an vital thread!

Oh, Hi to Indian Idiot (since you referenced me.) Hope you are well.

Ebert: Assuming your figures, which seem oddly identical and must come from a special source, are correct, do they mean that I'm wrong if I'm with the 30%? You might be able to provide counsel on how that feels.

By yousef on August 19, 2010 11:11 PM
i'm surprised you suggested it be wise to relocate the mosque. i can hear the same words being echoed in that very moment Rosa parks decided she had a right to choose where she wanted to sit.

I agree. What's so bad about the back of the bus? Why upset folks by sitting somewhere else. Why should women 90 years ago yesterday get the right to vote? Just upsets folks to clamor for suffrage.

Peaceful civil rights marchers please refudiate.

Nice post as usual, Roger--the strippers in the WSJ are a great touch, one that reminds us this should be a local issue, not a national tempest.

I wanted to offer a different interpretation of Palin's tweet about "shackles." I think the echo of slavery is there, but more importantly the line is about Dr. Laura (like Palin) being freed from the "shackles" of her day job. It goes back to Palin telling us how she could do more good by quitting her governor gig. "Watch out" now that they're both unemployed! How "powerful & effective" they'll be!

Right on!

It seems that a vocal minority of Americans is trying to bull the rest of the nation. Business as usual in America.

I'm not a religious person, however it seems that the only sane way of mediating differences of opinion when it comes to religion is to have total religious freedom and a strong separation of church and state. Otherwise, we're setting the stage for intractable sectarian bloodshed as has been the norm in other parts of the world for many, many years.

I sometimes wonder if America is not heading towards a kind of homegrown radical Christian insurgency. If the economy were to collpase for good, and there were enough fanatical, armed cadres of Teabaggers and militant Christians, along with Neo-Nazis and militias, parts of the nation could be subject to a kind of "Christian Taliban." Maybe this is far-fetched, but already there have been instances of Mormon cultists taking over whole communities.

On the other hand, America is a vast piece of real estate. Although the insane rhetoric is there, the actual practicalities of organizing such insurgencies would be difficult in the extreme. It would take dire economic straits and a total loss of national identity. Too many Americans, for good and for ill, are largely indifferent to forming communities and doing any kind of hard work to organize themselves. I get the sense that many in the Teabagger contingent like to put on a show, but there are too few of them really committed to extremist goals beyond making barroom rants and the like.

Of course, it would only take the election of a few Teabagger candidates to a few offices to have strong impacts in smaller communities. It might not impact the nation as a whole, but it could make certain corners of America more intolerant, more closed-off, and, ultimately, in tune with crackpot economic theories, more impoverished.

Interesting times . . .

Politics puts people in contradictory positions. For instance, many GOP and so called conservatives decry "politically correct" thought and speech. But this mosque thing is agreed to be legal, but some people think it hurts feelings, offends sensibilities, just doesn't send the right message, doesn't look right.

I strongly disagree with Pres Obama calling the site of the world trade center towers "hallowed ground." It's not. It's a crime scene and nothing else. It is vacant like a house where a murder took place that nobody wants to live in now. Is John Wayne Gacy's home hallowed ground? Sites of American Indian slaughters? Japanese American internment camps? The jails at Gitmo?

What's wrong with two blocks? Is twenty blocks or two hundred blocks OK? If these people were planning the overthrow of our country, (I don't believe that, but just for sake of argument), then two hundred blocks or in Canada wouldn't make any difference.

Mr. Ebert, Palin and her handlers are good at memes, because prejudice, hatred and evil are insidious. It is very hard to come up with witty thought pictures to influence people to do good, or otherwise act against their nature.

There are mosques all over this country (25 states and DC have at least one mosque), why is it only no, within the last couple of months, the building of a new mosque/community center is akin to an attempt by Muslims to take over the United States?

I am from Marion, IA, which is a suburb of Cedar Rapids, home of the oldest purpose built mosque in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Mosque_of_America). This mosque has been in our community since 1934 and I would be hard pressed to say that they've done much to further world domination. They haven't bribed city officials or forced their way onto the city council.

In fact, I would guess that most people from Cedar Rapids, don't even know it's there, or that it's the oldest mosque in the United States. This is bigotry and religious jingoism at it's worst and I would hope that there are enough Americans that tune out the demagogues like Beck, Gingrich and Palin.

I couldn't agree more with your op-ed, but it's hard for me to imagine any businessman turning down the opportunity to create the 9/11 Memorial Shopping Center, in that commerce is the only true national religion of the United States.

I know I'm repeating myself but I always tend to go back to phrase a Rudy Guliani uttered in an interview of one of the DVDs I bought about 9/11: "They attacked us because they hate our freedom". Well, whatever the outcome of this situation, I don't think Rudy has much worrying to do in the future.
Why should the imam's judgement be considered flawed Roger? From what I understand there are stripping clubs nearby and nobody seems to mind that. If the 9/11 terrorist had been jewish or christian, would anybody have minded the construction of a synagogue or any sort of christian temple there? Would rabbis or priests/ministers have given a second thought about building there?
What I find tragic here is the ignorance displayed by sthe masses and the tendency by many to make other people's judgement their own, (never mind their poor selection of influences) If history has taught us anything is that there will always be those who will loudly proclaim words of hate so our only hope is that the masses eventually wise-up which just doesn't seem to be the case here.

Until humans can get to the point where we all can admit that all religions are made-up, fabricated wishful thinking we will continue to have these kinds of disputes.

I’m interested in the geographical nature of this insensitivity. Two blocks is insensitive, we’ve established that. At what point is it then sensitive? Is there a cut-off? Is it insensitive at four blocks but not at five?

Is it a line of sight issue? In that case, are you looking at the mosque from ground level or the top floor? Does the person looking have 20/20 vision? Or perhaps binoculars?

Does the mosque radiate insensitivity? In that case we could use the inverse square law here. If two blocks away is 1000 lumens of insensitivity, then four blocks would only be 250 lumens. Or is it a linear relationship, so at four blocks we’re only down to 500 lumens. What is the acceptable Geiger count for units of insensitivity?

You see, it’s important that someone iron out these details, otherwise we’re never going to keep everyone from being offended.

Oh no, am I being insensitive? If so, should I move to San Diego to soften the blow, or is Denver far enough?

One last comment for now.

You mention the quotes from two strippers, the assumption is this demonstrates irony that they have better sense than so called thought leaders. But I'll take any adult entertainment industry person over Newt Gingrich for morality, hands down and sight unseen. I don't think Palin is immoral, just kind of common (in the below average sense).

Excellent piece, Roger.

I only have one question. It's not directed at anything in your writing in particular, it's just a curiosity I have. If, for example, Imam Rauf decided not to put the prayer rooms in the Park51 building at all, to just leave it as a Community Center, would all the objection to it's being built, go away? I wonder.

All the flak and chafe seems to be directed at having a place of worship built on "hallowed ground", you know, like crosses and the star of David and other religious symbols that adorn tombstones in Mrs. Lee's rose garden at Arlington, another one of our nation's "Hallowed Ground" sites. Thanks again for a great, thoughtful piece of writing.

Honestly, I have seen no one argue that there is not a "right" to build the mosque. That being said, those that criticize the building of the mosque are also exercising their "right" to freely voice opinion. While I do support the right to build the mosque, I admit that I see the effort as a bit confrontational . If there was a real intent to build bridges, I would think the mosque builders would see the opportunity to acquiesce to the American majority. While we all must support the consitutional rights of all, we must also be cognizant of the will of the majority. We are a nation built on compromise. Our entire system is built upon that idea. People of good will should find a way to resolve this and resolve it now.

When did Americans become so weak? When did Americans become so easily offended? I thought that we were the toughest, free-est nation on Earth? It seems that we are a nation of wallflowers now, of spoiled children, if we are so offended by a building and afraid of a religion. And I am just wondering...do Christians think that their religion is so weak, that its message is so lame, that it will be overpowered by a few more mosques being built in the U.S? Geez.

Lets see:

Obama doesn't participate in public on National Day of Prayer.

Obama doesn't attend church.

Obama does host a Ramadan festivity.

Yeah, wonder where people get the idea he's a muslim. Since you are so sensitive to the Sharia-loving mosque builder, why don't you investigate his funding sources. Or maybe you are with Pelosi that we should investigate Americans for daring to question their motivation.

Stick to the movies.

Ebert: Obama proclaimed a National Day of Prayer again this year despite a court ruling that it is unconstitutional.

Obama attends church a little more than Bush did. Reagan did not attend at all.

Why all the outrage over this "mosque" being built near Ground Zero, yet no outrage over NOTHING being built ON Ground Zero?

Dr. Laura wasn't trying to be racist, however, when it comes to the "N-word," some people are just going to have to understand that there's a double-standard in this country when it comes to things like that and, considering this country's history, maybe that's the way it should be.

Consider this: Have you ever heard a conservative or right-winger admit that he or she is ever wrong? About anything? Even when the facts clearly suggest they are?

So, there are plans to build a shopping mall on Ground Zero. A shopping mall.

While the Far Right screams itself hoarse about the inappropriateness of a Muslim Prayer Center (It's not a Mosque any more than a Chapel in a YMCA is a Church.) several blocks away from the former site of the World Trade Center Towers, I have to find out from a film critic's blog about plans to build a @#*$ing shopping mall not just on but penetrating down into Ground Zero, where the remains of many of those killed on that day still lie.

As sad and frustrated and furious as that makes me, I have to admit that symbolically, nothing could be more appropriate for what has become America's most sacred and holiest site than a church dedicated to our One True Religion.

"Just the comfort of the earth, to remind us that we share it."

Good grief, the most fatuous of kumbaya liberal fell-good, meaningless claptrap!

We share the earth? Glad you think so, Rog. I'm visiting Chicago next month. Please make up your guest bedroom for me and the missus. By the way, we sleep late and like our bacon crisp and English muffins with our eggs.

Thanks in advance for sharing your earth! See you soon!

The best Gound Zero memorial would have been to just leave a section of the fire-blackened and broken towers untouched, perhaps a few outlines of the shattered bodies of Americans who chose to fall hundreds of feet to concrete rather than being burned alive, to forever remind Americans of what happened. And by whom.

But why face reality when you can sleep the untroubled sleep of a witless child, eh?

@Jerry Ryan on August 20, 2010 12:04 AM

2. To say the First Amendment comes down to this: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death our right to say it", is a platitude that comes from Voltaire, a frenchman whose been dead for over 200 years. Most frenchmen today would simply say "I surrender".

What, exactly, has this to do with the topic under discussion? Who cares if it was a French man who first articulated this principle?

4. Perhaps anger against building a mosque near Ground Zero is because were it not for 19 Muslims who murdered in the name of Allah on September 11th, there would be no Ground Zero, no deaths of 3,000 New Yorkers, no NYPD and NYFD with glass in their lungs, etc.

Right, so now all Muslims must be restricted in their right to buy land and build on it as they choose while still conforming to local and state law.

6. Perhaps Sarah Palin and her meme machine float terms like: Death Panels, Ground Zero Mosque, 9/11 Mosque, because they are perfectly clear.

They're perfectly clear because they're simple, black and white statements not related to reality. And it's perfectly clear that they are divisive and partisan, putting the welfare of the GOP ahead of the welfare of the entire country.

Instead, Prince Charles is saying good things about Sharia.

And what has that got to do with this discussion? For the record: I am against Sharia Law.

10. In the ten years since 9/11, we have a President named Barack Hussein Obama (who is not a Muslim, didn't serve in Vietname like John Kerry, and is a Christian who spent 20 year in Jeremiah Wrights church but never heard him say anything anti-American in all those 20 years), a mosque going up in a building that was damaged by the landing gear of one of the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center, and a hole remains at Ground Zero. . . if I were a radical Islamist, how well would I think 9/11 worked?

Those are irrelevant to whether 9/11 "worked" or not. Relevant to that question is the presence of US troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every time these troops do something that makes life miserable for someone, or even if they fail to make life better for someone in, there's a chance that some young idiot will become radicalized. In fact, just the presence of US troops on Middle East soil will be sufficient to increase the radicalisation of some Muslim young men (think how your ancestors felt when British troops were occupying your land in 1812-1814). 9/11 worked because Al Qaeda managed to turn the US into a useful idiot, promoting greatly increased participation in islamic fundamentalist groups.

They don't CARE about whether the US president's middle name is Hussein, they don't CARE whether there's a mosque or civic centre that will be used as a mosque going up near ground zero, they don't CARE whether there's still a hole in the ground there or not.

Focus!

Roger, as a lifelong fan, as well as a patriotic conservative, I have to confess, I agree with pretty much everything you said on these issues. I'll only note that most people polled who disagree with the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" don't object to the mosque being built, or Muslims being able to practice their religion, they are merely uncomfortable with it being so close to the site of 9-11.

And while I'll concede the belief that Obama is some kind of secret Muslim is pretty insane, don't forget the insane rumor-mongering that the left has been wading in for the past decade, including accusations that Bush somehow stole the 2000 election (and without getting caught, no less!), that he was somehow in on the 9-11 attacks, and that he was manipulating the price of gas throughout his term. Insanity knows no political party.

Harrison Bergeron
thisblogisracist.blogspot

It disturbs and distresses me that Sarah Palin continues to have a voice that is taken seriously by anyone in this country. Roger, you've identified her verbal ploys perfectly. When she says "Americans," she means white, conservative Christian right-wingers. When conservatives rally to "Take Back Our Country!" they mean to take it back from the black president and "give it back" to other white conservative Christians. White conservative Christians, of course, deny this, but that doesn't make it any less true. Where was this movement to "take back the country" during eight years of Bush? Or eight years of Clinton, for that matter? The TEA Party, to the best of my recollection, started calling for Obama's head just a few weeks after his election. They claimed they were taxed enough, already. This was because everyone's taxes went up automatically on the day Obama was inaugurated, right? Funny, not a few weeks after he was sworn in, I looked at my paycheck and saw extra money in it. Somehow, from somebody, I got a tax break. That extra money is still in there. My taxes have not gone up.

It saddens me that a person who cannot construct a logical, cohesive sentence, who is more comfortable "typing" a Tweet that makes about as much sense as her speech, still has the power to influence the discussion in this country on a topic of substance. The media is not in love with Barack Obama. The media and every talking head in the land, right and left, is in love with Sarah Palin. And that's just the way she wants it.

Roger,

I have been noticing a disturbing trend with you. It's much more obvious on your Twitter feed than here in your articles, but it's disappointing anyway.

It seems that in your crusade to discredit the right wingers that you are in danger of becoming caught up in seductive satisfaction of attacks and clever zings as they are. Extremism is a bad thing, regardless of wither it's on the left or the right.

Case in point: "...of the insane belief of 20% of Americans that President Obama is a Muslim."

"Insane." Really? Was that necessary? How about "misconstrued?" After all, Obama himself did have an on-air gaffe where his own words implied a Muslim belief, after which he promptly corrected himself.

Now, I'm not going to get into conspiracies, or try to claim that Obama's foible was some "ah ha!" moment of revelation. It could have been an honest slip up and unfortunate case of fumbling the words in attempting to discredit the claims about his faith.

I don't know.

But what I do know is that he made an on-air blunder that millions of people watched and heard. He made a blunder that might very well confuse people about his actual beliefs. He made a blunder that unfortunately offers his opponents a fantastic weapon for exploitation to create more confusion.

I hardly call confusion stemming from that "insane."

I have long considered you to be an intelligent man and I have admired your wit in your reviews. It's a shame that when it comes to your new-found political voice that you fall back on the exact same witless tactics as those you oppose.

Ebert: I am one of the millions that did not hear about this blunder. What did it prove for you? That he is a Muslim? Why do you even go to the trouble of citing it?
Obama is not the first President to misspeak. Why, in fact... oh, never mind.

Roger, thank you for articulating the conservative opinion: that the Constitution still holds, even when radicals would seek to twist and undermine it. Rights of property and religious freedoms aren't conveniences to be put up for popular vote on a case-by-case basis.

There are certainly people in this country that would like to distort it into Palin's funhouse-mirror version. What's terrifying is that they believe that the letters and history of America support their view. The Big Lie indeed. I'm reminded of the Onion story: "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be"

You're a PUTZ! Keep fanning that partisan hatred.

When I first heard about the mosque at ground zero, I started laughing. As a longtime reader of Mad and The Onion, I really couldn't think of a better response. Of course, the humor in this was difficult to explain to my girlfriend, so I don't think I'll try it here; but know this: if BP ever decides to relocate its headquarters to Gulf Shores, my head might explode.

In the same district as the mosque, a Greek Orthodox Church applied for establishment and it was flat-out denied. Tell me, if this really is about freedom of religion, then why did the NYC mayor fight so hard for the mosque to be built and deny the Greek Orthodox Church without a second thought? Tell me, Roger - are Muslims entitled to more freedom than Greek Orthodox Christians?

I strongly disagree with Roger on point #3. The New York Muslims not only have  a right to build there, it is  right for them to build there.

Americans, and many others around the world, have spent a lot of the past nine years since 9/11 encouraging moderate Muslims to take a stand against the extremists in their midst. Now along comes a group of moderate Muslims doing exactly what we said we wanted, and all of a sudden they're out of line? No, they just happened to be doing this at a time when the wretched religious right can use this as a political football.

For that matter, how radical is it to believe that, even if those New York Muslims were actively desiring the destruction of America,  (which, from all available appearances, they most definitely are not,) no possible good can come from continuing to make a media spectacle of the issue, with about a third of the nation of Pakistan underwater right now, and so many innocent Muslims in grave danger of losing their hopes, their sustenance, their very lives? This is a perfect opportunity for the American government, and individual Americans, and American churches, synagogues, etc., to show the world that we really do care, that we are not fighting some sort of Christian jihad against the Muslim world. Instead, we're quibbling like a bunch of quarrelsome middle school students about whether or not one building is ever going to be built in New York City, of all places, one of the most ethnically and spiritually diverse, and traditionally tolerant, cities that the world has ever seen?

As for the infamous Dr. Laura... Technically, she had a First Amendment right to say the cruel things she said. Her sponsors had a First Amendment right to stop paying her to do so. I respect their rights every bit as much as I respect hers. And a lot more than I respect her. She's an intellectual featherweight whose fifteen minutes of fame went into overtime long ago.

Muslims are bad. Christians are good. Let the Crusades begin.

"Roger, great writing, nice piece....BUT...from my cave in Taiwan i see a Trojan Horse, the so-called community center is nothing more nor less than a modern Trojan Horse for global jihadist PR....just PR.....when will America wake up to the enemy at the door? You want another 911? It's coming, my friends, it's coming." Daniel Halevi Levi.

First of all, congrats on having one of the coolest names ever.

Second, I understand your concern. You may be right, as paranoid as it sounds, but the mosque issue, like the memorial itself, is not about terrorism. It's about constitutional freedom, about the basic protection of human rights and about sending "the enemy" and the world in general a message. Nations must be vigilant, yes, but they cannot live in hatred and fear. Not just the North Americans, but Iraquies, Iranians, Afghans, Canadians, Australians, French, Taiwanese (you), Haitians, Venezuelans, Spaniards, New Zealanders, Dominicans (me), Belgians, Jamaicans, Russians, Argentinians, and all others I haven't mentioned.

We can forgive, we can move on, we can make the world better, together.

Freedom of speech includes the right to protest things that one finds offensive. This means that Muslims have the right to protest cartoons of Mohammed, people in Florida have the right to burn the Koran, and yes, everyone has the right to protest a mosque being built in lower Manhattan.

The only way these kinds of protests conflict with the first amendment is if they lead to legal action barring the construction of the mosque -- and nobody has proposed anything of the kind. Fundamentally you're just telling people to shut up because you disagree with their views, and in that sense you are no better than the people you are railing against.

Commenters here (and a lot of people who oppose the building) keep talking about "Americans" and "Muslims" as if these are two distinct groups. There are many American Muslims. Some of them lost their lives in the World Trade Centre. Let's ask their families if they are more offended by the prospect of a community centre being built, or by the vocal and hateful opposition to it.

If this were not an election year, particularly one in which both parties are up the creek without a paddle, would we have even heard about this at all?

A good argument can be made that the Bill of Rights was never intended as an "eternal document" applicable to all times and places. I example:

Freedom of Speech: Did the Founders ever anticipate the development of visual pornography? Is that really what they intended, porn from sea to shining sea? Free speech referred to text and spoken words, not images.

Freedom of Religion: Did the Founders intend to protect witchcraft, or Satanism? Much less what they would have termed Muhammedanism? Free religion referred to Christianity alone.

Freedom of Armaments: Did the Founders guess that one day the arsenal would include Big Bertha, anthrax, and ICBMs? The Right to Bear Arms referred to muskets, not machineguns and flamethrowers.

In order to resolve these issues, something deeper than the Bill of Rights needs to be addressed. "Freedom" doesn't mean a whole lot if it leads to your country being submerged in antagonistic bizarrenesses its founders hardly intended to accommodate.

I love this post, Roger Ebert. I am a New Yorker who lives eight blocks from the site of the mosque and it has been used as a mosque already for several years without too much beefing. It was only when the congregation wanted to do the actual conversion from its commercial use to a religious one that the big stink ensued. I welcome this congregation into my neighborhood. And it is not on the site of the WTC. It is several blocks away. God bless the strippers of the Pussycat and Baby Doll lounges.

But I also agree with the post that says this issue is being given too much play in order to distract us from the wars.

How many of the people who say this building is "close to Ground Zero" have ever taken a stroll through downtown Manhattan?

Two city blocks in that part of town is actually quite a bit of separation. You can fit all of Chinatown into that distance.

So, for the people who claim that it's somehow "insensitive" to build it that close, I have to ask: just how much distance is required? Is there a mathematical formula, relating distance to sensitivity?

Of course, this query leaves aside the more obvious question of why we should continue portraying our conflict with Al-Qaeda as a war against all of Islam: a foolish escalation of rhetoric which abruptly casts more than a billion people around the world as The Enemy.

This stuff with the mosque is politics at it's worst. It's pretty obvious that someone at the Repub Party Headquarters found something that would appeal to the dumbasses who think Obama is a Muslim. I think what most people don't get about people who believe Obama is Muslim is that it doesn't matter if he goes to church or says he isn't a Muslim. It is something they *want* to believe, therefore they will believe it no matter what. Something that bothers me about Dr. Laura is her exit from her radio show. She was all tears and sorry as she was leaving but soon turned around and was claiming she wanted to move on to something she could use her "free speech" for? Okay, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it's just odd. It's like she wanted to leave her show and go out making some point. And then Sarah Palin quickly comes out to defend her and it's a racially charged comment? Please, do not be surprised if Dr. Laura decides to take a politically oriented job! I get the feeling all of this was planned behind the scenes to take the election from Obama.

By implying Dr. Laura was silenced by "Constitutional obstructionists," she employs the methodology of the Big Lie, defined in Mein Kampf as an untruth so colossal that "no one would believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

Comparing Sarah Palin to Hitler? Roger, do you remember writing an article on the "reckless rhetoric" of the "festering fringe?" And don't claim you were only comparing their methodologies. That's a pathetic dodge.

Roger:

You've countered a point people are so likely to forget when automatically dismissing the Mosque. They are liquor shops and adult stores closer to Ground Zero than this building will be. Why isn't anyone agitated about the mosque in the Pentagon?

Regarding Dr. Laura: I think a lot of people have gotten a rather distorted version of Freedom of Speech over the years. Freedom of Speech means that you cannot be prosecuted by the government for the things you say. I'm tired of people thinking it means you cannot be harshly criticized for the things you say, or that you cannot be fired, or lose sponsors, or lose ratings, or be boycotted.

If I work at a Burger King and I anger black customers by calling them n*****s, I'll lose my job. Freedom of Speech does not protect my job in that case, nor should it protect Dr. Laura. It only keeps me out of jail; nothing more.

Conservatives seem to have rather short memories. Their zeal to defend the exaggerated "first amendment" rights of Dr. Laura contrasts rather sharply with their condemnation of the Dixie Chicks' exercise of free speech during George W. Bush's first term, or their silence when Bill Maher lost his job for saying that it's at least as cowardly to blow people up with cruise missiles as it is to strap a bomb onto yourself.

If the Pataki administration wasn't so messed up, and NY State government weren't so dysfunctional overall, the whole site would have been developed years ago and this wouldn't even be an issue today, the land wouldn't be available any longer.

I don't have a problem with the mosque per se, however, if the Saudis (or Iranians) are going to fund a mosque to preach Wahhabi Islam and advocate the violent overthrow of the US government, then that would violate our laws about sedition and treason.

A nuance overlooked by many is not the fact of the mosque per se but who is funding and supporting it and what are they planning to do with it?

Sure "freedom of religion" and "peaceful Islam" sound nice, is this what we are getting?

If we had more confidence that those answers were indeed yes, then people would be a lot less upset. As it is, the imam says one thing to the US press and a totally different thing to the press in London.

I feel like I've gone sane in a crazy world. This blog entry -- along with Jon Stewart's nightly eloquence on this subject -- demonstrate that I'm not alone.

That people have strong negative opinions about the Mosque is their right. It's their First Amendment right to express it, however much it is at odds with the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. What shocks the conscience is how it has become a political football. The separation of church and state means, self-evidently, that it's not the government's business to dictate the practice of religious worship and that includes where a mosque should be built. They should not apply pressure one way or another. They should remain silent on the issue. Barack Obama's first statement on the subject was just right: they have a right to build there -- simple and to the point, without advocating Islam or denigrating it. He later walked back that statement, as has been typical of his administration when the FOX News-mobilized right doesn't like something he says or does. They even fired Shirley Sherrod because they told them to, and it was the Democrats who looked stupid; a scorpion will always be a scorpion, but the administration chose to carry it across the river.

How dare they even gently suggest, "Hey, why don't we move this thing somewhere less ... there?" Even Democrats! Even our New York democratic governor David Paterson, who had no cause to get involved. To build a mosque near Ground Zero would have been such a beautiful symbol of our American dream: that we will not let hatred, paranoia, and fear stop us from living by our values. Next door to the mosque they should build a church, a synagogue, and even a center for non-believers. Then a priest, a rabbi, and an imam could walk into a bar and discuss what an amazing country we live in. That would have been a hell of an image to send out to the rest of the world, including the rest of the Muslim world. It would be a great repudiation of terror. You can't scare us, and we know you murdering sociopaths don't represent true Islam.

The casual racism is shocking. The unspoken implication -- sometimes spoken quite loudly among the more brazen -- is that Islam equals terrorism, and that to build a mosque near Ground Zero is to give al-Qaeda a headquarters on our home turf. No one seems embarrassed or ashamed to believe this. The election of Barack Obama was supposed to indicate a post-racial America, but it really exposed what was lying underneath, because between suspicion of Muslim terrorists and Mexican immigrants -- terror babies! anchor babies! -- racism seems to have been re-popularized and re-legitimized by those on the far right. When Dr. Laura uses the N-word with impunity, Sarah Palin actually stands up for her! Wouldn't you want to distance yourself from such an incident? No, because the far right wants to whip this country into a racial fervor, exploit the divisions that already exist, and hopefully get that Kenyan Muslim and all his un-American, socialist, tyrannical, baby-eating Democratic cronies out of office. "The only thing you have to fear is what we tell you to be afraid of. Vote for me!"

I hate it when politicians and pundits use history as a bludgeon -- "You're a Nazi!" "I'm suffering like the slaves!" -- but when I hear suggestions to move the mosque somewhere else, it makes me think of Rosa Parks. She could have moved to the back of the bus, couldn't she? She'd get where she's going just as fast and wouldn't have caused all that fuss. Isn't that what's best for everyone? And wouldn't it have made us feel less uncomfortable? It is very true that the mosque could easily be built somewhere else. But at this point it's not about getting where you're going. Rosa Parks would have gotten there just as fast at the back of the bus. The point was, in a free country, no one has a right to make her sit there.

Those opposing the mosque might counter, but Rosa Parks didn't kill 3,000 people on 9/11! No she didn't. And neither did the Muslims who want to worship near Ground Zero.

It's sort of funny, and nobody has seemed to address it, that two of the most outspoken supporters of this so-called Ground Zero mosque are Mayor Michael Bloomberg and "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart. A pair of New York City Jews are vocally in favor of building a mosque for Muslims near Ground Zero. Now that's America.

@ By Damian Sarcuni on August 19, 2010 11:42 PM
"and lastly, point 4: please for the love of everything dear, Roger and all those who studied English in college back me up on this: Americans are under the mistaken impression that Barack Obama is Muslim because HIS NAME IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. It is a simple mental association with 2 Muslims that you might have heard about on the nightly news at some point in the past 10 years. Its not racist, its not stupid. Its called being human"

Interesting point, it would telling to see how many percent of people think (R) Governor Bobby Jindal is Hindu ??? That might validate your point, but going by the general perception I doubt that is the case, since its well known in media that he is a converted Christian, just like how well known it is that Obama is Christian.

Now would be a good time to see how many churches we've built in iraq and afghanistan, ya know, the countries we're still currently occupying.

1. I have yet to hear any “right-winger” on television or radio make the argument that a mosque/community center can’t be built; the argument is and always has been whether it should be built. (Which is also, sort of, what Obama said when he backtracked from his initial statement.) While I’m sure there are some people on the right who do want to deny this right, there are also some people on the left who believe that George W. Bush planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. You conveniently avoid the abundance of reasoned arguments against this issue, painting the entire opposition as extremist.
2. Here we go: Let’s make this a racial issue. This seems to be brought in by the left whenever and wherever there is opposition. Dr. Laura—and race—have nothing to do with this issue.
3. He undoubtedly knows that now? Are you kidding? The left apparently wants to paint this man as an angel, pure and innocent, with no room for questions or facts to the contrary. At the very least, his well-documented response to 9/11, that America is an accessory to the crime, and refusal to say whether he will accept international funding from terrorist governments like Iran merit questioning of this man’s motives.
“Fanning hatred against Muslims”? Where is it being said anywhere, be it the evil Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc., that Muslims are to be hated? It seems, from your point of view (and that of the left), that opposition is akin to hatred.
4. Funny how that poll just appeared. You and others on the left seem to use this poll to undermine the opposition to this issue. But just because 20% of Americans suspect Obama of being a Muslim doesn’t mean that some of the arguments that have been made against this issue are automatically invalid.
5. Well, again, you and the left are completely distorting the argument for your own purposes.
6. Ah, yes: the evil right-wing conspiracy. Led now by the Great Satan herself, Sarah Palin. (With Voldemort and Bush’s Brain at her side, surely.)
You assert that Palin is contradicting herself; but what about you? You argue for Constitutional freedom but, at the same time, attack those who are exercising that freedom to oppose this issue.
7. Again, your viewpoint and that of the left seems to be: opposition (specifically, an opposition that has nothing to do with the right to build) = distortion, extremism, hatred, etc.
8. In Iran and many other Muslim countries, there were also raucous celebrations. It’s funny how even supposedly mainstream Muslim organizations, like CAIR, and supposedly close allies, like Saudi Arabia, won’t take active and vocal stands against terrorism, terrorist-supporting governments (e.g., Iran), and terrorist organizations (e.g., Hamas). CAIR did not repeatedly and unequivocally condemn the 9/11 terrorists, Al Quaida, and the Muslims who support them; rather, the cry that rang out the clearest and loudest was, “Don’t racial profile!”
9. So: a stripper, the mayor of New York, and Jon Stewart think this is no big deal; therefore, it’s no big deal. Case closed. Moreover, those who DO think it’s a big deal, like, say, many of those who lost friends and family, are somehow lacking true American values. Nice.
10. “Not intended...”: This is contradicted by the organization’s own paperwork and comments; this is not how it’s being sold in fundraising efforts abroad. “…for Ground Zero”: According to the New York Times, the wheel of one of the jets damaged the proposed building site. This site may not be Ground Zero per se, but those who think there is a connection and significance have a valid point of view.

Right now, in Virginia, there is opposition to a Wal-Mart being built near a Civil War battlefield, a project which was approved by the appropriate citizen and government bodies. “This is insensitive,” cry some; “This will affect the environment,” cry others. The opposition has taken its case to court. Do they not have the right to do so? Yes. Does Wal-Mart not have the right to build its shopping center? Yes. Whatever happened to the meme, “Dissent is patriotic”? This is what’s happening here. People—both on the right and left—are not denying that Muslims have the right to build a mosque, a community center, or even a shine on or near Ground Zero; we are merely exercising our own right to oppose this project. For valid reasons that are not racist, hateful, extreme, fearful, etc. If you want honest discourse, start with your own blog.

I thought you might want to hear from someone who actually lives in New York, unlike most of the opportunists trying to make hay of this issue.

I'm with you for the most part, but I need to take exception with a couple of your points, which I think inadvertently furthers misinformation about this issue, and which contradicts the other great points you raise.

First of all, as I'm sure you know, the Park 51 community center is not a "mosque." So you might want to stop calling it that. Yes, there is a place for worship, but it will serve many other purposes as well, which you do mention.

Most importantly, I completely disagree with your statement that the imam showed "flawed judgment" and should relocate. I think that contradicts the rest of what you say in this piece. One fact that is getting lost here is that there is a large Muslim population already living there, who have been served by two mosques in the area (one of them four blocks away from the WTC site), for about 40 years now. In fact, prayer services are already being held, right now, in the very site where Park 51 will be. The reason for this is that the two mosques are too small to accommodate the Muslim population, and the services started at the old Burlington Coat Factory to handle the spillover from the other two mosques.

So these are not people swarming in from outside to colonize "Ground Zero." These are people who want to expand and build in the space where, I will stress again, THEY ALREADY ARE, so that they can have a proper place to worship. And they also want to reach out to other people and build bridges.

So I find it disgusting that people who have not harmed anyone and who want a place to worship, have legally purchased land on private property, and have gotten community board approval for this, may now be forced out because Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich doesn't want them there. It's fear-mongering, bigotry, and racism, pure and simple.

So I hope they can stand their ground. And I applaud Mayor Bloomberg for being so principled and unwavering in his support. But I fear things have taken a bad turn and gotten really out of hand. When even Howard "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" Dean is saying maybe you should go, that does not bode well.

To those calling this a "victory mosque," know that the real victory for terrorists will be being able to point to peaceful Muslim worshippers being run out of lower Manhattan as an example of how America hates Muslims.

But don't worry, people. If the "Ground Zero Mosque" does get built, you'll still be able to do everything you want. You can still eat at the Ground Zero Burger King, shop at the Ground Zero Century 21, bet on the races at the Ground Zero OTB, and get lap dances at the Ground Zero New York Dolls. So no worries.

(Oh, and by the way, a friend of mine lives in a building right next door to the Park 51 site. And for the record, he and his neighbors are just fine with it.)

This post should be titled 10 Things I Think I know About All Conservatives. Your opinions would be so much more credible if they didn't have a specific person or name at the sharp end of it. But, I guess you are in the entertainment business and this is how you should be heard. But even so I would give this post a C grade.

Once upon a time, people could have reasoned dialog with someone with whom they disagreed, and not resort to name-calling and other personal disparagement. I guess now it's a sign of how clever you are to display inventive invective.

To all the passionate posters, a sobering question: when is the last time you had a conversation with someone with whom you disagree, and you actually changed your mind because they pointed out something that had not previously occured to you?

Now is as good as a time to remember this as any: there is no First Amendment (or any other) Constitutional right to not be offended.

Your connection of Sarah Palin and Dr. Laura through their shared ignorance of the First Amendment is quite thoughtful.

Ms. Palin's dubious understanding of the First Amendment stretches back to at least October of 2008, as ABC News reported then:

"Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

She believed these comments constituted the height of profundity; they are the height of inanity. In 1964, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan, and held that under the First Amendment, a public figure could only prevail in a libel suit if the allegedly libelous comment was made with "actual malice" (defined as "known to be false" or "made with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity."). Palin is a public figure. The First Amendment dictates that individuals be allowed to criticize public figures (without engaging in actually malicious speech) without the government being able to punish them. Palin has it exactly backwards: she believes (or it can be reasonably inferred that she believes, based on her comments) that the government should silence those who seek to offer opinion and criticism of her remarks. (It may actually surprise some to know this, but the Supreme Court has also held that speech expressing opinion is protected by the First Amendment).

Mr. Ebert, what scares me more than anything is this: let us assume, for the sake of argument that academia (i.e. the people who teach civics classes) is, from elementary school through the doctorate level, left-leaning.

About five years ago, a survey was done of high school students. Here is the link:

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php?topic=54138.0

Several horrifying findings ensured. When the students were told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it went "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

Again, these opinions were expressed by students whom, we keep being told, are being taught by left-wing extremists (read: free speech insurgents).

Well, one can always posit the opposite scenario: the students are not being taught by such individuals and are in fact being taught by center-right teachers. Does this mean that constitutional illiteracy is now required reading? (If so, I would say most students are passing, sadly, with flying colors).

Either way - any way - the lack of basic understanding of constitutional values in this country is astounding. The problem is of such immense magnitude, that I am not even sure that the tide of ignorance can be stemmed at this point.

How and when did this country get like this?

"they are still stalling on approving the rebuilding of the Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church next the memorial? That was a religious site actually destroyed by Muslim terrorists when the towers fell."

If that's true, one reason might be that the St Nicolas church really was in 'ground zero' -- which the Cordoba project is not.

In response to Bill Hays's comment: "... Islam is trapped by a book that was finalized about 630 to 700 AD. No matter what a moderate Muslim says, there will always be a core group inside Islam that uses the Qur'an as the ONLY guideline.

The Qur'an is a terrorist document. It describes stoning and flogging as punishments. Moderate Muslims may say stoning is wrong today, but 'Islam' will always say 'If the word of Allah as recited by the Prophet requires flogging as a punishment, then the word of Allah will be followed.'"

By this lunatic logic, Christianity and Judaism are also terrorist organizations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible#Examples_of_the_death_penalty

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

Better watch out, Bill. Those terrorist Christians, as part of their fanatical religion, aim to spread the Word. And that Word includes killing disobedient children, adulterers, and worshipers of other gods. Slavery too. And they'll outlaw shellfish.

"No matter what a moderate Christian or Jew says, there will always be core groups inside those religions that use the Bible or the Torah as the ONLY guideline." -- Can we all agree that this would be a dumbfoundingly idiotic argument against the followers of those religions? And this standard is selectively applied to Muslims because ...?

Roger...what can I do but congratulate you on a masterful demonstration of how to lie and mislead while still sounding rational.

Some choice examples: One buried motive for the attacks on Park51 is exploitation of the insane belief of 20% of Americans that President Obama is a Muslim.

First, it's 24% (at least according to yesterday's articles) but secondly, this isn't new. And, further, other than his his lying about it -- and, please, it'd be a grain of sand in his desert of lies -- would it really matter? Now, his bowing to everyone: that matters; his isolation of our allies: that matters; his disingenuous attitude toward Israel: that matters; that he might be muslim: who gives a damn OTHER than his policies, actions, attitudes? Hate to break this to you but your contempt for every-day Americans is on parade. So is your assumption of their bigotry.

"A meme is infecting our society that Muslims are terrorists and hate America; they are the enemy. It is a cliche to say, "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful," but is true. When Muslim nations are bombed by America, can those nations be expected to applaud? In Iran after 9/11 there were candlelight marches in sympathy with the United States. "

This is so riddled with lies and misdirection that is is hard to know where to begin...

The "meme is infecting our society that Muslims are terrorists and hate America" line is classic. Subtle, but classic. This 'idea' (we call them 'facts' out here) that Muslims have been carrying out terrorist attacks is hardly new. You're older than I and I have been seeing these for over 40 years. That they hate America is evident; WHY they hate America is also evident: we're a convenient enemy for those wishing to misdirect unrest and discontent among their own people: 'unite through a common enemy' is old as dirt but quite effective.

Now, going as far back as I can in my own experience, it was never -- ever -- a meme or idea that "all Muslims hate America" or that even a majority do. Even despite "America is the Great Satan" being disseminated at Mecca and in Mosques all over the middle-east, no one seriously believes this.

"It is a cliche to say, "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful," but is true."

Is this only thing in that paragraph that is mostly accurate. You equate in this context "peaceful" with "do not hate (or dislike) America" which is an inappropriate juxtaposition and certainly not similar in numbers.

"When Muslim nations are bombed by America, can those nations be expected to applaud?"

You're not slipping that in without annotation. We were bombing Muslims just for the sheer hell of it or something? You're familiar with the Gulf War that Saddam began with the capture of Quait? The number of "Muslim Nations" that we helped push him out? The agreements Saddam made for a cease fire (not end, but cease fire) and didn't keep? ... never mind, you're already in revisionist history mode.

You also assume that all Muslims think and feel the same. What the hell is that? You equate that they being attacked "for being Muslim" which you know (or should know) is absurd.

"In Iran after 9/11 there were candlelight marches in sympathy with the United States."

This...this just defies logic. Are you devoid of ANY knowledge, sir?

Iran is the most westernized middle-east country, prior to the Islamists taking over the government and chucking out the Shah (and, face it, the Shah was a jerk). The PEOPLE of Iran -- you really should take some time to talk with them -- by a great majority simply love Americans. Iranians, as a people, are warm, kind, and generous and, religion aside, very akin to us. They aren't a hell of a lot different from us and, without a repressive government in place, would be easy allies in spirit, if not in fact. Of course there would be sympathy.

However, in Gaza and in other places, there was cheering in the streets on 9/11.

Seriously...stick to movies.

Ebert: have talked with people of Iran and from Iran. Those I've met oppose the role of the mullahs. Women in Iran have greater freedom and more rights than such backward nations as our ally Saudi Rrabia.

They should have the right to build it wherever they want, they should also have the intelligence to know where not too.

Very right Ebert. It's sad to see so few people with common sense these days. If we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed with fear and hatred 9/11 worked. Terrorism wins.

Build or don't build, I don't care. This "issue," is not principally about who Muslims are in America, but about who we are as Americans. If the decade since 9/11 has proven anything about our place in the world, it is that our sense of American Exceptionalism is without foundation or merit. We are demonstrably a nation of frightened, paranoid bigots, racing to pull the ladder up behind us, before any more outsiders can gain a foothold.

Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et.al., play to the nation's basest instincts, and to good effect. They jettison everything that makes the idea of America worthy of praise in favor of a cynical, self-aggrandizing, snipe hunt meant only to appeal to the last visceral fears of their audience. They do not take positions meant to nourish, advance, or sustain us toward our best. They bleat fear for personal financial gain.

If as Americans, all we value is our ability to kill people by proxy, our might, our technology of destruction, then we are no longer any different from any other nation state that has imposed both its will and its fears on others. We have learned nothing, we promote nothing worthy of emulation, we will fade into the dust of history with all the other violent, xenophobic, bullies.

If we believe that our values run to justice, freedom, openness, and constitutional commitment, then we had better back away from the brink. These things are only legitimate when they are sustainable under threat.

As it says in the Gospel of Luke: "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them."

As Christianity and genuine Christian values fade out in America right wing Christians have no one to blame but themselves. They have spent the better part of the last three decades making Christians of all kinds look mean, hateful, judgmental, absurd, bombastic, and hubristic. Too many American Christians give every appearance of being socially, intellectually, and spiritually retarded. As a result, America hurtles toward a kind of self-indulgent secularism, a Me First national obsession with entitlement. We will be the poorer for it as a nation.

We have to move past the seeking of justification for all our puerile hatreds. Let New York City deal with its own zoning issues. If the city believes that a memorial shopping mall is a fitting tribute to the dead, so be it. If Muslims are unwelcome at "Ground Zero," let the city say so and accept the consequences.

If however, our national conversation continues to revolve around the preservation-at-any-cost of some complex of imaginary "White" values, then we are truly in the poop.

As the old saying goes, the fish rots from the head down:

Our very own current Supreme Court finds the First Amendment something to be suffered and endured, rather than embraced.

In April of 2004, two reporters were ordered to erase their tape recordings of a speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a Mississippi high school.
Scalia has long barred television cameras from his speeches, but does not always forbid newspaper photographers and tape recorders. For this particular speech, he did not warn the audience at the high school that recording devices would be forbidden.

During the speech, a woman identifying herself as a deputy federal marshal demanded that a reporter for The Associated Press erase a tape recording of the justice's comments. She said the justice had asked that his appearance not be recorded (of course, the reporter was not actually told this in advance).

The reporter initially resisted, but later showed the deputy how to erase the digital recording after the officer took the device from her hands. The exchange occurred in the front row of the auditorium while Scalia delivered his speech about the Constitution, and (trying to suppress laugh) the importance of the First Amendment.

Scalia later apologized to the reporter (apparently failing to note the irony of the situation) for what the marshal did (they actually acted in violation of federal law).

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-08-scalia-reporters_x.htm

I think most people don't want a mosque built on ground zero for the same reason they wouldn't want a monument built to Emperor Hirohito at Pearl Harbor in 1942. The Japanese worshiped their emperor as a god so it is a perfect parallel.

Sure, they have a right to build the thing but everyone else has a right to protest what they are doing and to be unhappy about it. They even have a right to use all legal means available to stop it... just as was done to stop the church that had been at Ground Zero before the attack from rebuilding.

As creeds go, Islam is about as vile as it gets. Mohammed's life was basically one big crime spree. He was a murderer, brigand, slave trader, rapist and pedophile. His teachings reflect his sicknesses and it is a huge problem that so many people on the planet look to him as an example to emulate. You can't worship a barbarian and expect to be welcomed into modernity. This point can't be made often enough or forcefully enough.

So the proper response to a mosque being built is to point all of these things out and ask the Muslims there to reconsider. I would expect the same thing if the KKK tried to build a community center in Harlem. They have the right to do it but we have the right to be displeased and to point out that they are a thoroughly despicable lot and that we expect them to behave better than their core beliefs would indicate. We certainly expect Mulsims to act better than their prophet.

It would also have helped had they not named the thing Cordoba House and scheduled ground breaking for 9/11. The other thing that would help would be if Islam did not have a history of engaging in fitna and of building triumphal mosques at the sites of great military victories.

As an atheist, all I can say is that a person would have to be a fool to think that all creeds are objectively just and equal. They are not. You would also have to be a fool to think that the motives of the people behind this thing are pure. They are not.

We can acknowledge the limits of what our government is allowed to do without having to act like fools and pretend a provocation is anything other than what it is. We can also do it without the breast beating and moral equivocation that Roger so loves.

I think the entire issue has been blown out of proportion and I largely agree with Mr. Ebert.

However, having said I think that if several issues were addressed on a larger scale, idiocy of this type would be avoided. I know these suggestions probably won't ever be brought to fruition but one can hope.

1) If the decent, moderate muslims around the world became much active (both vocally and politically) against radical islam.

2) If muslims in our country would pressure muslim nations to enjoin the same basic freedoms for other religions that they enjoy here. I travel often to SE Asia and the middle east. I've been to villages where Christians (not professing generally, but christian by birth and passport) are segregated into walled areas. The is a reason Christians in Pakistan have to have their own marriage laws and passports denoting their difference of birth ... not of choice but of birth. They are repeatedly discriminated against politically, economically and personally. It reminds me very much of the stories you grew up hearing of the Jews in pre-war Germany.

Americans as a whole crave integrity and fairness. To maintain our integrity we must allow the owners of that building to do as they wish. To keep our national pysche from being crushed and made bitter we all (regardless of race, religion, etc) must do what we can to promote freedom on a world-wide basis.

A fellow named John Bell said this in the comments: "Same folks preaching tolerance and constitutional fundamentals here, would have no problem limiting Americans in their pursuit of capitalism and owning their guns."

I just want to say, as a pacifist, moderately socialist, and big disliker of guns and those who shoot them at humans, that he is totally WRONG. If it is the law where I live to support squashing hard working citizens in the name of capitalism and the official interpretation of an amendment to the Constitution is that every Jane, Dick and Houdini can own guns, then they can do these things. MANY of us liberals believe in obeying laws, even if we dislike or disagree with them.

And finally, thank you, Roger, once again for your words of reason. You are a beacon of peace, kindness and rationality in a world that sorely needs it. Like I sang in our UU church last Sunday: What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

Actually, people who live in Manhattan (where the WTC was and the community center would be) supported the project by 53%, according to a recent Marist poll.

..............Favor Oppose Unsure
Bronx... 30% 53% 16%
Brooklyn 31% 61% 9%
Manhattan 53% 31% 16%
Queens/Staten 28% 60% 12%

maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/nycpolls/c100728/Bloomberg_RV/Construction_of_Mosque_Near_World_Trade_Center_Site.htm

Just because someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it right....that is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding. It is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning laws, it is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history. In the name of what religion was the 9/11 act of terrorism committed by?

no one believes that Dr. Laura didn't have the right to exercise her first amendment rights; we find it silly that people are condemning the consequent exercising of free market rights (a favorite right-wing subject) on the part of her sponsors. it's not an infringement on her rights that her company/sponsors/whoever decide to exercise their own rights in response to something that is clearly and evidently offensive to many. and that Palin condemns what is not even remotely close to censorship as 'constitutional obstructionism' when she would have doubtless launched a tirade against Dr. Laura if the n-word had been replaced by the word retarded is hypocritical and mind-boggling.

there has been a mosque three blocks away from Ground Zero for a long time now, a mosque built inside the Pentagon since 9/11, and a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor. anyone claiming that the mosque, which isn't even a mosque, being built a mere two blocks away from Ground Zero is an unprecedented 'slap in the face' to everyone who suffered on 9/11 also has to contend with these other examples, which did not spark half the outrage that this is currently sparking. the sensitivity of the victims of 9/11 should be respected, but i honestly believe that anyone who is outraged over the mosque is making an unfortunate association between two completely distinct groups of people tied together by nothing more than a single descriptive and that to respect their sensitivity would be to disrespect the Muslim families affected by 9/11, who are currently contending with far more irrational hatred in our media than anyone deserves.

While Dr. Laura may have been exercising her right to free speech, no where is it written that you have a right to get paid for it.

If I don't like what you say, I have every right to tell your advertisers that or not buy their products. That's capitalism. Funny how so e people only like half of the equation.

We all have the right to free speech. We do not have the right to be a paid radio personality. The whole thing is just absurd.

I've wondered for years why a person would call into Dr. Laura's radio show and voluntarily subject them self to her abuse. Dr. Laura is mean and nasty and was out of line to treat the black woman who called into her program the way she did.

Did Dr. Laura have a legal right to treat her caller that way? -- Yes. Should she have? -- No way.

I agree with President Obama: Muslims have the Constitutional right to build a mosque wherever local ordinances allow. Anyone who berates Obama for saying so is wrong. Obama is our commander and chief. He can't successfully prosecute the War on Terror without Islamic backing. A Presidential snubbing of Islam could diminish the already precarious support our military needs from Muslims abroad.

However, what’s legal and what’s right are not always the same thing. Legally I can play the Beatles’ “Helter Skelter” at Sharon Tate’s grave. But I wouldn’t because it’s disrespectful. Legally, the lunatic preacher from “God Hates Fags” can protest the funeral of fallen soldiers and Marines. Of course he shouldn’t and we all recognize that he is being deliberately hurtful and provocative. Heck, I doubt it’s against state or local law for me to go through the “12 items of fewer” lane at the market with a cart full of groceries but I don’t do that out of respect to others.

This mosque/community center should be erected somewhere else out of simple courtesy to the memory of the innocents who were murdered by Islamofascists in the name of Allah.

Robert, you're a douche. Nice writing but your ideas are an abomination.

Ebert: I'm with you about that Robert.

When it was the Bush Administration in control, dissent was viewed as true patriotism. The President and others serving him were called evil, liars, Nazis, terrorists, murderers...no one on the left expressed outrage. It was deemed passionate protest.

Now, one dissents with the current administration, and he or she is labelled a racist, bigot, hate-monger and has (as usual) their intelligence questioned.

Further, I wish Catholics, Christians, conservatives, anyone right of center, got the same protection, consideration, sensitivity, self-censorship and calls for religious freedom as the Democrats/Liberals/Media/Hollywood provides Muslims.

When someone of the Catholic or evangelical faith does something wrong or breaks the law, the media and Left (same thing) attack the entire group.

Right after 9/11, we were lectured about not all Muslims being terrorists and to control ourselves as if we were a raging mob. No mosqsue have been burnt. No Muslims have been attacked in the streets.

The "brave" left is afraid to criticize Islam. The religion can't be mocked or attacked in anyway, even by the "courageous" artists in Hollywood. Scripts are changed out of fear of offending Muslims.

Yet, Christians, Catholics and groups on the right can be attacked, mocked, marginalized in news stories, books, movies, TV shows. Christian icons can be smeared with feces and suspended in urine for art shows.

When has an Islam suffered such insults?

Why is "artistic expression" to be defended when one smears feces on the Virgin Mary's image, mocks Christ in a South Park or Family Guy episode or make anyone of strong Catholic or evangelical Christian faith the villain in every movie or TV show?

Yet, Comedy Central bows down to Muslim threats and not one word of outrage from Hollywood or the media about bowing to censorship.

Where was the outrage from Mr. Ebert and others like him calling for sensitivity and respect for our faith?

When Christians and Catholics dislike something, they protest, speak out, boycott (often, publicity-hungry directors and film companies fan the flames by providing these groups "leaked" info on an upcoming film or TV show to these groups to get heat to generate attention).

When Muslims are offended SOME --- NOT ALL --- issue fatwas (haven't heard the Pope issue such a death sentence for something he deems anti-Christian), commit acts of violence such as riots or actually murder someone who dares depict Islam in a way some don't like.

I'm not offended by someone mocking Catholics or Christians. I'm for artistic expression.

But why are Muslims left out of the fun?

I guarantee if it were Catholics or Evangelicals flying planes into buildings, blowing up the churches of those who praticed a faith different from theirs, murdering soldiers in a base or issuing holy death threats rioting in the streets at an offending cartoon or book, Mr. Ebert, the Democrats/Liberals/Media would not be talking about tolerance and lecturing people to show restraint and not stand up.

They wouldn't be told the majortity Catholics, Chirstians and those on the right are peaceful and good.

Thank you for making the case so eloquently for a bit of sanity atop a mountain that's been made out of the proverbial molehill. Besides, as others have pointed out, wouldn't an Islamic cultural center dedicated to tolerance be Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare?

Roger, thank you for really thinking about all of this and writing your thoughts. That is American freedoms in action. I read your Green Field piece when it first appeared and it STILL gives me goosebumps. That is a fitting memorial i think.

thanks.

If moving the community center would settle the controversy, it might almost be an acceptable response. Almost. But it won't, as proposed mosques in Staten Island and as far away as Murfreesboro, Tenn., have been protested with as much viciousness. Is Murfreesboro "hallowed ground"? I think not.

As someone else said, the controversy was manufactured to distract from the fact that Republicans blocked a health care bill for 9/11 emergency workers. It's a useful distraction, nothing more, nothing less.

And maybe a lot of the protesters of Park51 understand that not all Muslims are to blame, but the people that manufactured the controversy - lie Pamela Gellar, who thinks Obama is a Muslim Kenyan - don't understand that or don't care.

Also, why is it that so many conservatives think the First Amendment grants them immunity to criticism? It wasn't the government's fault that the company decided they didn't want "Dr." Laura on the air. If they don't like what one of their employees says, they can fire them. That has nothing to do with free speech, which only guarantees that the government can't tell you what to say or what not to say. I'm free to say the n-word at work, but if I get fired for it, then oh well.

And what really irked me about the "Dr." Laura incident isn't that she used the n-word, it was her attitude. The caller was complaining that her husband's friends said racist things and that her husband wasn't doing anything to stop them. "Dr." Laura's response was the blame her for marrying outside her race. Defend that, far righties.

Reply to: I am a Muslim and I love America just as much as any other American does... the hatred I have felt in the last few days as a Muslim.... ( ) I agree that the Mosque should be moved a bit farther because of those who died that day, not because the Mosque will be used by people who are of the same religion as the attackers! So in final closing remarks, I, as a Muslim support the idea of moving the Mosque in honor of those who died. - Adi

I've tried to describe an important point in this discussion.

There are individual Muslims, and there is Islam.

Islam is an organization. Islam is based on the writings in the Qur'an, and a belief that Mohammed is a Prophet who was given a message from God to deliver.

If the beliefs of an individual Muslim conflict with Islam, Islam prevails.

Will the mosque be moved? That would certainly be a gesture of respect for the wishes of many Americans. We'll see what happens.

Reply to: However, I am not considered an American. I am considered a Muslim who is just as much responsible for the terrorist attacks as those who did it!? - Adi

There is one Islam.

According to the rules of Islam, you are a Muslim first, and a citizen of a country second. By calling yourself a Muslim, you are "submitting" to that rule.

Islam claims to have a Revelation from God, and the Prophet who delivered the Revelation died in 630 AD.

Thus, it is impossible for Muslims living today to change anything that appears in the Qur'an.

(1) (Sura 9:5). But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

(2) (Sura 8:39 ) And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

The goal of Islam is to spread Islam.

If an individual calls himself a Muslim, it implies that he supports the goals of the thing called "Islam." No one has to be a Muslim. Being a Muslim is a voluntary act that implies that you support the aims of "Islam."

Which means, we need to examine what Islam means, and not what individual Muslims claim it means to them.

My primary concern right now is not the Mosque. I'm afraid that time will prove that the wishes of individual Muslims living in America will be ignored. I'm more concerned with Hate Crime legislation and control of the media.

Newsweek has an International Editor named Fareed Zakaria . He has a Ph.D in Political Science from Yale and his mother was editor of "Times of India." I don't want his voice to be the ONLY voice on this issue.

If there was a Terrorist organization, and they decided to use a phony religion as a front, how would we know? Would the First Amendment prevent us from asking the right questions? The duty of every American citizen is to ask, "Is Islam a legitimate religion, or is it a front for a political movement that wants to replace secular governments with governments based on Islam?" Because Islam is frozen in the year 630 AD, and a government based on Islam would not support all the constitutional protections that didn't exist prior to 1776 and the founding of America.

Islam says, "Fight those who oppose Islam, but if they convert, accept them."

Which means that Muslims have no clear concept of how non-Muslims are treated. Check out last week's cover story for an example of how one Muslim woman was treated by her Muslim husband and a local Taliban commander in Afghanistan.

For many Muslims, Islam is more important than national citizenship. That's deeply ingrained into the word "submission."

On Point #1: I disagree that we are a golden opportunity to showcase its Constitutional freedoms.

First of all, who do we have this burden to showcase our freedoms to? No one. Our freedoms are known worldwide by those who would respect them - as evidenced by the sheer volume of people who want to come here. Those who do not know and respect our Constitutional freedoms are not going to be swayed one way or another by this debate.

Second, we are doing just fine in demonstrating our freedoms by having a vigorous and healthy debate on this contentious question. Debate is freedom, not blind conformity.

In the course of this healthy debate we are arriving at some things we can agree on. For example, we for the most part are agreeing that yes you can build a mosque in this country just as you can a church or a synagogue. A degree of freedom not seen in every country in the world, and decidedly not true in the countries in the world that you want to impress with our show of freedom. Are Christians free to build a church in Saudi Arabia, or China?

We are also realizing in this healthy free debate that the issue is not as simple as the right to build a mosque. Does any church, synagogue, or mosque have an absolute unfettered right to build any structure that they want anywhere they want to? Or do zoning laws and other considerations apply?

Do you have an unfettered constitutional right to build a 13-story "community center" - which may or may not have an alternate function as monument-to-victory - in the exact location that you want to regardless of community approval? Well, that's what we are working through via free and open debate. That's what demonstrates our Constitutional freedoms.

In response to Douglas Trapasso who wrote on August 20, 2010 12:31 AM "(n)othing in the constitution that specifially mentions the definition of capitalism or the individual ownership of guns."

I beg your pardon? The Consitution is made of the original document, and her amendments. Amendment 2 refers to the "right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

Forget that the Supreme Court has ruled it is an individual right.

Any use of the term "the people" in the Consitution has always referred to the individual.

So you can argue that the preamble to that statement, "a well-regulared militia being necessary for a free state" means it's referring to a National Guard (which many argue it is not, as the "militia" in 1789 were made of individuals bearing their arms), no serious person can make the statement that "(n)othing in the constitution that specifially mentions the . . . individual ownership of guns."

What cannot be avoided is the fraudulent claim that a right wing GOP machine is causing all this hubbub in a city that is 85% Democratic. Again, out of the millions who live in Manhattan, barely 55,000 voted for the GOP candidate in the last general election.

It's not a right-wing thing; it's a decency thing.

A rabbi taught me long ago, those who are compassionate to the indecent, will be incompassionate to the decent.

Believe me, it sounds better in Yiddish, but it's still a valid point.

On your third point, I've also had to concede that though the Iman has the right to build a Mosque where he is, he was sort of asking for trouble. That's the only thing I half agree with the critics on. I think the Iman has the right to build a Mosque there, that lumping Islam with the extremists is childish, and the press (or whatever they are) is making a big deal out of nothing. But seriously, he must have had an inkling someone would make a fuss about it.

WOW What a beautiful OP-ED..

I must have missed it when it first ran.

It's a keeper.

I don't think the mosque should be moved now. Maybe, the imam could have chosen a more politically correct place but I think it is too late now. It would seem to be caving in and I would hate for that to be the takeaway from this whole thing.

Thanks for writing, Mr. Ebert. You have no idea how much I look up to you and respect your thought and opinion. I think about what you've said long after I've turned the computer off. Just wanted to share that.

Some day I hope to be able to write a comment here that receives a reply from you. T'would make my day. Peace.

Point #2 is a distraction. Nothing to do with the mosque.

Simple question: Did Dr. Laura use the N-word as a racial epithet? No.

She used the word in the context of providing advice on the issue of how to handle racially sensitive remarks. The point of her reply (lost in the media blitz) was that the use of racial terms in America is confusing, so cut people slack that you think are being racially offensive. They are probably not intending to be.

In making that point, she used the N-word fully and repeatedly. Was that imprudent? Yes. A mistake. For which she has apologized.

I saw the caller on CNN, still aggrieved. She stated categorically that no one can use that word, ever.

So, a question. Dr. Laura used that word to decry it's use by black entertainers. Roger, you used that word in tweets - twice I believe - to decry it's use by Dr. Laura. Both wrong?

It's often asked why we can't have an honest discussion of race in America. I personally think that the backlash to Dr. Laura - who made a mistake and is now slammed mercilessly in left media - at least partially is the answer.

Here is an op-ed from Canada written by Muslims opposed to the Mosque at ground zero:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

The authors view the mosque as a deliberate provocation by this Imam. For those who don't click the link here is the salient point from Raza and Fatah's Op-Ed:

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive; it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna". ("Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.)

I too would like you to elaborate on why you feel "The choice of location for the mosque shows flawed judgment on the part of its imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf."

Doesn't that assertion undermine the rest of your points? It seems like you're saying, "The Muslims should have known better than to get folks all riled up."

To relocate the community center would be to yield to bigotry. They have approval, the space suits their needs--they should build.

I think that NOT allowing the Cordova community center to be build because a 'mosque' will be on sacred ground is a mistake. First it's not a mosque, but a community center. There's been a mosque there for decades. I teach world religions at a university in the NY/NJ are; I require students to visit other religions; many students, including Catholic nuns, have chosen to visit the long-standing small mosque that imam Fiesal leads. There is never attemps for conversion or criticizing other religions. He has been a leader in interreligious dialogue and peace. Look on line at the document "A Common Word BetweenUs and You", in response to error the Pope made about Islam. There are over 200 Muslim leaders signatures. (including The leadership are very ecumenical. I'm so sick of the lies and hatred used to oppose the construction. I also see the Christian right AND new commentators as making statements about Islam they would never do about Chrisitians or Jews. Finally, can you imagine in this day and age, with Christians' history of anti-semitism and racism and slavery, that our media, so 'sensitive'--and politically correct--on issues of religion in this country, would join with the tea partiers to raise the issue of Obama's religion. I thought we had freedom of religion in this country. This is one of the sickest moments in our country's history; certainly since segregation.

Reply to: 9. I find hope in the words of two American strippers... she said she didn't have a problem with the project: 'I don't know what the big deal is. It's freedom of religion, you know?'"

When many Americans see the word "religion," they stop asking questions.

Many con men use religion as part of their con. When you're pulling a con, the less questions, the better.

The greatest danger is, that religious people will limit "freedom of speech" in a way that prevents Americans from asking serious questions that would expose con games.

The original meaning of "freedom of speech" came from states that wanted to pass laws making it illegal to print criticism of Christian leaders or their churches.

The question of whether modern Islam is actually a religion has been raised by:

General William Boykin: "What we are not seeing first and foremost is the fact that Islam is not religion. It is a totalitarian way of life. There is a religious component. But we still treat it as a First Amendment issue when in fact it is a totalitarian way of life."

WIKI: in 1786, the Barbary states of North Africa were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. Having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy for American ships, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, (1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right to engage in piracy] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The principle written into the Bill of Rights is that the American government cannot deprive an individual of civil rights because he holds a religious BELIEF. Which means, as a Militant Atheist, the government cannot stop me from stating my opinion, that the status of Islam as a religion needs to be challenged in court. Because a legitimate religion does not use murder and terrorism as ways to protect itself against criticism.

For all those who are trying to rationalize this by saying "well, how would the Muslim world like it if the Catholic church wanted to build a cathedral in Saudi Arabia" I say this:

We're not Saudi Arabia. We're the United States of America. We allow religious freedom for all. They don't. Please stop trying to equate us with them and try to take the higher road.

Forget the memorial, forget the mosque, forget all this religious BS. What should have been built at ground zero is two towers identical to the ones that were destroyed on 9/11. They should have been constructed IMMEDIATELY and completed by 10/11/01. That's how you make a statement. That's how you say the terrorists can't win. Oh I know about the cleanup and the forensics, sorry, but do families really get closure by verification of a dna sample a year later? No. They should of cleaned it up and started new construction a couple of weeks after it happened. 'if you do such and such the terrorists win' Well guess what; Osama Bin Laden won. Think about all that has transpired since 9/11. Never could Osama even imagined his actions would be such a huge success. The vacant land at ground zero 9 years later is the cherry on the top.

Ebert,

Your list reads like an uneducated, nonresearched, extreme leftist fringe rant.
Your Chicago education is showing.

Ebert: I was not educated in Chicago. I'll tell you where I was educated if you tell me where you were educated first. As we all know, an education depends entirely on where it takes place.

Hello.

I am not commenting on the Mosque because I am incapable of finalizing an opinion on the matter, at least for now.

I want to say this, however:

Liberal democrats want to pull your hair out over these Republican hypocrites and fools.

But imagine for one minute what it must be like for people like me:

These are the idiots left in charge of promulgating conservative 'values.' Conservatism is the farthest thing from evil, but one sure as hell couldn't tell that by listening to these goons. Moderate Democrats like myself want nothing more than a good race where we can contemplate sincere stances. Instead, the choice is made for us, just to avoid potential catastrophe.

I truly pray it were easier to determine if this country is heading in a sound direction. Not even "good," Eeb. Just "sound."

The best way of looking at this subject I've heard yet was, I believe from Congressman Boehner of OH., who said "Just because you have the right to do something does not mean its the right thing to do." Of course they have the right to build a mosque if they own the property and meet local zoning laws. By definition, though, the process of understanding, empathy and outreach-qualities the local Muslims claim the mosque will help promote, mean that they should consider whether or not building the mosque right THERE, will help or hinder their efforts. Maybe it will. Its a tough call for me.

"Have we become so fearful, so cowardly, that we must extinguish a man because he carries the blood of a current enemy?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZuIgoQhOIM

Skipping to Point #9: the strippers

So, the strippers with the hearts of gold

- made wiser through the long nights of experiencing the human condition up close through the rain of dollar bills -

- wiser by far than their fellow New Yorkers that also lost friends that day yet oppose the mosque -

looked out at the crowd of hushed HuffingtonPosters seated breathlessly around their clear-heeled platform shoes

waiting for the next pearl of wisdom to emanate past the pole and the railing

and asked the acolytes the question that was most pressing in their uber-wise stripper minds:

"Would you like a dance?"

Ebert: I wonder how many HuffPost readers frequent the gentlemen's clubs in the Wall Street area. You might find some of the customers see eye to eye with you on political questions.

Not that another little fan means anything to someone who has been at it as long as you, but you have another fan now.

The WTC is still a big hole in the ground ten years later and we're debating about THIS???

Here's an article from a New Yorker who points out that the entire debate is disingenuous, and has nothing to do with the actual New Yorkers who live there and the people who actually died three. http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/

Eli said:

One section calls of a cleansing of infidels, if they are not willing to submit or convert. Now the bible doesn't say that any person should murder another because of their belief, that's "God's" job.

Actually, the Bible does endorse killing people who worship other gods. Here's one example:

Numbers 25: 1-5
"While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the Lord's anger burned against them. The Lord said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord's fierce anger may turn away from Israel." So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor."

Just substitute the word "Allah" for "Lord" and pretend you're reading the Koran. You'd be using that passage as a proof text that Islam is a violent religion.

Here's another:
Deuteronomy 18: 19-20
"If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

So the punishment for anyone prophesying in the name of another god is put to death. Not by God, by people. Again, if you read that in the Koran, you know how you'd interpret it.

Then there are the accounts of the *harem* warfare of the Israelites, where they invaded towns and slaughtered every last man, woman, and child, leaving nothing alive. Why did they do this? Because those people were worshiping other gods. Again, if you read those histories in the Koran, you'd use it as proof that they are all violent and that Allah is actually calling them to employ those tactics today.

I hope putting the shoe on the other foot has helped your perspective a bit.

Your green field poem was fitting, Roger.

I never understood why Christians and Muslims think their religions or so different. It's like the years of conflict between Protestants and Catholics at Ireland. As an outsider I couldn't see the difference between the religions, and I still can't see the differences here.

The people opposed to a muslim church being placed on the site are bigots if they think it's okay to have a christian church there. If they're opposed to both kinds of religions having a church there then it's okay.

@Redfish

Here is a pretty interesting article about how this issue erupted. I think it's fairly safe to say that this only became an issue as a result of blatent islamophobia from the Right. Perhaps from a small group, but it has no doubt spread like a virus to both red and blue states.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins

We are entering into a state of religious intolerance and blatent racism that hasn't been matched since the early 1960's. I'm not sure how you can pin the roots of this on the reaction of the left. There has been a wave of militant and hateful rhetoric spewing from conservative media and the tea party since January of 2009. If one were to tell me 20 months ago that mainstream politicians would be drawing comparisons between Islam and Nazism or suggesting that religious rights should revert to "seperate but equal" I would have shrugged it off. I would have believed we had become a better country than that. Oh how I would have been wrong. I am frightened of where we may find ourselves 20 months from now.

on Point 3:

The choice of location for the mosque shows flawed judgment on the part of its imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Maybe. Maybe not.

We haven't actually determined what the Imam's judgement, or purpose, was in this project. You are discounting the possibility that they know exactly what their purpose is. That it is not "bad judgement" but problematic intent stopped.

Questions remain:

- What is the correct interpretation of the name "Cordoba House"? Does it connote healing and collaboration? Or, does it connote a monument to victory, built on the site of the victory?

- It's been published that the dedication date was to be 9/11/11. The tenth anniversary of 9/11. What is the statement made by choosing that date?

- Where was the $100M funding coming from? What was their intentions / judgement?

It's not established yet whether the project had good intentions but bad judgement, or suspect intentions. You are, IMHO, favoring the first option without fully knowing the answers to those and other questions.

Politifact and the Washington Post also point out 6 blocks difference from Ground Zero, something that people not used to the 30,000 people per square mile of Manhattan would not understand.

I also have turned to past history for analogies of the current time. "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."(Hermann Goering speaking at the Nuremberg trials with regard to going to war)

The Big Lie, twisted semantics, and the outright attack - these are strategies that are not good for the nation, or the world.

What is required to see through these complex concepts is much more than most Americans receive in a nation with limited US earliest nurturing experiences (important in personal security - joy of relationships and people), child development (intellectual development, joy of personal exploration), early education (full 90% literacy, joy of learning), and the personal awareness of learning and living interactions with all types of other peoples over the first 30 years of life as well as an increasingly distorted media well described by many starting with Edward R. Murrow 55 years ago at his broadcasters award ceremony. And as he noted in to close the book on 1955: No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. (might need to say his or her accomplices now)

You know, Roger, I'd feel a lot more comfortable about Islam, and I think a lot of Americans would, if whoever is the equivalent of the Pope for Muslims would excommunicate Bin Ladin and those of his ilk. Who would want to be part of the same religion as him and his suicide bombers? When is the rest of Islam going to stand up to him?

1. President Obama's: Muslims have every right to build there. Where one religion can build a church, so can all religions.
President Obama: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."

So is he for or against it? Technically, they have a right to build the mosque. Technically, I have a right to fly a Japanese flag near Pearl Harbor. Should I? Also, there are about 50 mosques in New York. There's no limiting of Muslim rights in New York.

8. It is a cliche to say, "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful," but is true.
It is true. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But all terrorists are Muslims. What other religion do you find people -- in the name of God -- strap bombs to themselves and explode at weddings or funerals or places of worship similar to their own religion? How many Muslims have died at the hands of other Muslims? How many fellow Muslims have the Taliban killed because they were not "devout". As Tom Friedman said, there is a cancer eating at the heart of Islam. That cancer is coming from within Islam itself. It has nothing to do with "American bombings."

Jerry Ryan--I find it appalling that it took less than four years to build the original Twin Towers. Today, almost nine years later, a hole still sits in lower Manhattan.
Indeed. The Empire State Building was built in 410 days at the height of the Great Depression. Where is our can-do spirit? (Excellent post, Jerry)

By Craig Blamer--It's to be a community center, not a mosque.
It will include a mosque.

By Jana J. Monji--Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and in that country there is no protection for freedom of religion.
That does not speak well for Islam being a tolerant religion.

By Ursula--Along with strip clubs. God forbid we build a community center 2 blocks away.
Strippers didn't kill 3000 people on 9/11. Muslim terrorists did.

About Dr. Laura: I don't understand the reaction and the dragging in of constitutional rights. Dr. Laura says dumb s*&t on her program. Sponsors (who pay for the show and her salary) don't want to be associated with her dumb s*&t and stop funding it. What is the problem? Free speech doesn't entitle everyone to a soapbox nor shield you from counterpoints and criticisms of your positions. And what's with Palin tweeting Laura to reload? As if we could all use more of the n-word in our daily lives. Sheesh, frankly I'm baffled at the state of affairs these days in America.

Damian Sarcuni wrote: "Americans are under the mistaken impression that Barack Obama is Muslim because HIS NAME IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. It is a simple mental association with 2 Muslims that you might have heard about on the nightly news at some point in the past 10 years. Its not racist, its not stupid. Its called being human"

Hi, Damnian. It IS stupid because names are given before you even learn to speak, and religions are picked. People who think you can know someone's religion by their name are stupid because they never learned to understand their own world.

it is sad that in 2010, the bigotries of this so called place of freedom, is rearing its ugly head again and again. when will it end. this is supposed to be the land of the free home of the brave, instead it is masking it's true surname of land of the tree home of the slave. this country was founded on immorality and it is still present today. the things this country tolerates is amazing, and it is sad that our children are being exposed to this. our country tolerated the salem witch trials, tolerates the confederate flag still standing to this day on the capital of south carolina (although slavery was abolished over 400 years ago), tolerates same sex marriages, tolerated the slavery of the African man, and still states that he is considered 3/5 of a man by voting rites, still lynching of african americans in some southern states, the abolishment of interracial marriages in alabama. "americans" tolerate so much, and they can't come to accept the building of a community center near ground zero. my gosh, it's not on ground zero. i am not trying to be insensitive, picketing and standing firm on the issue of not having an "islamic center" isn't going to bring back those we have lost during the 9/11 incident. America tolerates our troops supporting a failed businessman's greed of oil and control in another country. if it were a synagogue, would there be th