Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?

If I recall correctly (television news, and no, it isn't near as biased as stuff you get in the US, before people begin to criticise) Obama never stated support for the mosque.He explicitly stated that he supported religious freedoms, amongst all of the social and personal freedoms espoused by the Constitution, or something along those lines. He did not make any specific mention of any potential building of any potential centre and as a WH aide added afterwards, it is not El Presidente's place to comment on every local construction project. The Obama-god (lol, JBIC) neither makes nor holds any public position on the development of one particular community centre.As several here have argued, it is neither a Muslim "victory dance" (many followers of Islam were killed that day too) nor is it an offence to sacred ground (it was a mulitcultural business centre, not a church) nor is it illegal (in fact, the opposite, entirely above board and within bounds) nor is it offensive (to anyone but the fundy right, but they're offended by anything that uses reason or isn't white, straight, Christian, or male; better to ignore them, I think).Also IIRC, there's already an existing mosque closer to Ground Zero than the planned centre will be, definitely around there somewhere. Any help would be good on this one (already arguing this with another of the previously-mentioned fundy rightists on this point).Edited by Nij, : To finish a sentence.

Duly noted. However, why not protest that one? 4 blocks is just as bad as 2.Or as one of the creos was questioned about in another thread, "where is this arbitrary limit and how do you determine it?"Edited by Nij, : Stupid adverbs.

You are not at war with Muslims. You are at war with Muslim terrorists. These two groups are not equivalent, as you agreed above.So, why are you aggressive towards somebody you are not in conflict with? And why do you on one hand agree that not all Muslims are terrorist, yet on the other imply that you are at war with all Muslims?

As Omnivorous points out, the specific Muslims involved in the centre are acting peacefully. Hence there is absolutely zero reason to be aggressive or provocative towards these Muslims. Nobody is complaining about the Jews or Christians involved in the Cordoba Initiative, when they have just as much stake in the group (as no single religion can have a majority, by their own rules) as any other; why a problem specifically with the Muslims, then?Yet aggression is the only attitude expressed by saying that you are at war with someone "set[ting] up camp in your fucking house". The US is at war with terrorists who happen to be Muslims. It is not at war with Muslims in general. Muslims who are doing their best to remove the cultural, religious and other barricades to understanding -- people trying to lessen the impact of and prevent the kinds of examples you provide -- should be fully supported in their endeavour. Not treated with suspicion and derision, not accused of the very acts they work to stop, not placed on the same level as the terrorists.Should I condemn all Christians because of a few idiots using that as an excuse to be idiots? No. Should we condemn all Indonesians, all Somalians, all Cubans, all of any group you care to name, because of a few idiots? No. Of course not. Stereotypes aren't universal descriptions, nor are they often remotely correct. And you know this well Coyote, but I think some do not quite get it. Likewise, one should not condemn all Muslims simply because a few idiots choose to use Islam as an excuse. On the contrary, they should help the Muslims that are not idiots, because then there is no excuse for the idiots to be idiots anymore. You cannot convert successfully by using the sword: the pen, the grain, the machine and especially the dollar work far better.And for someone who stated they agree with the idea of seeing a difference, there is also an indication that they don't. Else why were they not seeing a difference?

Which Muslims would those be, then? I don't recall any (apart from the idiots) that deliberately act to offend anyone. True; not doing something simply because it will cause offense is stupid. But... You should certainly not do something offensive if there is no necessity at all; there is no good reason to hang up a sign of Muhammed or saying "NIGGER!".
You should certainly not do something offensive if you could achieve the same effect without doing it; the US could have dealt with Saddam, the Taliban, al Quaeda by NOT offending half the world's intelligent people, by NOT offending the Muslim world, and by NOT introducing war to entire countries.
And you should certainly not do something offensive if your sole purpose is to offend people to the detriment of building a peaceful relationship with them; hence, one should certainly not put up one of those signs or invade other countries on a whim. How many people get offended isn't an issue. Why they get offended and why you did it are.Edited by Nij, : Extra words.

I'm going to say this now, as I have many times previously:There is no mosque in the planned community centre. There is a prayer room, intended for use by all religions, without preference to any one in partcular.It's perfectly ethical and smart for the reasons they are doing so: to attempt improving relations between the general US public and the Muslim community. Also, because it's likely the only site they could get in the area.
It's only causing problems because of bigotry and prejudice. Those protesting it have no idea why it's being built; heck, they can't even get what the thing will actually be right. If the mosque can go ahead, it will solve those problems itself -- that's why it's getting built.

Those involved in the Cordoba Initiative -- the group building Park51, for anyone who missed the fifty mentions they got or the discussion about them -- have the right to build the community centre.
There is no reasonable legal or moral objection to their doing so. Its aims are all above board; the source of its funding has been questioned by many and shown to be either above board or at least tolerable to an rational observer; all possible excuses for not building the site have been exmained, found wanting and discarded as legitimate concerns.The reaction to the plans, incited by conservative groups in the USA, was far beyond anything appropriate. The offence taken by those that object to the centre stems not from any true wrongdoing, but instead stems from their prejudice against one group for the actions of one subset of that group. They fail to acknowledge the precedents set by members of their own (US citizens carried out the majority of terrorism in the US; white Christian males are the worst offenders) and call for a double standard of treatment, a rejection of basic human and Constitutional rights, and are prepared to incite violence out of a simple deliberate lack of understanding.If anything, such outpouring of antiMuslim sentiment demonstrated by the protestors shows that the centre is necessary to preventing the rift between the western world and the Islamic world from growing further. The centre's stated aims of increasing respect and understanding between the two cultures will benefit the city in the short term, the country in the mid term, and the world in the long term.This centre is the beginning of uniting against the bigotry and ignorance that lead to terrorism in the first place, and as one of the first steps in preventing that terrorism from having any effect or support in the future, it should be aided by any and all who wish to see peace.