I’m open minded on this.
Certainly if the congregation is moderate, I can’t see any possible reason that they shouldn’t be allowed to build a new mosque.
Things is as an open minded person, I find myself unsure of what all the facts are. There are claims and counterclaims that are hard to verify. The critics insist this a pro hamas group.
Why are they saying that? Are they lying or confused. We shouldn’t allow a monument to a supporter of a murder be built on the victims grave.
Though I don’t know the facts as well as I’d like, I think we would do better to demonstrate our tolerence than our fear and small mindedness.
Put me down as pro-mosque unless some one can show with all the claims and couterclaims that we’re allow a monument to the killers to be built on the victim’s grave. I don’t know that now.
At the center of a swirl of controversy it dominates the air waves and much of the public’s attention.
The national Review is leading the charge against the effort to build this. I don’t agree.
This is an exercise of at least two freedom we hold dear, the freedom of religion and private property.
At least the National Review is not calling for government action to enforce their likes and dislikes. They seem to be focusing on boycott and the like to enforce their likes. So maybe they respect private property.
But the manipulation of people as mob to suppress free practice of religion still seems unconscionable. The claim that the builders of the mosque is a supporter of Hamas gives me some pause, but I think that may not be true. Especially since the Anti- Defamation League initially supported the Mosque, though it has since requested that the center not be built voluntarily.