Noticed this Op-Ed in the New York Times today. I'll admit to some mixed feelings on the issue. Here are my ground rules and I'll let you all add or subtract as you wish:
1. If I knew that this mosque would become a symbol of American forgiveness and freedom of religion, I would support it.
2. If I knew that individuals in this mosque would gloat about how they managed to be based so close to 9-11, Ha, stupid Americans, I would oppose it.
3. If I knew that this mosque would inevitably wound the New York psyche, that it couldn't possibly be viewed by them as in #1, ever, then I would regretably want the mosque to be built elsewhere.
So in my view, #1 would be the ideal, especially if Americans could make that its meaning so strongly, even anticipating that there might be some who would opt for #2, that we proudly and defiantly made it be about #1. #1 could also overlay #3.
The problem is that people are people and the primal reaction is extremely strong: "kill anyone with any association whatsoever with my offender, even if it is only in my mind." It is the drive that inevitably justifies genocide. So some natives are nice to me, but then one of my kind slaughters some natives. So some natives slaughter some of my kind so then I feel justified to kill all the natives.
And given how people are--God doesn't make them change so we sure as heck can't--I find myself uncertain about whether the mosque should be built.