Mosque Debate

The religious freedoms that the Pilgrims sought and found in America translate over to the debate over the mosque to be built two blocks from Ground Zero. Legally we should allow the construction and I am inclined to agree with Mayor Bloomberg's speech. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Sufi (of the mystical branch of Islam) who grew up in a family that worked to dialogue with different religions. I believe he continues in his father's work to represent a moderate Islam still willing to dialogue. Some American Muslims find this mosque debate characteristic of the umbrella of hatred that many Americans have towards them. Opponents of the structure find this offends what has become "sacred ground" of those who died at the hand of extremist Islam. I agree the victims should be honored. But does this dishonor them? I have to think more about this.

I doubt the opponents of the mosque would describe or recognize their stance as hatred; fear or distrust is more likely the emotion. We see in Europe the growing Muslim populations and unrest. We hear Muslim leaders speak of populating the West so as to eventually bring all under Sharia law. We read of sleeper cells training and plotting to bring the downfall of America. That is what this proposed building has come to represent in many American eyes. If we are to chose a representative or authority of Islam, Imam Rauf would be ideologically closer to American ideals, a counter to that extremism. As all atheists are not Pol Pot and Stalin, nor all Christians witch hunters and pedophiles, so also not all Muslims are terrorists. I want this to be a step in the right direction to allow free speech, assembly, freedom of religion. Am I misinformed?