Wow. They're not shy, I'll give 'em that. Flatpoint High Principal Onyx Blackman would describe that as "audacity, hubris, and overweening pride".

MyKu:

Relax. No big deal.
That grant will *also* help build
Gutfeld's bar next door.

-------------

I am not altogether opposed to this mosque. Here's why...aside from the "normal" arguments:

IMHO, one thing that would be helpful when dealing with all things Islamic - from cultural misunderstandings to terrorism - is a strong Islamic voice. Ideally, they'd elect a Pope-like figure, but that ain't gonna happen.

The same thing that confounds me about Islam is the same thing that confounds some on the Left about the TEA Party - no defined leadership. Of course, the stakes are quite different between the two.

So, build a super-high-profile mosque in NYC. Let the occupants thereof become a leading voice of Islam - of *American* Islam. Maybe the next time some stuff blows up somewhere, we'll have a stern condemnation from Muslim leaders with gravitas. Or they'll make a "chickens --> roost" argument, but through a giant megaphone, at their peril (not personal, one would hope, of course).

They want the spotlight. Give it to 'em and see what they do with it. If they truly are of the wrong mind, they'll be sorry about what they wished for.

In the world that NR readers inhabit, we all know what the answer to this grant application would be. But if the LMDC board lives in the same Bizarro World as Nurse Bloomberg, does anyone honestly think they'd choose to deny?

"They want the spotlight. Give it to 'em and see what they do with it."

Isn't that already CAIR? And therefore we already know what they're going to say and doin the spotlight? i.e. cry like a banshee when a Muslim somewhere in the world might suffer a moment's apprehension because of anything American while giving conditioned passive aggressive rationalizations for badly behaving Muslims, both foreign and domestic? The novelty wore off that act a long time ago, at least in my house.

I suspect that after some initial outrage, our attention will be taken by something else. In the end, the developers will build the Ground Zero Mosque and they will get taxpayer assistance to do so. This story has pretty much faded from the news now anyway. I suspect that's the proponents' strategy: wait until the furor dies down and then go on to the next step.

The problem with allowing this mosque to go ahead is that you're allowing a certain Islamic political action program to proceed. That pattern is: Step 1. Destroy. Step 2. Rebuild as a Muslim site. It's happened all over the world for a very long time.

This means that a Ground Zero mosque is not a simple issue of freedom of religion or property rights. The question is actually what to do about a declaration of conquest by a international political organization. This organization happens to also have a religious component, as well as military components. Many of us Americans find that confusing, and keep cheerfully believing in separate Islamic political and religious goals. We too easily forget that separating the establishment of religion from a government's laws is a relatively new and fragile phenomenon in the world's history. To much of the rest of the world, this will look like blatant conquest, pure and simple.

And, to judge from past Muslim practices, once ground has - at any point in history - been conquered by Islam, it has been added to the list of areas "belonging" to Muslims, and can be violently "defended" as such.