That flaw in your analogy was only part of my argument - the other part was that as long as the mosque is not actually on or literally right across from Ground Zero, it's impossible to draw a logical line of how far it should be to be sufficiently respectful. Whereas in your examples, that distance argument was not really relevant.

And considering the arbitrariness of that distance, the way in which this issue is presented is likely to be crucial in determining people's opinions. If someone hears "they're gonna build a mosque at Ground Zero!", which is how it's often reported, and then after that finds out that no, it's two blocks away, then obviously they're going to think "two blocks, that's nothing, still too close". Present the story in a different way - they're going to build a community center in downtown Manhattan which also includes a mosque with a general message of tolerance and reconciliation between religions, and that center will be located two blocks from Ground Zero - and it's not nearly as offensive. People may still object to it, but they're likely to be a lot less angry about it.

Just look at how this thing came to be such a big controversy - I read about it back when it was announced in December, it was on the front page of the NYT apparently. And nobody protested, other than a number of family members of 9/11 victims quoted in the NYT article. Then suddenly the whole thing explodes months later. If that doesn't prove that the way the issue is presented matters a lot, or that the media and political pundits have played a very ugly role in this matter, I don't know what does.

Well, but you're feeling offended by comments made against the opponents of the mosque, comments which are partially inspired by those opponents who *do* want to actually stop this from happening. The people opposing the project aren't a monolithic group either, and not all of them make that distinction between "I'm against it" and "I'm against it but wouldn't try to stop it".

And certainly people stating an opinion like yours doesn't go against what the US is supposed to stand for, but if the pressure from the many people with that opinion, combined with the smaller group who goes further and wants to take active action to prevent it, results in the sponsors being forced to give up on the project, well, that sort of would go against the American ideals. Though I'll admit it's more a matter of failing to actively promote them than of really violating them, as long as the actual rights of this organization aren't violated.

The last thing first - it's a natural enough thing, I think, in the political debate, to focus on the worst or most offensive people on the other side, make comments about them and then sort of imply that the moderate people on that side are tainted by association. But of course that doesn't make it right. I think the charge of xenophobia is certainly justified in some cases here, but as a generalization against everyone who thinks the mosque ideally shouldn't be built there, obviously it's wrong.

For the first bit, though, "reconciliation" is a misleading term the way you use it imho, because the builders haven't done anything wrong, while the primary victims of the attack aren't the same as the people protesting against it now, either. Who is "the wronged party"? No matter how narrowly or widely you define that concept - families of 9/11 victims, all New Yorkers, all Americans - you're always going to have various opinions among that group, and it's pointless to try and appease them all. Especially when you don't even have anything to do with the ones responsible for the wrong, even if people associate you with them. Some people would have felt these builders to be insensitive no matter what. If one is to believe the NYT article I linked to in reply to Jeo, it can be said more or less objectively that these people should have been more prepared on the PR front than they were, should have reached out more to the community about their building. Then they'd probably have had more supporters and fewer detractors. If they had planned their building two blocks further away, they'd also have had more supporters and fewer detractors. But those things wouldn't have made any difference in essentials - only in determining the amount of people who consider it insensitive.

I hadn't read that other exchange yet then, and so I interpreted the swipe at Europe coming out of nowhere that way. After I read it, it made more sense. I don't think the US should be led overmuch by foreign public opinion, no, because foreign public opinion isn't much better informed, and often much worse, than American public opinion. I.e. fairly damn clueless at times. What it should be led to some extent by, though, is the hypothetical foreign opinion of someone looking at the US from a distance and judging it intelligently. In other words, yes, trying to live up to the ideals America takes such pride in - at home and abroad. Nobody's perfect, and certainly in foreign policy such ideals often have to be sacrificed for pragmatic concerns, but it would be a shame to stop trying.

To be more specific about this case, as long as nobody actually stops the mosque from being built, there's no real harm done in the eyes of this hypothetical observer, but if you look at it in the pattern - DPW, Keith Ellison's Qur'an, the madrasah controversy and birthers, now this - it's certainly a real concern that the Muslim world gets the wrong idea about America (and Europeans too, yes, but those aren't as important in the greater scheme of things, right? ), which is bad. And worse if that idea isn't even wrong. Obviously an individual doesn't base his opinion on considerations of how it will look if many people share that opinion, but all the same, there's something to be said in this situation for hiding the feelings of discomfort you get at this mosque thing in order to make clear that America is plenty supportive of the right kind of Muslims, just not of the wrong kind.