... the problem is that in a country as obsessed with 'religion' as America it's impossible to effectively and convincingly criticize religion - the opponents of Cordoba House don't trust Islam [and for legitimate reasons] but to convincingly oppose on those grounds they would have to call into question all religious belief and that of course is an impossibility - they would have to argue that all religious fervor is dangerous but how we practice such here in the West is less so because we purged or at least tamed the worst of our faith based demons centuries ago whereas the Muslims have yet to take that evolutionary step and therefore the threat implied by their particular brand of zealotry is different - in other words, if Islam has yet to figure out the whole modernity thing and their relationship to it and therefore has yet to pass through the inevitable turmoil and upheaval of such a turn it is decidedly not unreasonable or irrational or 'intolerant' to question the sanity of indulging their wholly unpredictable attempts to do so here - but of course no god fearing American is gonna make such an argument and therefore they are doomed to struggle with the having of their constitutional cake whilst eating of it too...
... but let's not forget, the constitution is merely a necessary mechanism [as judged by our values] for portioning out justice and arbitrating differences - that provisional necessity does not confer upon it the power of an absolute truth and therefore to conjecture that the abrogation of certain religious freedoms would doom the very idea of America, as those who challenge the dubious constitutionality of the anti-Cordoba forces do, is in a sense no more certain a statement or more valid a concern than to conjecture that the allowing of too much latitude to particular belief systems possibly threatens national security...
