I hear you VRCWAgent. If you recall, I was one of the few who defended GWBs decision to try and award that port security contract to a company from the middle east. Do you remember that?
But similar to that situation, the public outcry was such that that particular contract was cancelled.
In this particular case, I happen to think the concern far more valid than the opposition to the security contract thing was.
I am merely opposed to the mosque at this time because its going to damage muslim/non-muslim relations. Things are simply still too emotional over 9/11. Once things cool down, and relations improve (hopefully by an concerted effort by all involved) then perhaps the issue should be re-visited successfully. But right now, excercising their right isnt going to 'bring peace' its going to have the opposite effect.
Sure they can build it now since they have the legal right to do so. But its not a good idea, and I for one, think its going to 'cause problems.
I also think your wrong in labeling the protest the way you have. Legal protest is just a part of our constitutional freedom in this country as freedom of religion is. I think you equate verbal opposition to the mosque as opposition to Islam in general, and I dont think that is the argument of the majority against the mosque being built so close to ground zero. I know its not my particular point, and so I dont see this protest being against a religion inasmuch as simply being against a bad idea of the mosque planners.
See my point?
Opposition to the mosque is doing far, far, more damage to America/Muslim relations. Opposition to the mosque is convincing many future terrorists that there really is a war by America against Islam.