So by your logic, you enjoy being the victim of terrorism?

So, your answer to fundamentalist terrorism is more fundamentalist terrorism? That's worked out really well between Israel and Palestine, hasn't it?

This debate topic is both ridiculous and offensive.

If BP goes bankrupt, the government should nationalize their assets and auction them off to pay for clean-up, rehabilitation of the environment, healthcare for those exposed to the toxic dispersants, and compensation to those who have had their livelihoods destroyed.

True, individual pumping stations are individually owned, but they still pay licencing fees to BP. I've already seen some BP stations turning into Shell stations. The individual owners won't be destroyed if they dump the BP brand and switch over to a different one. I think that BP will shortly go the way of Union Carbide after the Bhopal disaster; that is, they will go bankrupt and be bought up by one of the other oil giants.

After watching for weeks as the gulf was flooded with oil and toxic dispersants, the thought of buying gas from a BP station is abhorrent to me.

The Quran endorses violence and intolerance

One could also argue that the Bible also endorses violence. For example, in the Christian bible, god frequently condoned massacres and murdered the innocent (Gen. 19:24-25, Exodus 11:4-6, Deut. 2:33-34, 3:3-6, Judges 20:48, 2 Chron. 14:12-14, 22:7-9). I'm not arguing against Christianity or Judaism, but rather I'm pointing out that it's possible to twist any of the world's ancient holy books into a justification for intolerance and violence. Every religion will always have its crazies who do so (look at Tim McVeigh and the KKK, for example).

I was thinking more along the lines of Islam's supporters very skillfully playing the "race card" and "intolerance card" whenever people are outspoken against it. Christianity has lost this ability.

I don't believe this for one second. I hear the "Christianity under siege" meme constantly blared from all over the place, namely, from right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and the right-wing blogosphere. I'm not hearing anything about Islam being under siege, even though there are prominent political and religious leaders in this country talking about burning the Quran and prohibiting construction of any new mosques.

The Imam leading this project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate voice in the Muslim world. He's worked with the FBI on counterterrorism. He has been working for years, through his books and lectures, to build cultural bridges between the Western and Muslim worlds. (http://themoderatevoice.com/83169/report ground-zero-radical-imam-was-working-with-fbi/) He represents the modern, peaceful side of Islam that we should be legitimizing and supporting. The only reason why the Park 51 / Cordoba House project is even an issue is because of mid-term elections coming up. Some politicians are trying to turn it into a wedge issue in order to gain political power, trashing the first amendment in the process.

I was arguing that a simple reading of the constitution is insufficient anymore because of laws evolving around it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Perhaps there are special cases when this right should be restricted, but the fact that there was a terrorist attack 2 blocks away doesn't seem like one of those special cases to me. Would you prohibit a Christian church from being built in the vicinity of the former site of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City?

The Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, leading the Park 51 / Cordoba House project two blocks from ground zero is a leading moderate voice in the Muslim world. In the aftermath of 9/11, he worked with the FBI on counterterrorism. He has been working for years, through his books and lectures, to build cultural bridges between the Western and Muslim worlds. (http://themoderatevoice.com/83169/report-ground-zero-radical-imam-was-working-with-fbi/) He's the kind of Imam that we should be supporting.

Al-Qaeda is no more a Muslim organization than Tim McVeigh or the KKK (all Klansmen were required to be Protestants) are Christians. Every ideology will always have its crazies. Sure, there are passages in the Quran that advocate violence, but there are also passages in the Bible in which God condones massacres and murders the innocent (Gen. 19:24-25, Exodus 11:4-6, Deut. 2:33-34, 3:3-6, Judges 20:48, 2 Chron. 14:12-14, 22:7-9). I'm not arguing against Christianity, rather I'm saying that any of the world's major holy books can be twisted to condone horrific violence. The acts of Al-Qaeda do not reflect the beliefs of Muslims. Would you be offended if a Christian group wanted to build a church within a few blocks of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City? After all, McVeigh believed a twisted, violent, far-right ideology that masqueraded as Christianity (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532).

The way I see it, Islam is going through a modernization process, just as Christianity did around the time of the renaissance. Just as Christianity left behind its violent past of crusades and inquisitions, focusing instead on the love of Jesus, Islam is leaving behind its premodern, violent ways in exchange for peace. Most of the modern Muslim world (and certainly every Muslim that I've ever met) are adherents of the modern, peaceful version of Islam. If we want to promote the modernization process, then we need to legitimize and support modern Muslims, such as this Imam. As Islam more completely modernizes itself, the violent Islamic crazies will increasingly fade away.

There is utterly no legal reason to prevent the Park 51 development. The first amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and if denying a building permit because of the intent to build a house of worship isn't a violation of that clause, then I don't know what is.