On the Cordoba House ("Ground Zero mosque") project

Freedom of religion is a great thing--a right as fundamental as freedom of speech or press.

With that said, it's time the Dems stopped twisting conservatives' opposition to the Ground Zero mosque (or whatever its backers are now calling it) into a stance against freedom of religion.

Follow me here: Suppose half a dozen wacko folks calling themselves Christians loaded an airplane with explosives and flew it into one of Islam's most significant mosques.

I know, I know, it's hard even to imagine such craziness in this day and age, but try.

Now, suppose three blocks away from said mosque, another group of Christians had acquired a piece of real estate. (Again, I realize it would be virtually impossible for foreigners to actually buy real estate in most Muslim countries, but we're playing hypotheticals to make a point.)

Finally, suppose that 9 years after the destruction of the mosque--by an airplane loaded and flown by alleged Christians--our real estate owners decided to build a Christian youth center three blocks from the infamous site. Oh, and they were also rather evasive about where they were getting the $100 million building cost.

What do you think the reaction of the Muslim government would be ?

I read somewhere that the Saudis don't even allow churches to be built in that country, but that may just be anti-Saudi propaganda.

But we're more enlightened: no one in New York is telling the Muslim backers of Cordoba House that they can't build the project. It's just that a few folks in that city are a tad opposed to building it two-and-a-half blocks from the WTC site. Something about Muslim extremists having killed their loved ones a few years ago.

BTW, pro-Muslim comments have "corrected" opponents of the project, saying that the site is most definitely NOT "ground zero" but is in fact between two and three blocks away.

a) "Oh, that changes everything!"

b) It was reported that one of the landing gear assemblies from one of the hijacked jets crashed through the roof of the building on the proposed site. Don't know who defines weird crap like this but it seems to me if your building got hit in the attack by something big enough to have killed you, that brings you under the definition of "ground zero."

c) Had the proposed building site been smack in the middle of the WTC's foundation, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear a defense/rationalization along the lines of, "Well, that's not *really* "ground zero" because they were actually aiming at a point three blocks further north..."