To consider Sarah Palins' comments: "Ground zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation, please reject it in the interests of healing". I guess it could be seen as unnecessary, and interpreted as provocation. Perhaps a little insensitive to the healing process.
It has also been labelled "morally repugnant" to erect a mosque so close to where Muslims killed so many Americans. It's been compared to erecting a Serbian church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslims were slaughtered. Or building a pro-Japanese monument anywhere near Pearl Habour. It is assumed neither of these initiatives would be supported.
I guess I'm starting to get the picture. I can see why some people may be opposed to the concept. In fact 68% of Americans oppose the project. But I must be missing something. Those are all very compelling arguments, but there must be more to it. Oh yeah, now I remember...
The 9/11 attacks were committed by Muslim terrorists in the name of Islam! And now they want to insult the memory of those killed by constructing a Muslim mosque on the site that should remain a sacred burial ground and a war memorial free from the antagonistic presence of a mosque.