re: #170 rieux

I’m not sure that “irrational prejudice” is a whole lot better than “bigotry”. But the demonstrators don’t claim that there shouldn’t be any mosque built anywhere - they’re not campaigning for a ban on mosques. If they were, that might more reasonably be construed as anti-Muslim prejudice. But they would claim they’re not singling it out because of an irrational prejudice toward Muslims, they’re singling it out because of its location. Now, I doubt many of the demonstrators were big fans of Islam. But unless you can cite some evidence of prejudice beyond the fact of opposition to the mosque itself, such as the way they phrase their opposition, then I don’t see why we shouldn’t take the opposition at face value. If they were saying “we don’t want any dirty Muslims near Ground Zero”, that would indeed count as bigotry and prejudice. But as far as I can tell, that’s not the way the opposition is being expressed.

I don’t see the distinction you want to draw. Why would it only count as anti-Muslim if they opposed all mosques anywhere? They quite clearly object to not only the location, but also the fact that it is a Muslim centre. (They claim to not be a mosque, apparently, or at the very least not just a mosque.) They aren’t objecting to other places of worship in the area. They aren’t opposing other businesses or institutions in the area. Just this one, because it is a Muslim centre. How can you claim that their singling it out isn’t to do with Muslims?