Concerning the mosque to allegedly be built at or around "Ground Zero"

I've been hearing a fair bit of NPR air time being dedicated to this subject lately, and this morning I was going to sit down and reflect on why the idea doesn't faze me so much.

But then it occurred to me, that going on about what >I< think didn't sound so interesting. Why don't I try inverting the picture, and consider reasons for why the construction of the mosque would be such a phenomenally BAD idea?

So off I trotted into imagining all sorts of farcical fear-laden reasons for opposing the mosque. But I stopped again. It didn't seem fair or respectful. To my mind, excepting cases where you're dealing with someone who is certifiably institutionally bat-shit crazy, it's a good move to hear the other side of the story and take it on its own terms.

Thus I spent a fair bit of time this morning perusing various blogs and websites, of both politicians and common folk, and listening to video commentary. I found consensus circulating around the reasons that follow (without any order except sequentially, as they came across my field of view):

1. The person in charge of the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, thinks the U.S. is to blame for the 9/11 attacks.
2. If Feisal Abdul Rauf were so interested in handshaking and harmonizing across different faiths, then he should have proposed building a multi-religious site, not just an Islamic one.
3. The plan to build a mosque is a disguised attempt to assert Islamic superiority
4. U.S. support of a mosque at ground zero effectively honors the terrorists who caused the deaths of the 9/11 victims
5. Just because there is a constitutional right to practice religious freedom, doesn't mean we should practice religious freedom
6. There are already plenty of mosques around - and if they want to build another one, they can build it somewhere else.
7. Even if the site would not endorse violent radical behavior, it is a place where non-violent means (cultural, economic, political, legal) can be used to further Muslim totalitarian "stealth" supremacy.
8. "Moo-slimes" build mosques on the sites they conquer - letting this site be built signifies that we've been conquered.
9. We should heed the "Islamification" of Europe, and not follow in its footsteps by allowing a mosque to be built at ground zero.
10. Any religion that endorses violence is incapable of delivering spiritual enlightenment, and has no right to call itself a religion. It is a "religion" of hate, and has no right to display itself at ground zero.
11. The ground zero mosque, to be called "Cordorba House" is intended to symbolize the conquering victory of the Muslims in Cordoba, Spain - thus sending the message that the Muslims have conquered us.
12. The mosque would symbolize a jihad victory.
13. The mosque, and the people it would indoctrinate, would foster their black-and-white, us-versus-them mentality.
14. Preventing the mosque being built will be a stand for everything Americans value: justice and equality for all men and women.

I'm not making any of these up, and some of them - such as #14 and #5 - simply make my mind reel. But I won't go on a rant (brief memory flash of Dennis Miller, back when he was funny); I'll let these ideas simmer a little in my brain and maybe I'll come back to say something about at least some of them later.