Regarding the editorial "Respect runs both ways" (Aug. 17):
I don't like the idea of putting up a mosque near the World Trade Center site any more than most Americans. However, it does seem that most people are being unfair in judging President Obama on this issue.
The mosque won't be exactly where the towers stood; they will be near the site. That's entirely different. It may be insensitive on the part of the Muslims in charge of building it, but they have the right. It is perfectly legal. They have the freedom to practice their religion wherever they want.
But why should the president get involved? This isn't an issue of respect as much as it's an issue of legalities and freedom. There's no zoning law I'm aware of that prohibits where a house of worship can or can't be built.
In the editorial, the resurrection of the mosque is compared to putting up a statue of Timothy McVeigh across from the Oklahoma City bombing site. I find that to be an extremely unfair comparison. Most American Muslims don't associate with such acts of extreme terrorism. They just want to be able to freely practice their religion like everyone else.
I guess the next time an extremist Christian bombs an abortion clinic in the name of morality, we should automatically associate Christianity with terrorism. Now, if a mosque or church is found to encourage such behavior, that's another story. I don't think there's enough reason to believe that sort of thing goes on in America on a mass level.
We just have to shut our mouths, and let them have their mosque. That's the American way!