Missouri's tight restrictions on protests and picketing outside military funerals were tossed out by a federal judge Monday, over free speech concerns.
A small Kansas church had brought suit over its claimed right to loudly march outside the burials and memorial services of those killed in overseas conflicts. The state legislature had passed a law to keep members of the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating within 300 feet of such private services....The laws, said the Kansas City-based judge, "could have the effect of criminalizing speech the mourners want to hear, including speech from counter-protesters to plaintiffs' [the Westboro Church's] message. As the law burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's interest, [the law] violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment."
Republicans tried mightily Sunday to make a political flash point out of President Barack Obama's defense of plans to build an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero in New York.
On talk shows spanning the network and cable spectrum, GOP politicians and pundits insisted that Obama was insensitive to those who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks when he entered the debate on the issue with a White House speech marking the start of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month.
Some predicted political repercussions for Democrats in November's congressional election, even though they agreed with Obama that freedom of religion is a vital part of American democracy.
Aw-haw-hall....RiGHTY then! Maybe you find yourself on different sides on each of these stories. Maybe you are pro-free speech and pro-expression of religion freedom. Or maybe not.
But here's the thing. Having a right to do something and being right to do it are just not the same thing. Muslims do enjoy the right to place a mosque and worship in it without being hassled. But are they right to insist on exercising that right in an insensitive way that feels very "in your face" to lots of non-muslims? I suggest they aren't, and that they are engendering bad will by doing so.
Do funerals represent a case for suspending the constitutional right to protest? Nope, they sure don't. But are protesters right to get all up in the faces of people who just want to see a lost loved one off, and find solace among common friends and loved ones. Nope. They sure aren't. And again, what they achieve is bad will for their cause.
Sometimes, insisting on exercising your right means that more than anything else, you're being an insensitive @-hole. Nothing righteous about that.
You're comparing the building of a house of worship for a minority sect to practice their faith in private to the most vile and reprehensible public actions of the rabidly bigoted and hateful freak show that is the Westboro Baptist Chuch ??
ReplyDeleteSeriously, go fuck yourself.
@Dream
ReplyDeleteWell done. Your comment is an excellent example that perfectly illustrates Cranky's point about people failing to make the distinction between being right and being a complete asshole.
MW -
ReplyDeleteCranky is NOT making a distinction between being right and being an asshole. He's making a distinction between having the legal right to do something and being morally right to do it. You're completely missing the point, or perhaps can't express what you mean coherently.
Allow me to help. Cranky thinks that building the mosque is "wrong" even though they're legally entitled to do so, much like he thinks that the Westboro Baptists are "wrong" to protest at funerals, even though they have an affirmed legal right to do so.
You see, both acts offend delicate sensibilities, and are thus both examples, in Cranky Critter's mind, of acts which are morally wrong while being constitutionally sanctioned.
Meta-commentary only works when you actually understand what's being discussed.
Ahh. I get it now. Thanks for the clear explanation.
ReplyDeleteOne question...
Does that means your decision to be a complete asshole was independent of Cranky's post?
MW -
ReplyDeleteMy decision to be an asshole is in reaction to his absurd and despicable comparison between people who want to practice their religion on private property and those who shout "god hates fags" at military funerals. And I stand by that decision.
Dream,
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree with you 100% that the Westboro folks are extremely objectionable. I'll give my approval to "a hateful freak show." Sounds about right. And I also agree with you that in the abstract, there is nothing wrong with "people who want to practice their religion on private property." I wouldn't call practicing the muslim religion "a hateful freak show. [Even though, as we know, a small subset of muslims actually do practice their religion as part hateful freak show.]
Where I disagree with you is on the merit of the argument that a given comparison should not be made because the items being compared are different. I'll even go ahead and elevate that argument to my hall of fame for crappy arguments.
When I make a comparison, I never imply that they items being compared are wholly the same. Most things aren't. A comparison only gets you so far. Many items that get compared are different in important respects. What I did was simply to call attention to one particular instance where they were the same.
The point was to give two examples where there was a similar dynamic. In fact, one big part of my point here was to juxtapose one case where the decision to disapprove was fairly easy with one where the question of whether to disapprove was much harder.
So. Fuck me? An absurd and despicable comparison? Throughout, your arguments here are weak. You did a decent job of understanding my point even though you remained determined to invalidate my comparison. I stand by it.
I'm not the kind of person who backs away from making a comparison because I'm afraid that someone might say "you can't compare." One can always compare things, and see what we get. Comparing things does not mean one is implying that "these things are the same." I agree with you that the Westboro folks are more objectionable.
______
ReplyDeleteYou see, both acts offend delicate sensibilities, and are thus both examples, in Cranky Critter's mind, of acts which are morally wrong while being constitutionally sanctioned.
----------
Close. But not quite. I'm not talking about either being "morally wrong." What both acts are is insensitive to the feelings of others. The Westboro folks are round the bend insensitive. I think those folks are unhinged. Without knowing more about the decision-making of the folks trying to build the mosque, I have no reason whatsoever to think that they are doing so as a calculated attempt to offend folks. The mosque doesn't even bother me personally.
But what's also true is that it bothers lots of other folks. I don't think those feelings ought to be disregarded. I understand that these folks want to build this mosque, and that they have the right to do so. That's quite fine with me. What's undeniable is that if they do build this mosque, they will do so with the full knowledge that their actions offend many Americans. By building the mosque, they are making an implicit statement that the feelings of those Americans are without merit, or at least, less important than their right to exercise their religion where they want to.
So if they build the mosque, they have no reason to gripe if someone wants to build a rib joint across the street. With topless waitresses. Right? Is that where we want to go?
BTW, MW---thanks for stepping in and carrying the water for me. And Dream? By all means, keep coming.
@CC
ReplyDeleteYou may want to hold off on that gratitude. I just linked to this post as an example of the wrong side of this argument.
Cranky, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"By building the mosque, they are making an implicit statement that the feelings of those Americans are without merit, or at least, less important than their right to exercise their religion where they want to."
Yes, WITHOUT A DOUBT, their right to exercise their religion (not to mention, property rights)is by far, more important than the hurt feelings of some people. This couldn't be clearer in my mind.
Moreover, for the purposes of curtailing, halting, displacing or admonishing the free exercise of speech, religious and property rights, the feelings of the 'offended' are indeed without merit.
Why? Because those feelings, while human, are by definition unthinking, being indifferent to reason at best and vengeful at worst. That is, they're not based on rational thought -- you know, the rational thought that can differentiate between the acts of Islamic terrorists, and the harmless practice of Muslim Americans who had nothing to do with 9/11.
What this ultimately amounts to isn't even guilt by association. Its assigning collective burden of guilt by NON-association. I don't shame Catholics or wish to curtail their religious practices because their priests and bishops often commit heinous crimes which rightly offend any decent person.
My harsh critique of your comparison wasn't a commandment that all things compared need to be exactly the same. It was that, the two acts and groups compared are so monumentally different, and with one being recognized as so profoundly disgusting to good taste and civility as to invite (albeit, unconstitutional) legislation to stop it, and the other being an as yet non-existent building that nobody would know about were it not for the most hateful bigots of the right wing blogosphere and Republican Party seeking to demonize Muslims.
The apt comparison here is between the Westboro freaks saying "God hates fags, thank God for IEDs" at a Marine's funeral and Newt Gingrich likening the building of this community center in Manhattan to Nazis hanging a swastika on a Holocaust memorial.
Not only are both incendiary and designed for maximum emotional reaction, they're pretty fucking dumb, too.
"So if they build the mosque, they have no reason to gripe if someone wants to build a rib joint across the street. With topless waitresses. Right? Is that where we want to go?"
Please explain the inferred "reason to gripe" that Fox News, Newt Gingrich, Pamela Geller, Sarah Palin, and any other 9/11 fetishist grandstander has.
Personally, I'm just waiting for them to start attacking Ted Olson because his wife who died on 9/11 was on a plane that hit the Pentagon rather than the WTC, and that this somehow invalidates his remarks supporting the Park 51 project.
I think Islam, like all religions, is based on old stories that aren't true. But as much as I would like a peaceful world free from sectarian conflict, I know that the path to that future doesn't involve arbitrarily telling Muslims where they shouldn't practice their religion. Particularly not in a free country such as ours.
---
ReplyDeleteYes, WITHOUT A DOUBT, their right to exercise their religion (not to mention, property rights)is by far, more important than the hurt feelings of some people. This couldn't be clearer in my mind.
----
Nor mine. It also could not be clearer in my mind that the best path forward is not to look at this conflict of terms of who is right and who is wrong, and then to pick a winner and a loser.
What continues to escape you is that I am making a comment not about morals, but about manners. Not to mention about conflict resolution.
Muslims sure have the right to stick with their "in-America's-face" choice. That's indisputable, IMO. But is it an ideal choice, either for muslims or for offended Americans? No, it is not. It creates antagonism. It's going to leave lingering bad feelings. And it may quite possibly become a lightning rod attracting protest and even violence. Instead of creating an opportunity for growth and understanding, it may well become the motivation for both sides to dig in their heels.
This is a pattern that folks who have studied conflict resolution see over and over and over. Now, at this point in time, the muslims who have made a poor choice of location feel that they must dig in. Their supporters have adopted the same attitude. They are convinced that they must get their way to "defeat" those who oppose them.
I don't expect to change your mind on this issue. But I will ask you a favor. Over time, look for this pattern in political conflicts in the future. And remember to ask whether decent manners might have led to a resolution that satisfied each side, instead of perpetuating conflict.
"Muslims sure have the right to stick with their "in-America's-face" choice."
ReplyDeleteSo, Muslim-Americans who support this are in their own faces? I don't get it. And frankly, adopting the rhetoric of the reactionary right to justify the phony victimization of bigots is a borderline dealbreaker for further debate.
Their choice of "poor location" is a dilapidated, unused eyesore that happens to be in one of the most densely populated cities in the world.
Yes, they should dig in to defeat the BIGOTS who are opposing them, because they're clearly in the right here. Its called sticking to your guns, and its not a form of escalation.
The escalation of conflict has been solely on those who rhetorically transformed a nonexistent structure into "Obama's Ground Zero Mosque," against all sanity and sense of fairness.
I think your revision to making this an issue of "manners" is fairly weak and condescending.
I'm not sure what code of etiquette these Muslims were violating when they dared disregard the feelings of craven bigots before exercising their legal rights.
If its all about manners, your post would be "Having The Right Versus Being Polite."
______
ReplyDeleteSo, Muslim-Americans who support this are in their own faces? I don't get it.
------
That's gratuitously argumentative. Unless you really don't understand what I've said. And I'm certain you do.
----
And frankly, adopting the rhetoric of the reactionary right to justify the phony victimization of bigots is a borderline dealbreaker for further debate.
----
I don't know what the rhetoric of the reactionary right IS, because I don't follow them. II haven't devoted any time to reading overwrought editorials from either side. I'm using words entirely of my own choosing. If you're going to leap to conclusions about me by making bad faith assumptions, then you are correct that we can't have a decent discussion.
----
Their choice of "poor location" is a dilapidated, unused eyesore that happens to be in one of the most densely populated cities in the world.
-----
Abd their choice is one that's upsetting some folks. I question your assumption that all or even most of the folks who are upset are simply bigots.
----
Yes, they should dig in to defeat the BIGOTS who are opposing them, because they're clearly in the right here. Its called sticking to your guns, and its not a form of escalation.
----
They're free to choose to make this stand or not. Either choice has consequences. Some folks, like you, will choose to see the insistence on exercising their rights as purely a moral victory. I don't have any opinion on that, except for the "purely" part. It's undeniable that one consequence of this will be lingering resentment on the part of some or even many Americans towards the muslim faith. Some will choose to see all such folks as no more than bigots, and fail to realize how condescending that is.
---
I think your revision to making this an issue of "manners" is fairly weak and condescending.
---
It's been my point from the get go. I don't claim it's the only part of the story, but I'm sure it's part of the story, and it points the way towards a decent resolution better that digging in one's heels. Your comment here makes me continue to wonder how sound your grasp of manners and conflict resolution is. After all, you're the one who opened the comments with "fuck you."
Which I'm OK with. I'm very tolerant of incivility, as a matter of both temperament and necessity. Even though I think incivility is an underappreciated and growing problem for the 21st century.
In the long run, I doubt that this choice of location will matter much. Most folks will get over it, like adults. Still, I think it's insensitive of muslims to insist on building a mosque within 2 blocks of ground zero despite the fact that many Americans are troubled by it.
If that makes me a bigot in the eyes of someone, that's OK with me, because I don't respect their thinking skills enough to be troubled.
---
I'm not sure what code of etiquette these Muslims were violating when they dared disregard the feelings of craven bigots before exercising their legal rights.
---
What about the feelings of Americans who don't like the idea even though they are not craven bigots?
The graceful and respectful way to choose a mosque site would have been to seriously consider whether it was appropriate to build a mosque within 2 blocks of ground zero, and to take into consideration the feelings of non-muslims. It's not the legally required way, for sure.
This is the fallacy of group blame. It probably never even occurred to those seeking to build the Muslim community center to seek feel-good approval from anyone, much less the family members of those who died in a terror attack 9 years ago, because they HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
ReplyDeleteYou know any asshole in the world can be a Muslim, right? There's really no selective application process. Its a quite welcoming faith.
Many Americans are "troubled" by it because the rabid right wing has been demagoguing about it for a month and the wider media and public has unwittingly adopted the misleading language of "Ground Zero Mosque".
"What about the feelings of Americans who don't like the idea even though they are not craven bigots?"
Many people, "don't like" all sorts of things that others have the legal right to do. Homosexual and interracial relationships sure do upset some people, even if they're not willing to openly condemn these acts. Is their bigotry craven, because they have uneasy feelings? No. But they do remain bigots nonetheless for their knee-jerk prejudice.
I see the people who are uneasy about the Park 51 project as akin to this sort of common, silent bigot.
"The graceful and respectful way to choose a mosque site would have been to seriously consider whether it was appropriate to build a mosque within 2 blocks of ground zero, and to take into consideration the feelings of non-muslims. It's not the legally required way, for sure."
The graceful and respectful way to handle this situation is to not give cover to the bigots who positively REFUSE to stop conflating acts of terror by Islamic extremists with the everyday harmless and legal cultural practices of American Muslims, who, again, had absolutely nothing to do with September 11th.
Dream, you've repeatedly implied that all the folks who are troubled by the proposed location are per se racists and bigots. I've given you multiple opportunities here to back away from that, and instead you've simply reprised your original implication.
ReplyDeleteToo bad you won't take the opportunity to understand and respect the legitimate feelings of people when you don't like their opinions.
To say any more would be to simply repeat cogent and sensible points which you have continued to ignore, because they can't be conveniently incorporated into you core contention that this is all about racists trying to oppress muslims.
Shorter Dream: "You're a bigot and an asshole because I disagree with what I wish to represent you as saying, so go fuck yourself."
ReplyDeleteNote that Dream's argument is based on the explicit assertion that the siting of the "Ground Zero Mosque" is entirely innocent of any malicious intent whatsoever on the part of the promoters, and the assertion that to oopose it one must be a bigot. The first assertion is even less supported by the small amount of information available than the contra assertion of mailicious intent. In the latter there is circumstantial evidence of potential malicious intent simply in the choice of location and proposed usage, as well as in the reluctance on the part of the promoters to reveal their proposed funding sources for the project. And the second assertion is simply nonsense, consisting of nothing but the extremely shopworn playing of the "bigot" card in an attempt to forestall examination of the issue. Really, give it a rest. Playing that card as an opener mainly indicates a lack of other tools in someone's intellectual toolbox.
Bottom line: the choice of location is at best indeed "insensitive" and tone-deaf to public perceptions as to the intent and purpose of the project. One need hardly be a bigot to hold such an opinion, and indeed, a majority of Americans (including majorities of liberals and New Yorkers) are opposed to the mosque siting proposal. Even many American Muslims find the proposal to be highly questionable as to intent and motivations.
There obviously ARE similarities between the reaction to the mosque proposal and the funeral picketing of the WBC, making comparisons relevant for purposes of discussion. Both involve First Amendment principles, and both are actions that push hard against public opinion under the shelter of the First. The unresolved (and at this time undeterminable by existing evidence) question is, are the actions of the mosque promoters motivated by the same "in your face" intent as the WBC actions?
That question is seperate from the legal aspects. If the site zoning allows the building of the mosque on that site as a "by right" usage, that's the end of the legal discussion. They can build it. But one certainly need not be a bigot to think it's a (understatement follows) less-than-sensitive idea to do so, just as one need not be a temperance crusader to not want a nightclub moving in next door.
Or, I should add, just as one need not be an anti-Christian "bigot" to find the WBC antics objectionable.
ReplyDeleteCranky Critter writes:
ReplyDelete"Dream, you've repeatedly implied that all the folks who are troubled by the proposed location are per se racists and bigots. I've given you multiple opportunities here to back away from that, and instead you've simply reprised your original implication."
Yeah, I do think that being instinctively "troubled" by this nonissue indicates some level of prejudice. I really wish it didn't, because I don't want to be able to use the term 'bigot' to describe people who don't make their prejudices their hobby. That's why I qualified my characterization.
I do think those that succumb to the "this just isn't right" gut reaction are giving in to their innate prejudices, however. Having sympathy for the circumstantial bigotry of others amounts to giving cover to that bigotry.
This isn't an case of just nominally siding with or ending up on the same side of an issue with craven bigots.
For example, I'm against race-based affirmative action measures in hiring and education, and my "nay" position nominally puts me on the side of the most vile hate hate groups in existence.
The key difference and point of separation is that I don't think the motivations and intentions behind the policy were wrong, means-spirited, unjust, or in bad faith. Hate groups vehemently do, and they use the language of victimization to say so, along with opposing it because it benefits people they hate.
When you say that the Park 51 developers are "in your face," you're making them the provocative malefactors who want to stir shit up and upset people. You don't have any basis for this.
I criticize you for using this rhetoric because its the same rhetoric that's used by people to express other forms of bigotry like homophobia. Gay rights make them "uncomfortable" because they've seen clips of a men in assless leather chaps (natch) parading in San Francisco on the teevee, an its just so "in your face" and "wrong."
"Too bad you won't take the opportunity to understand and respect the legitimate feelings of people when you don't like their opinions."
What's the distinction between 'legitimate feelings' and illegitimate ones? I think that outright, vocally loud bigots -- like Wesboro -- have very sincere feelings which motivate them and their strongly provocative actions. I have absolutely no reason to believe that they don't truly hate gay people. They really wear their hearts on their shirtsleeves. Why should I understand and respect such feelings? Especially when their feelings are the driving force behind the flawed, indefensible opinions they espouse.
I don't "understand and respect" the feelings of they who are "troubled" by inconsequential matters because having a feeling just isn't damn good enough to earn my respect, frankly. I respect rational thought which is based in fact and reason.
That said, I will retract calling you an asshole. I shouldn't have, because you aren't one.
But I do maintain that your comparison between the Park 51 project and the Westboro Baptists, especially under the rubric of "right and wrong" was thoughtless and intellectually lazy.
Tully said:
ReplyDelete"Or, I should add, just as one need not be an anti-Christian "bigot" to find the WBC antics objectionable."
This completely misses the point. The reason people are objecting to the Park 51 project is that Muslims are doing it. People don't object to Wesboro's protests because they're Christian. They reject it because its intentionally inflammatory and hateful. It has NOTHING to do with their faith, as this sentiment would apply to anyone performing such acts celebrating the death of soldiers in proximity to their funerals, in the name of 'god's hatred for fags'.
In contrast, the atavistic reaction to Park 51 is all simply BECAUSE its Muslims that are seeking to build their facility there. They're getting attacked just as much for who they are as for what they're doing. There would not be this level of hostility against a Jewish or Christian group seeking to build a house of worship there, so close to the open wounds of September 11th, now would there?
@Dream
ReplyDeleteJust as a point of accuracy, at no time did you call Cranky an asshole. You told him to go fuck himself. It was me that called you an asshole, a characterization that you agreed with later in the thread. Having reached this meeting of the minds, I subsequently withdrew from the discussion.
LOL, mw.
ReplyDeleteThere would not be this level of hostility against a Jewish or Christian group seeking to build a house of worship there...
See other thread, example of the Carmelite nunnery at Auschwitz. As for there being no problem with a Jewish or Christian church being built that close to Ground Zero, do tell us how no one has stalled or prevented the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church from rebuilding. Apparently someone in NYC government has a little problem with that one, as they've reneged on their deals with the Church, unilaterally changing previously-agreed terms.
They're getting attacked just as much for who they are as for what they're doing.
No, they're being criticized for is wanting to build WHAT they have proposed WHERE they have proposed it. Move it several blocks farther away and precious few will give a hoot. There are Shinto shrines in Hawaii, but none at the gates of Hickham Field and Pearl Harbor Naval Base. (The nearest equivalent is a Buddhist temple miles two miles away. The nearest Shinto shrine is five miles away. That's as the crow flies -- the road distances are much longer.) There are Roman Catholic churches in Israel. Would you consider the Israelis to be religious bigots if they vocally objected to the Vatican building one at Masada?
People don't object to Wesboro's protests because they're Christian.
Beg to differ, from decades of acquaintance with the WBC on their home turf here in the Bible Belt. Christians here object to them even more because they claim to be Christians, and WBC is giving them a bad name. Much as many American Muslims think the GZM is a Bad Idea.
They reject it because its intentionally inflammatory and hateful.
Which is exactly how many see the Ground Zero Mosque project. One can certainly claim that absent more evidence that the intentions of the developers to be inflammatory and hateful are not present, but that wears thinner the more it becomes obvious that it is perceived as inflammatory and hateful, and the obvious evidence that even if the project is commenced with the purest of motives (as was the Carmelite nunnery) it will still be perceived as a "Victory Mosque" by the radical islamists who want to destroy America, and gave it a shot on 9-11-2001.
Point being that the WHAT and the WHERE are the offensive elements to most of those opposed, a crowd that polling indicates includes 54% of all Democrats. There are dozens of mosques in NYC, and there is no majority national outcry against them. And precious few seem to think that putting in the new structure a bit farther away would be inflammatory or hateful -- it's the preferred resolution. Seems that altering the single element of WHERE (not WHO or WHAT) would be sufficient to defuse the controversy. If the single element of WHO was the primary driving factor, there would be endless protests right up the street from me, where our local mosque (built AFTER 9/11, I note, with no protests) is busily expanding.
People are exercising their First Amendment right of free speech to protest what looks like to them an inflammatory and hateful project. I find it interesting that those who claim the Imam is pure in intent (something they cannot know) simultaneously assert that opposition can not be likewise pure, and can only be motivated by a hatred of Muslims, when the evidenc suggests that the majority of those opposed are not so motivated.
Tully,
ReplyDeleteYour repeated use of the dishonest and misleading "Ground Zero Mosque" phrasing and abbreviation indicates to me that you're not really looking to debate, but instead to repeat lies about what and where this proposed building really is and would be.
As much as I want to assail your flawed and flimsy arguments, I'm not going to, because I think you're acting in bad faith.
Shorter Dream: "I can't win this argument unless you accept my premises, and since I am unwilling or unable to assert, support, and defend my premises, I'm going to call you names, accuse you of bad faith, and run away."
ReplyDeleteHow impressive.
Shorter Tully: "Ground Zero Mosque, Ground Zero Mosque, Ground Zero Mosque."
ReplyDeleteLies. Lies. Lies.
LOL & QED.
ReplyDeleteObvously someone's been drinking the "It's not a mosque and it's not at Ground Zero" Kool-Aid™. Let's take that in order.
Just as a church is defined simply as a place of regular worship, a mosque is defined simply as a place of regular Islamic worship. The party line from the wingnut left has been that the building "is not a mosque, it's a community center that will be open to the public." Well, the entire structure would not be a mosque, but according to the Imam himself (and the Park51 website) it is planned to contain a mosque, and according to the Imam's wife 1,000 to 2,000 Muslims are expected to pray at the mosque every Friday. The MOSQUE (once again, according to the Imam and his wife) will only be open to Muslims. Are you calling the Imam and his wife liars?
"It's not at Ground Zero, it's two blocks away." This one requires using an extremely "tight" definition of what Ground Zero 9/11 consists of. It is indeed two short blocks, about 550 feet, from the north construction fence bounding the still-closed portion of the WTC site. It is one short block from (250 feet) the original WTC7 building, which collapsed on 9/11 and which has since been rebuilt*. The BC building itself was uninhabited and on the market because of extensive damage from being struck by chunks of airplane on 9/11, chunks which crashed through the roof and the top few floors. It is WELL inside the zone where human remains are still being recovered, years later. (Human remains from the 9/11 attacks have been found as far away as the East River, over half a mile from the Twin Towers.) If anyone is quilty of technical parsing there, it's folks denying that the project is at Ground Zero. The MOSQUE-CONTAINING project would be located on the site of a building severely damaged in the 9/11 attacks, which is apparently close enough for at least 2/3rds of the American public.
Ground Zero + Mosque = Ground Zero Mosque. I'm pretty sure that no one is all that opposed to a community center open to the public, regardless of the developer's religion. They're opposed to a mosque being built at Ground Zero, where none stood before.
[*--the distance from the BC site to the new WTC7 building is about 380 feet -- there is now a small park on the east end of the property where the corner of the old WTC7 building stood.]