Koolcat, here's the critique you were promised (eventhough you never asked for it)

- "We that if 'islam' can get away with a stunt like this in America, it can get away with anything."

Really? No.

- "A triumphalist political statement" by religious representatives isn't part of religious freedom, Condell? Is that arbitrary garbage, or is that arbitrary nonsense?

- "I'd be interested to know how bad an insult has to be before it's no longer protected by the first amendement."

Uh, what!? Aren't you the guy who's always preaching anti-pussyfootery? Double standards anyone?

- Then he goes on about Bloomberg. I'm personally not that interested why exactly Bloomberg isn't being a bigot on this issue.

- His statements about not labeling it a "mosque" are garbage according to what I've heard. Apparently mosques have to meet certain standards which this supposed mosque lacks. I'm not sure if it's really relevant, but technically he's supposed to be wrong.

- "It will overlook the scene of conquest"

No it will not. There was no conquest, only destruction and death. His use of the word "conquest" amounts to revisionism.

- "No one knows where the funds are coming from"

I'm actually a little interested in knowing the details because I'm curious, but Condell's just picking up a FoxNews talking point here.

- "The supposedly moderate imam behind it supports sharia, the Iranian theocracy; he won't condemn terrorism, not even the use of children as suicide bombers and he blames America for 9/11."

This is a big one. I'll pretend as if it's important and address every point. Now, I'm only using Condell's links here so I may be missing things, but that's not my responsability. As far as I can tell the support for sharia is part of the support for the Iranian regime. I found no specific mention of it in the links. Hitchens points out that the Iranian Shia variant of theocratic democracy is actually not accepted by the Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and is hence controversial. It follows that the Cordoba guy is backing the least Western-friendly (democratic) side of the Shia coin. Fair enough, I guess. On to 9/11. I agree with the Cordoba guy. What can I say? As far as his comments about terrorism in general are concerned I agree with him as well. He does seem to be willfully ignorant of some of the issues. This brings us to the following question : Is it really so strange that a religious leader, who might not want to see his religion and his people tainted as terrorist, tries to downplay the essential component of religious indoctrination? If you read the Huffington Post article critically you'll perhaps recognize that being "unwilling to unequivocally condemn the deliberate murder of innocents via suicide terror" entail expressing ZERO understanding of the (non-religious) reasons for the violence. I do not subscribe to such garbage. Suicide terror is simply an extremely brave, desparate and/or foolish form of terrorist murder. (I really hate the kind of "journalism" the HPost is apparently involved in)

- Obama is no friend of mine so I'm not going to reply to his accusations about the speeches. I do take issue with the extremely weak argument that Obama can't say critical things about islam because "his audience is full of islamo-activists".

- "Everyone knows that 'islam' has done absolutely nothing for justice, progress, tolerance, or the dignity of human beings"

No, actually I'm way too ignorant about the subject to have an opinion on these matters. Perhaps the same is true of Condell.

- "When it comes to 'islam' the tolerance and the respect only ever go one way"

So coexistence of non-muslims with 'moderate' and fundamentalist muslims is nonexistent? Perhaps he's referring to muslim-majority countries. I think it's a lot more honest to say that barbaric societies have a nasty habit of turning against the minorities (from time to time). It's a universal and bears little to no unique relevance to 'islam'.

- What follows is some trash talk followed by the observation that "if the roles were reversed" there'd be no way the project would be allowed. And? And? Condell, what do you mean? Oh, I guess you didn't have a point and you know it.

Again Condell displays his dedication to rumor journalism, half-truths and outright small and big lies. Blanket statements ftw! Notice how he's not even trying to be funny in this one...

2*

ps The Sam Harris article is pretty good :)

Sorry Pat, you're wrong. Top two storeys will not overlook the World Trade site. There's a 25 storey building in the way. I walked about a block out of my way every day this past week on my way to the NY Mercantile Exchange from Chambers St. to see who and what were protesting at the Park 51 site.

I may hate religion in general but I respect believers and their right to do so.

3* only for this.