The Ground Zero mosque is quite controversial. Here are some of my thoughts:
1. Opponents generally concede that Muslims have the legal/Constitution right to build the mosque. Speaking for myself, I don’t assume that Muslims have any more right build a mosque there or elsewhere in the US than I concede that the Weather Underground, Animal Liberation Front, or Earth First! has a right to rent office space.
To take a comparison, consider the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Unfortunately, there’s no presumption that Muslim-Americans share these sentiments.
2. In addition, the Ground Zero mosque is just another attempt by Muslims to mainstream their image. Deceptive PR. When Muslims can’t subjugate the kafir by direct conquest, they resort to an incremental campaign of infiltration to gradually gain political power and dominance. We see this strategy play out in England, Europe, and Canada. And we also see it being implemented in places like Dearborn (to judge by reliable sources).
This should be resisted at every turn.