Well, Imam Rauf's excuses for refusing to move the Ground Zero mosque are disingenuous in the extreme, but nothing is worse than this:
"My major concern with moving it is that the headline in the Muslim world will be Islam is under attack in America," [Rauf] said. "This will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world."
So help me understand this "logic." If Americans refuse to embrace a mosque at Ground Zero -- where radical Muslims attacked America -- radical Muslims will believe that Islam is under attack in America? That is, by opposing construction of a symbol of a religion whose radical elements attacked our country, at the site of that attack, the radical elements will construe themselves to be under attack? Ridiculous.
If the Imam is truly the "man of peace" that he claims to be -- and with the credibility in Muslim circles that he professes to have -- than he should be using this as a "teaching moment" for the radical Muslim world. Surely they would not welcome construction of a church at a site where radical Christians attacked a Muslim country in the name of Christianity.
It doesn't take a lot of moral imagination to see the perspective of mosque opponents. It does, perhaps, take some courage to articulate it to the radical Muslim world. But under Rauf's formulation, truly, the terrorists will have won. They terrorize this country with an attack, and then when Americans protest construction of a mosque at that site, they're told that doing will upset those who attacked them in the first place.