Under Foxman, the ADL's traditional commitment to civil rights has been subordinated to his single-minded pursuit of what he believes are Jewish - and especially Israeli - interests. It's past time for donors who keep this one of the richest ethnic-based interest groups in the country to bounce him out. Influence of the ADL has spread to the point where media - and even government - rely on it as arbiter of what is and what is not "tolerance", "racism" and "hate". Under Foxman, its integrity in such bizarre, profound capacity is nonexistent, and its power dangerous.

So while the ADL is out trying to stop mosques from being built who is protecting its members against actual anti-Semitism?

A parallel might be the ACLU only defending the rights of Mormons; or Corporate-persons.

The anti-defamers have dropped the anti. If they want to shove their bogus use of Mecca as a standard down our throats, these flaming anti-American hypocrites should first get the h out of America. We have a different set of standards here. Accept it or leave.

The Mecca analogy is obviously distorted unless we wish to emulate Saudi Arabia. Is that the hidden goal of the anti-Mosque movement?

To some, a Church, Temple, Mosque is offensive. But this is not just a legal issue regarding freedom from a state inspired faith, ie freedom of faith, but I think there are some free speech issues as well. How else can you exlain it? Is a Temple ok or is a new Church ok? It is weird.

For the ADL to take this position is stunning. Strange. It negates it's existence. Foxman is a true idiot and a jerk. He's the same ass who tried to attenuate the genocide of the armenian people. Yes, there is a need for an ADL, but not this one, with this leader. He, Foxman, should be shunned. I'm deeply ashamed of him. Disgusting.

ADL says:

"In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain—unnecessarily—and that is not right."

I suspect some Palestinians would have said the same thing about the location of the State of Israel 62 years ago - and probably still do. Would they be justified in saying that has caused people whom they, at least, consider victims, and that it was therefore "not right"?

Even bringing the comparison down to something a little closer to scale, what about any number of the settlements that have been erected in the West Bank over the last 43 years?

ADL says:

"In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain—unnecessarily—and that is not right."

I suspect some Palestinians would have said the same thing about the location of the State of Israel 62 years ago - and probably still do. Would they be justified in saying that has caused people whom they, at least, consider victims, and that it was therefore "not right"?

Even bringing the comparison down to something a little closer to scale, what about any number of the settlements that have been erected in the West Bank over the last 43 years?

Almost as bad as the ADL's tacit acquiescence to a plainly prejudiced and bigoted program is the backhanded and weasel-worded way in which they presented it: basically: "We're morally opposed to religious discrimination - except in THIS case", hedging their opposition with irrelevancies about "feelings" and "controversy"; while ignoring the overall impact. Or, more precisely, trying to paper over it with trite pieties about "opposing bigotry".

Sad - the ADL is/was one of those long-time Civil Rights organizations with a long and proud history for actually standing up for what is "right". Seeing it descend into the sort of cheap tribalism Newt Gingrich can applaud is VERY depressing.

Americans should never forget the killing of over thirty of our sailors when the Israeli air force attacked the U.S.S. Liberty under the direct orders of Moshe Dayan. June, 1967.

Dayan knew exactly what he was doing. His airmen were sick to their stomachs having had to carry out his orders.

Let's keep in mind that people can find the idea of building a mosque at ground zero a bad idea for all sorts of reasons some of them not illegitimate.

Think of it this way: Some people might think that whatever you build on ground zero will be an invitation for a repeat attack. So why not build a mosque there and sort of tell Bin Laden, "here bomb this muthafukka!!". I don't know if that crossed anybody's mind but it would provide some logic for building a mosque there.

Let's face it whether anyone wants to acknowledge or not--shove it under the rug or what--but our operations in the Middle East and Central Asia piss people off in that region and they happen to be mostly Muslims so to maintain that 9-11 was the work of some extreme fringe unrepresentative of Muslim sentiment is a little nutty. Most Muslims, I would suppose might have at least some degree of sympathy with the attackers if only vicariously, or suppressed. Palestinians danced on the streets. Nobody likes their territory invaded. So what's exactly is the point of building a Mosque at ground zero suppose to prove? That there is NOT in this massive conflict we are in?

You are right on target here MJ! Every organization, but particularly those associated with a religion of any kind are revealing themselves to be the fearful, ignorant bigots that they are. It's sad, but for nearly 10 years now people have been pumped full of anti-Islamic bullshit and they have been goaded into believing that the problem of terrorism is a conflict between the "judeo-christian" west and Islam. Lots of people now believe that to be the case despite all facts to the contrary and the idiocy of the ADL demonstrates this sad fact perfectly.