moscow

I've tried not to pay close attention to the roiling Mosque/Islamic Center at Ground Zero controversy, but there appear to be multiple arguments made by the Antis.

1. Offends victims of 9/11
2a. Funded by Saudis
2b. Saudi money will turn people who visit the center into Sharia-ists and terrorists
3. Islam is a murderous ideology
4. Rauf is a trojan horse terrorist

I find:

#1: to be reasonable, but not persuasive. The logical or moral arguments for why this would be the case need to be elaborated. Why are the victims of 9/11 relevant? How and why would they be offended?

#2a: this could be true, yet it could be irrelevant vis-a-vis the proposed center. Presumably, if it were funded by Bill Gates there would be no controversy for the Antis (I don't believe this).

#2b: this would help #2a, but it is conjecture not fact. One would have to spell out how this would happen in the USA.

#3: Whether this is true or false, it is irrelevant to the matter at hand (the location of the center).

#4: There's no evidence for this.

What I would prefer from the Antis is some honesty. I would prefer that they simply, openly state their hatred of Islam and Muslims, because this antipathy is the premise for #1-4, which are rationalizations of it. In fact, #1-4 would be unnecessary if this simple statement of hatred were articulated.
In other words: "We hate Islam and Muslims, that's why we don't want this center to be located near 'Ground Zero."

This is the only "Anti" reason that is compelling, and, although I don't agree with it, it has the merit of being less obfuscatory than the other arguments.