A couple of points, which may be a bit disjointed:
1) The situation gives us a unique moment to step back and think about what we mean by the terms we use today. What is it to call something "Ground Zero"? That particular phrase, the cadence of it, will of course reference another moment in the course of human history, the moment of the atom bomb.
"Ground Zero," the moment of first impact, the single point from which all other destruction emanates. It has been remarked that terror, the element which makes the 9/11 attacks truly monumental, is not a function of the attacks' relation to the past or present, but to the future, that which is to come. And so long as we remain paralyzed by fear in the light of that which is to come, we remain fundamentally scarred, we allow the repercussions from that single impact to spread beyond "Ground Zero" and through not only the space of two blocks, but the time and cultural fabric of the world.
To remain hateful, which is only a magnification of fearful, fearful to the point where snap judgments become the norm, assumptions become fact, only re-perpetrates, re-perpetuates, the shockwaves of "Ground Zero." It is perhaps understandable that we, that is to say not only America but also the "civilized world" (to use a turn of phrase, not to agree with it), do sometimes renew that fear. But to enter into a squabble such as this over the simple terrain near the site where the attacks happened--something that is linked to but altogether separate from the attacks themselves--is a sign that "Ground Zero" is not just a site, not just an event in history, but an event in the present--the shockwaves, and the damage of hate, continues. The opponent's weapon, so to speak, continues to detonate... a sign that the greater opponent, that is not to say al-Qa'ida or even terrorists, but terror itself, is winning...?
2) The situation calls to mind another event linked to my family's own experience. I am a Japanese-American, born and raised in Hawai'i. The entirety of my grandparents' generation lived in Hawaii during World War II, and my great uncle fought a fight not unlike the one that is being fought by the Muslims who are trying to build this community center. During the war, Congress and FDR passed laws making it illegal for groups of Japanese-Americans (over 5 I believe) to gather in one place. This meant, in short, that the community centers for the Japanese in Hawaii had to be closed. My uncle, with the help of wealthy plantation owners, who were white, re-purposed the community center as one for the neighborhood rather than Japanese-Americans. To this day, that community center maintains a Japanese-American "flavor," but is (as it was even before the war) open to all races and nationalities.
While my great uncle fought legally to save the community center, his twin brother and one of my other great uncles were in Europe, fighting for the U.S. against the Nazis because they were not allowed to fight in the Pacific theater. There, they undertook some of the most dangerous missions and survived against the most deadly odds.
Finally, my great aunt served with the Swiss consulate, bringing comfort, care packages, and letters to Japanese-Americans who were interned by our government.
I do not think that, by any stretch of the imagination, any of these actions was unpatriotic. Yet by Scarlet's categorization of people by a simple label--whether it be Japanese or Muslim--these heroic individuals would have been considered enemies. And in WWII, it might have been a more honest and accurate characterization to say that 80% of Japanese in the world hated America, or at least considered it an enemy.
So to Scarlet, I applaud your service, just as I applaud the service of those men--white, black, Japanese, or otherwise--with whom my great uncles served. At the same time, though, I caution you against drawing absolutes. I realize this is hard, especially with events like the Ft. Hood shooting where the threat truly did come from within. But at the same time, as not only I and some of the other forum posters here have said, but also as our Commander-in-Chief and his predecessor have said, this is not a war against Islam; it is a war for the hearts and minds of the Islamic world. To block their right to congregate (as stipulated in the First Amendment) on land which, as has been pointed out, they own, is to have failed to learn the lessons for which my ancestors--and your ancestors, assuming your family has been American since WWII--paid such a high price.
Now if you believe, as you have said more recently (sorry, started typing before you posted), that no religious building should be built there, if it should be reserved as part of a two-block sacred space of some sort, that could be fine--but the government that mandates such should be prepared to provide the Islamic center with another comparable space to meet and worship.