I've been thinking about the examples posters have been giving comparing a status or whatever near the Arizona Memorial to what's happening w/this mosque near ground zero, and it occured to me there are two distinct differences between the two:
1) the mosque isn't being built on Ground Zero. It does make a difference, IMO.
2) I don't believe commercial zoning laws would come into play if the Japanesse were to attempt to erect a statue at or near the USS Arizona Memorial. I could be wrong, but I doubt that would be the case.
So, why would the above make any difference? For starters, building or placing something directly on secrade, hallowed ground is far different from doing so near same. Ground Zero is the epicenter of the 9/11 attacks. You could make the argument that NYC was, but since the city was affected by the attack but not destroyed by it, I think it's clear what the intended target was. Otherwise, all of lower Manhatton was affected by the attack, i.e., dust that covered NYC all the way to the harbor, and you'd have to take the entire city into account.
Second, erecting a statue is very different from constructing a commercial building. You can donate a statue and it likely wouldn't require adherence to any zoning laws; you can't construct a building w/o dealing with zoning laws and having the proper permits issued by law.
So, that gets us back to "locality" on hallowed ground and "obeying the law" of the land. And, of course, upholding Constitutional values domestically and abroad. To some, I know this won't matter, but when you start to really look at the details, it actually does make a bit of a difference.
Now, would I be okay with the Japanesse placing a statue over the Arizona Memorial? Nope! Absolutely not!! Why? Because I'd see that as desecrating a national monument left to honor the dead. I would, however, be okay with the Japanesse placing a statue near (as in "next to") the Arizona Memorial depending on why they're doing it and what the inscription would read. If they did so to honor their dead along with ours, my answer would be no. But if they did so to honor our dead only, sure...I'd have no problem with that because I'd see that as a form of an apology. This mosque thing is different in that you don't dedicate places of worship. You simply go their to worship. And the argument that there's already a mosque in the area is invalid. I can drive within a quarter mile from my house and pass 3 churches. In fact, there are atleast 7 churches in my neighborhood alone, most Christian, one Korean, one Catholic, one Penecostal. So, the 1 or more mosques at or near Ground Zero argument is a weak one, IMO.
Anyway, just some food for thought...