It's interesting to contrast the way the media and obama (of course that is the same thing) handled the GZ mosque issue and this pastor. With the mosque it was all defending religious freedoms, First Amendment, etc. With this pastor , it's all denunciations, warnings he will get our troops killed, etc.
In both cases there are First Amendment issues, but I would argue this pastor has far greater First Amendment protection. He is making a religious demonstration, ie calling attention to the fact that the quran and islam are incompatible with Christianity. That is a core First Amendment value. The fact that Eric Holder or Gen. Patreus don't agree with him is beside the point. The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular viewpoints.
With the GZ mosque, no one is denying the right of muslims to build mosques or worship, no matter how unpatriotic or unamerican their message. It is purely a matter of land use. Because of the unique nature of GZ, a mosque is inappropriate there for the same reason a Walmart shouldn't be built on Manassas battlefield. Building permits are denied all the time for Christian churches on land use grounds. Casting opponents of the GZ mosque as religious bigots is both wrong and, ironically, an example of attempted censorship.
