If building a mosque at Ground Zero is okay because it is a form of religious expression, why isn’t Koran burning?
If the President was a Moslem at any time in his (early?) life and switched to Christianity the Koran calls for his execution.
If the President said that he was in opposition to burning the Koran because he sympathized with Islam, it would be understandable. However, his reason appears to be fear of Moslems. Is free speech (expression) in America eliminated because someone does not like what is being said (done) and takes action to prevent that free expression? It is not because that would just be rewarding violence or the threat of violence.
Maybe the President could have said something like, “In America, freedom of religious expression allows a mosque to be built at Ground Zero as well as a minister to burn the Koran. I am not comfortable with either action because I represent all Americans and there are many upset by either/both actions. However, in America, law-abiding opposition can have its full say with full protection from harm.
I am glad that people in other countries are interested in what goes on in the United States. They certainly are entitled to their opinions regarding what we do and do not do. We welcome that here. However, threats against us because of a legal activity in America, will not cause us to end what we believe are legal activities. Threats aren’t going to end the freedoms we cherish here.”
(Under his breath he might have added, “When you allow a Christian church to be built in the center of your capital without consequences, I’ll begin to pay attention to your religious concerns. Your opposition sounds like hate to me and I won’t be swayed by that approach.”)