Ken Connor Takes on Obama Over Ground Zero Mosque and Terry Jones' Plan to Burn Qurans

Ken Connor, best known nationally for being the former chairman of the Family Research Council and remembered in Tallahassee for his stints in charge of Florida Right-to-Life and his bid for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 1994, offered his take on the recent controversy in Gainesville where Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center wanted to mark the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by burning Qurans.

Connor, now with the Center for a Just Society, ripped into President Barack Obama for being inconsistent with the Constitution when it came to freedom of religion -- and expression.

The president, for one, had no difficulty in standing up for the First Amendment rights of those wishing to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero, despite the highly offensive nature of the project, wrote Connor in an e-mail sent out to supporters on Friday. He unequivocally stated his view that Muslim-Americans have a right to build a mosque wherever they wish to build one, be it Ground Zero or any other location allowed by law. The inappropriateness of the project's proposed location didn't merit a word from the commander in chief. The insult to the memory of those that died on that spot nine years ago at the hands of fanatical Muslim terrorists didn't warrant a call for compassionate restraint.

The nuanced distinction between right and rectitude that the president should have acknowledged with regard to the Ground Zero mosque proposal was instead employed against the pastor in Florida, whose desire to burn the Quran was offensive and misguided yet nonetheless protected by the Constitution, continued Connor. In this instance the president's focus shifted from the legality of the action to the appropriateness of the action. A call for restraint was issued, pressure was applied, and the pastor backed down.

At no time during the Quran-burning controversy did the president see fit to address the troubling fact that Muslims often respond violently whenever their religious sensibilities are offended, added Connor. Yet the assassination of Theodore Van Gogh, the threats against Salman Rushdie and the violent response to the Danish cartoons that mocked Muhammad were not that long ago. Alas, the president and his emissaries seem resigned to the fact that Muslims often appear incapable of tolerating criticism of their faith with grace and civility. But is a policy of appeasement toward Islam a proper course under the Constitution? Does allowing Islam to occupy a criticism-free zone comport with American constitutional ideals? Or will such a policy increase the likelihood that the producers of Muslims Behaving Badly will be all the more inclined to trot out their act the next time any critic of Islam deigns to speak unkindly of the Islamic faith?

The current clash of civilizations is not going away, wrote Connor. Many European countries are struggling to deal with the fallout from tensions between their secular societies and Muslim immigrants. The American people need to know that they have a president who is prepared to protect and defend the liberties of all Americans, regardless of religion. When it comes to the Constitution, there is no room for double standards.