Sirs: The analogy that you use here is flawed. I see your point, but I disagree with it.
Your basic premise is that if Muslims can build a Mosque (ICC or whatever) near Ground Zero then WBC should be able to hold protests near a child's funeral. You suggest that the expression of religious freedom by building an edifice is equal to the expression of religious freedom by protesting. You further assert that proximity to Ground Zero is analagous to proximity to the funeral.
I disagree with both analogies. Building a Mosque, Church, Temple, Cultural Center or what have you is a normal function of any religious organization. It is a maintenance activity, if you will. If someone is building a church in your neighborhood, you would not take any special note of it. You MIGHT be more interested if it were a Mosque, or a Mormon Temple, or a Church of Scientology or some other controversial sect simply because of the controversy itself. But there is nothing inherently offensive about raising a religious edifice. Protesting in a very disgusting way is, however, not a normal "maintenance" activity. It is an active attempt to disrupt proceedings, draw attention to your cause, and actively confront others. It is INTENTIONALLY in-your-face, while church building is only incidentally so (if at all). So I do not agree that building a Mosque is analogous to protest activities.
For the second point, proximity to an area which has a special meaning is not analogous to proximity to a specific activity. The former, even if intentional, is simply choosing a location. The latter is choosing an ACTIVITY. The protest would have no significance if it were held in the same place a day later. it is targetting a PERSON (in this case the child) instead of an organization - such as a government or a religion - or perhaps a policy. As such, it is far more offensive than than simply building an edifice.
FTR I support, however reluctantly, the WBC's right to protest at funerals on first amendement grounds. I do not, however, equate the actions of the WBC iwith those of the members of a faith simply trying to build a place of worship and cultural information. The latter activity I find to be appropriate, resposnsible and positive, even though some find the location distasteful. The former has no merit whatsoever, and may be defended only on the grounds that even idiots have the right to speak.
