Last 3 points, 1st 2 of which have been mentioned already, as has been mentioned numerous times previously, which again blows the notion of sirs supposed "Islamic Intolerance" out of the water. If this country were being attacked by a concerted organization of "Catholic terrorists", both here & abroad, who were murdering in the name of God, and they managed to take down the Empire State Bldg, I'd be in just as much opposition of a Catholic Church wanting to be built across the street to the rubble of what was once the Empire State bldg, in which hundrdes, if not thousands had been murdered by those Catholic Terrorists. Even if was supported by the pope. Especially if it was a demand that that was the only place such a church could be built
So, that removes, once and for all the idea of Islamic intolerance on the part of Sirs.
2ndly, no one is claiming the Imam needed to show tolerance, so the idea that I was mandating him to is disingenuous, and likens to your flawed attempts to claim I demand a response from those where I merely reference a lack of response. His actions, or the lack there of to which I was merely referring to, demonstrate the intolerance associated.
Lastly, and connected with the above reference to disingenuous, it is indeed disingenuous of you to claim some "cut & run" tactic on my part, when I have consistently provided copious responses to many of your questions, often grossly repetitive as well as flawed in their premise. I merely grow fatigued of having to consistently correct you, to the same flaws and misrepresentation. So, trying to pull the "cut & run" merely to generate a response is.....disingenuous, given the current set of facts & reality