Some liberals are outraged at suggestions that the "ground zero mosque" shouldn't be built at the location that is proposed by its imam. "Freedom of religion" and "tolerance of first amendment exercise" are the cries. To argue that it should be built elsewhere sends to Muslims and others a signal that we are intolerant, say these liberals, whereas to allow it to be build near "ground zero" shows how tolerant we are and demonstrates our willingness to live up to our constitutional ideals regardless of the impact of the protected action on those who find it offensive.
At the same time, however, some of these same liberals are outraged at the exercise of free speech that inheres in that pastor's proposed burning of the Koran. "It will inflame Muslims; it will endanger the troops," are the cries.
So which is it? Is the pastor's action, undeniably protected by the first amendment, nevertheless to be condemned because of the effect it may have on some who witness it, whereas the mosque should not be moved notwithstanding the effect of the act on those who oppose its location? Is the propriety of exercise of first amendment freedoms--freedom of speech, exercise of religion, to assemble and to petition the government for redress--dependent on the reaction of those who oppose the exercise? Not in my America, it's not.