A religious minority decides to build a house of worship in an area considered unacceptable by fringe elements of the religious majority. Although the country professes religious tolerance, and the group has a legal right to build their temple in said area, they are harassed by radicals and ignored by leaders and officials eager to gain political points.
No, it's not the mosque planned for construction in downtown New York, but it's awfully similar. Ground Zero in this case is Bekasi, on the outskirts of Jakarta, Indonesia. In the world's most populous Muslim nation, a Christian group is trying to build a church on land which belongs to them. They've been threatened, harassed while worshipping, and physically attacked on their way to services. The mayor has asked them to move, and of course they've refused.
Indonesia is a secular nation, and religious tolerance is one of the pillars of the constitution which are recited by schoolchildren. But lately the radical voices have been getting louder and more forceful, and tolerance is taking a beating. Although the attackers have been arrested, the government in general has been accused of taking a soft line and not aggressively countering the threats of the extremists leveled at the Bekasi Christian group.
One has to wonder how the anti-mosque crowd in America feels about all this? If it's not okay to build a mosque in New York, then surely it's not okay to build a church in Jakarta? Skeptics may argue that it's not the same situation — that the mosque proponents haven't been physically attacked, and that the location in Bekasi doesn't carry the same significance that Ground Zero in NYC does. And for the most part they'd be right, although the local community in Bekasi apparently finds it quite offensive that a church might be built there, in the same way that some are offended by the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero. It's not exactly the same situation, but the similarities are striking, and it's hard to imagine an anti-mosque protester putting forth a logical argument why the Bekasi church should be allowed when the mosque shouldn't.
And what about the anti-church extremists in Bekasi? If they're not willing to tolerate a church in their neighborhood, then they can't possibly expect to see that mosque built in NYC, can they?