Religion & Law

I do not want to turn MoJ into the "mosque near Ground Zero blog," but I do think this is an issue that is close to the heart of this blog's mission, so I want to take one more stab at clarifying the potential (non-bigoted) opposition arguments.  It seems to me that there are four:

1) Muslims share some degree of collective guilt for 9/11 due to some element(s) within their tradition's teaching, the failure to sufficiently condemn 9/11 using resources wtihin the tradition, or some other reason related to the nature, teachings, and/or practice of Islam. 

2) The particular Muslims who are proposing Park51 share some degree of guilt for 9/11, not due to their status as Muslims, but due to some specific acts or omissions that they have committed as Muslims. 

3)  Even if #1 and #2 are false, fallible human beings, when faced with evils committed in the name of a religion / group / movement, will tend to attribute guilt to other members of that religion / group / movement, and thus those other members should exercise self-restraint in a way that would be more consistent with #1 being true, even if it is not actually true.  

4) Even if Muslims in general, and these Muslims in particular, do not share in the guilt for 9/11, there is something about Islam that exacerbates, in an ongoing way, the hurt Americans feel as a result of 9/11, and Americans are justified in feeling this way.  Unless someone can articulate that justification, I think #4 veers directly into bigotry. 

As for the other three, I reject #1, and I have not seen evidence to persuade me of #2.  The unjustified attribution of guilt under #3, though not necessarily bigoted, seems to be a dicey ground for moving the mosque, as actions consistent with collective guilt would seem to be bolster the perception of collective guilt.  Are there any other non-bigoted arguments against the mosque?