Now, that we've both come down to earth, I want to explain my position in the most basic sense. Again, this is strictly my viewpoint so, please, take it in the spirit that it is intended. It's fairly long, so stick with it if you can. For me, it's unshakeable.
I'm patently and vehemently opposed to the notion of ANY group in America that has been put under the gun or unfairly persecuted from having to justify its existence. Personally, the notion of any group being required, asked, suggested, whatever, to "sell itself" or repair its image in any way -- namely because others are uncomfortable or even filled with misinformation -- is offensive to me on so many levels. That includes suggesting that a group "give more to charity," "renounce things" and all that sort of stuff. It ties back into what I said much earlier in this thread. It implies that we as a society are defining that entire group by the acts of a few. For example, that notion again of *all* Muslims having to wear some sort of badge of shame and, as a result, being required to atone in a way that "we" see fit. The fact that a group would even feel that sort of pressure is very sad to me. It says a lot about our society, and how we flippantly and arrogantly judge as well as point the finger of blame to an entire entity.
This also ties into the concept of a persecuted group "wanting to 'repair' its image on its own." That is, we need to ask the question as a society as to *why* *we've* put them in that place to begin with that they even feel a *need* to explain themselves or makeover that image? As I said before, no law-abiding religious group in America needs to explain itself for the acts of a select or fringe few! I'll guarantee you this; if that same law-abiding, persecuted group is making commercials for themselves and having to explain that they're not "scary people," giving magazine interviews to defend themselves, electing a celebrity spokesman or making some grand and public monetary donation as some sort of society-induced penance, suggestion or requirement, it isn't because the mood struck them, or they didn't have better things to do. They've been *put* in that position to defend, and we have no business to do that!
As an example, John Demjanjuk is a member of the church I was baptized in -- a church I've probably set foot in 5 times in the last 30 years and in which I'm not even a member. Does that mean the Ukrainian Orthodox church as a whole, or any of its outlying connections (i.e. me!), be put in a position to "makeover our image" should Demjanjuk ultimately be found guilty (again!) of his alleged horrific atrocities and terror against humanity. Of course not. And, when we "ask, suggest or require" a group as an entire entity to do this, that's exactly what we're expecting -- mass atonement, apologies and defense! All so when can feel a little more secure in our self-righteous indignation. That's very wrong to me.
Instead, I believe that we need to change the *culture* of misinformation, fear and hatred. In this case, the people pointing those fingers of judgment and (often fake) umbrage need to be the recipients of any "information campaign." Additionally, those exploiting that fear and hatred need to be mercilessly exposed. *These* folks are the cause, and it's OUR responsibility as a civilized society to make sure that information gets out there -- not the group being persecuted. If the Imam wants to give an interview explaining, for example, the economic and logistic realities of building the community center, the particulars of that center, or even the history of that particular branch, that's fine. But, I strongly make that distinction from a group being "suggested," required or even guilted into mounting some sort of wholesale PR campaign as an entire entity. To me, as noted earlier, PR campaigns and makeovers conjure up images of groups having to defend themselves, apologize, prove their worthiness or prove that they're not a threat. In a nutshell, assimilate and atone while others do nothing but judge the outcome from the comfort of their homes. This includes folks who have no intention of having their opinions altered. I'm sure, Muslim-Americans -- our fellow Americans -- have better things to do with their time (and money) than spending their lives appeasing some dentist in Peoria...or some hate-mongering pastor in Florida. Again, this applies to ANY law-abiding group that is being unfairly persecuted.
Does this make any sense?