"BUT: the same arguments seem to hold against the construction and hypocricy of the Mosque."

The correct way to put that argument is, of course, "AND the same arguments seem to hold against the construction and hypocricy of the Mosque". I don't understand why you're using the Mosque as an argument that invalidates the argument of the petition. If anything it strengthens it. By all means, start a movement of the mosque which I'm sure many people here will support.

"This is where I beg to introduce my points: If one wants to be objective and coherent, one needs to ALSO oppose the construction of the Mosque with the same diligence that s/he opposes the construction of the Christian Church. Otherwise, there seems to be a problem- an incoherence and a bias."

If a movement doesn't do what you want it do that doesn't cancel it. Think about this as an analogy for what you're doing: someone starts a petition, or a protest on the mosque but I argue against it with the argument that it doesn't include the issue of the Church.

In other words, your argument actually strikes me as a passive-aggresive way of saying "if you don't protest about the mosque, or as well, you're biased because clearly that's a more important issue and its inclusion is what's needed to validate your protest". Which, frankly, sounds like you're the one with the bias, indirectly trying to discredit this protest.

A more constructive argument you could have made, if your intention is to protest against both buildings, would be to propose joining forces with the people protesting in the North. How about that?

#12: Γιώργος Κακούρης - re; ένας 

Dear Giorgos: You are right on the BUT and AND issue. Well put.

I didn't say that the movement should be cancelled. I wrote that I find no weakness in its cause.

I disagree that it is me dscrediting the protest. I think the protest is discredited by the fact that (in my opinion) a big proportion of the momentum behind this protest is politically informed, on an other level. That is what I find problematic with the momentum.  

On the other hand, I need to clarify that indeed this particular petition is the most well-informed, detailed and serious of all, with clear references to architectural, social and civil reasons. And in this regard it is an excellent protest. But again: is it also inevitably anchored to the political cause of not letting the Church, not just as a corporation but also as an establishment of false values (I am an atheist myself), dominate and extend its power. And on this: the same holds of Muslims. And I think that Cyprus' long history of ethnic violence, which cannot be removed from the picture, is anchored to the way we respond to to the two biggest religious, opposing, organizations, which have informed the ethnic violence in the first place. This is something that cannot be overlooked and if one is to oppose religion one has to be careful to be as objective as possible.

I do not think that the argument of the petition is invalidated. But it will become much stronger if the same petition is somehow extended to other analogous problems. How can it be invalidated since the issue of the Mosque arose just now and became an issue only afterwards?

The phrasing used before was indeed passive-aggressive and provocatory. But the target was not to discredit the protest. The target was to put things in another perspective which I find to be important and valid.