Going through some of the American newspapers and TV channels last month, I was reminded of Andrew Carnegie (a Scottish - American industrialist and a major philanthropist) who said, "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say; I just watch what they do."

When I went to America in 2007, President Barack Obama was a toast of the town everywhere; in the East and the West, from Chicago of the North to the Florida of the South - East.

In San Francisco, I saw coloured people keeping Barack Obama's cutouts of modest size in their kiosks and distributing fliers supporting him for the Presidency. It was a foregone conclusion that he would be the winner. And indeed, he won. All the issues like whether he was a Muslim or a Christian; black or white, were brushed aside.

But this year, it was different. The issue of whether he was a Christian or a Muslim was discussed this year in newspapers and television channels. I thought it was a settled issue.

Another issue was the proposed mosque near Ground Zero of 9 / 11 which is being hotly debated.

At a White House dinner hosted for the Muslims observing the holy month of Ramadan, President Barack Obama defended the freedom of Muslims to build a mosque and an Islamic centre near New York's Ground Zero, on their own land.

"Yes, Muslims have that right," he had said, explaining: "In this country, we treat everybody equal and in accordance with the laws, regardless of race, regardless of religion."

This naturally drew flak from a large section of people who were critical of a mosque and an Islamic centre just a few blocks from the Ground Zero, even though on a private land.

The very next day, President Obama changed tune and said, "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right the people have, that dates back to our founding."

The issue became so complex that people were deviating in their comments from the real issue to a non-issue of whether President Obama was a Muslim or a Christian, simply for the reason that he was not attending the church masses as frequently as his predecessors.

Writing in Time magazine, Nancy Gibbs says, "The debate over the proposed Islamic Centre has put multiple values in conflict — tolerance, sensitivity, pluralism and patriotism."

I think we can add one more value — secularism.

In lower Manhattan where Ground Zero is located, one protestor carried a sign reading, "Do not glorify murders of 3,000: No 9/11 victory mosque." However, the New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had a different opinion. He says, "We would betray our values if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else."

There was one section with the opinion that the mosque should not be built at such a close proximity to Ground Zero. However, it may be built at a distance from the Ground Zero. But the question is what distance and who decides?

Thus, there are mosque - proponents and mosque - opponents.

The opponents are of the view that in matters such as this where Ground Zero is considered as Sacred Space, questions of law and land - use and building permits do not lend themselves to arguments, it is a matter of the heart — the feeling, sensitivity.

I do not think that the proposed 15 storey mosque, the Islamic centre and also a mall will really happen in the controversial site.

According to the well - known columnist Charles Krauthammer, "America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That is why we have the Zoning Laws. No liquor shop near a school, no striptease malls where they offend local sensitivities and if your house does not meet community architectural design (code), you cannot build it at all.

"These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics, but other restrictions are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred space." Like the Ground Zero. Period.

That is why this time round, I thought of disagreeing with what Andrew Carnegie said, which was mentioned in the opening paragraph.

It is necessary now to pay more attention to what President Barack Obama says, rather than what he does. After all, “doing” comes after “saying”.

While at a dinner, I broached this subject to my host who had migrated to America in 1974. He says that every country, which is secular in its Constitution, will have its own national character. America's national character is Christian, even here non - Roman Catholic. India's national character is Hindu, Japan's Buddhist etc., which is why migrants here (exceptions apart) adopt the local culture in dress, food habits, lifestyle etc. Minorities in these countries, some of them, have problems for this very reason. Remember, my host said, the Bengalis of the former East Pakistan wanted Bengali as their mother tongue as against Urdu the majority West Pakistan wanted. Bengali Muslims also prefer saree for dress etc., etc.

I thought my host had given me as much food for thought as he had for my stomach!

Be that as it may, my perception about the consequence following Ground Zero and Mosque controversy is, the tradition of American Presidents sailing through easily for a second term may not happen to President Obama when the presidential election takes place in the year 2012.