India less tense after court verdict on holy site
"Thursday's ruling said the Hindus could keep the area where the mosque once stood because the court determined it was the birthplace of Rama and archaeological evidence showed a temple had predated the mosque."
okay, a court has determined the birthplace of a fictional character; fictional, that is, except to its believers. this is positively surreal and beyond the bounds of reason.
as far as evidence that the mosque sat atop a temple -- it is common practice for "victorious" religions to build their houses of worship directly upon the site of a "loser" religion's place of worship. christians did it to jews, muslims to jews and christians, etc. this is very much relevant to the Ground Zero mosque debate. it would seem as though the muslims in that scenario would wish to build a "victorious" mosque atop a "loser"'s holy site.
it's all about "location, location, location."