I agree -- Ramsey is blisteringly stupid. The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress (and state governments) from IMPOSING ANY RELIGIOUS LAW, including but not limited to, Sharia. "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion." That's what it means. No religious dictatorship in this country, ever. Not Muslim, not Christian -- NO GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY SPECIFIC RELIGION, BUT FREEDOM FOR ALL RELIGIONS.

This is what comes of not teaching civics.

Now, it's tempting to approach this rationally.

Not for Republican jackassess like Ramsey, it isn't.

I seriously doubt Ramsey is sophisticated enough to understand this, but his bigotry is the kind of approach that promotes and encourages the radicalism that undermines our security.

And know not whether Ramsey is smart or not, but I seriously doubt that Ramsey cares about the broader national security picture because at the end of the day, Ramsey cynically understands this:

This message appeals to the American voters in the room, who make no effort to hide their hatred and mistrust of their fellow neighbors who happen to be Muslim.

The culture of winning is everything by definition trumps all other considerations.

Steve: kindly quote the passage(s) from the Koran that authorize the Faithful to live under a secular form of government.

Please also cite (between quotation marks) any Muslim authorities that agree to the separation of Church and State.

I suggest you begin with scholars from the al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, and the chief imams of Masjid Al Haram.

There ARE such folks, and the proper quotes... but if you can't cite 'em, then you shouldn't be insisting that they exist, sight unseen.

(Psst -- that's cuz they ain't "authoritative" within Islam.)

The culture of winning is everything by definition trumps all other considerations.

That's what Vince Lombardi said!

theAmericanist: And that has what to do with the First Amendment again? I mean, there are plenty of Christian authorities who don't seem to see the separation (look up "Dominionism" some time) of church and state as an American ideal, either. And you know what? It doesn't actually matter.

That's what the First Amendment is for.

So " theAmericanist" what the hell is your point? That your reading comprehension is non-existant.

I seriously doubt Ramsey is sophisticated enough to understand this, but his bigotry is the kind of approach that promotes and encourages the radicalism that undermines our security.

I seriously doubt Ramsey is sophisticated enough to understand this, but his bigotry is the kind of radicalism that undermines our security.

There. Fixed it.

-lest we forget, the KKK was founded in Tennessee, circa 1865.

Time for the good folks of the Volunteer State to gather their torches once again, and rid us these godless mooslins!

Keep in mind that many of the same bigoted assholes that buy into this arguement defended David Koresh despite the fact that he was the leader of a (nominally Christian but at best heretical) cult.

Troll, troll, troll your boat ...

theAmericanist realizes this, he (or she) is just trying for a reaction.

I am sure that he knows that almost every religion in the United States disagrees (and can use the basic document of that religion to support their case) with some tenet of the Federal or State governments (e.g. abortion, paying taxes, civil marriage, drug laws, public schools, health care, etc.)

He knows that there are large numbers of Muslims who live in secular countries (India, China, etc.) not in the Middle East who are satisfied with both God and Country.

He is probably aware of the First Amendment, for that matter. The very reason he is able to make those remarks in the first place.

So don't feed the troll, he knows what he is doing.

But he also said that Islam, arguably, is less a faith than it is a "cult."

All religions, by definition (of all the others), are cults. So, if you say your religion is not a cult, but I can point to 10 religions that say your religion is a cult, who am I to believe?

I can't help but wonder how many lily white seniors in Tennessee have cardiologists, internists, pulmonary specialists, etc. with the last names of Hamid, Khan and such who treat their fat out of shape butts. Many Muslim-Americans are highly educated and well represented in the medical field. Eventually this xenophobia and ignorance celebrated by the Tea Party and main steam GOP is going to blow up in their faces, can't come soon enough.

PseudoAmericanist: kindly quote the passage(s) from the Bible that authorize Christians to live under a secular form of government.

Please also cite (between quotation marks) any Christian authorities that agree to the separation of Church and State.

Or maybe you could recognize that the issue isn't what Christianity or Islam requires of its followers, but what the United States requires of its government.

hey, if the Right can have their own Wiki, their own Bible version, why not their own, "more accurate" version of the Constition?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of any non-Christian religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of any Christian denomination thereof. . .

"Stupid is as stupid does." Forest Gump's mom

Wasn't she from the south? I guess you have to be a fictional character to have any brains in the south. Secession sounds great to me. Can you imagine this ass hole as the President of Tennessee? He can form his own army (probably wouldn't take long down there), no taxes, paved roads, health care, social programs, no future for or any hope for educating an already low information voter constituency. What a great place to vacation in eh? I say let them leave. Sooner the better...

"I suggest you begin with scholars from the al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, and the chief imams of Masjid Al Haram."

Umm, neither is the definitive source of a ruling on anything. They carry a lot of weight because of their prominence, but there are 5 distinct schools of religious thought in Sunni Islam alone (plus several others in Shia Islam). Also, Muslims generally differentiate between what happens in Muslim-majority nations and Muslim-minority nations. For instance, there may be no separation of Church and State in an Islamic nation (though because of the dhimmi laws this doesn't mean non-Muslims are SOL either), but the rather common arguement from Muslims about Westernized nations is that they are obligated to obey the laws of the nation they live in as long as those laws do not force them to break a core value of their faith (if Tennessee, for instance, made everyone eat ham on Wednesday, Muslims would not find this kosher - but then, neither would the Constitution).

But all your crap is just BS to obscure the real issue: It doesn't matter what Muslims believe - it matters what Americans believe (though the two groups are not mutually exclusive. Americans believe in the seperation of Church and State (well, the non-traitor, non-bagger, non-Republicans ones do anyway). We allow people to live in this country that don't agree with that core American value, and have done so for centuries (you know them as Christians). If expulsion for not accepting the Constitution is going to go off, let's throw the RCC and the SBC out right now - we can get to the Muslims after we take care of the much more numerous bunch of anti-American psycho-terrorists

I thought my point was pretty clear: if we're NOT at war with Islam, then we need to be able to say what IS the Islam with which we are not at war.

So -- DO tell: quote some Muslims authoritatively defining the Islam that is compatible with the US Constitution.

When I interviewed Anwar al-Awlaki in 2002 at the al-Hegira mosque in Falls Church Virginia (where two of the 9/11 hijackers had worshiped, and from which al-Awlaki was advising Major Hassan during the time frame I interviewed him), he enthusiastically insisted that Islam cannot recognize the separation of Church and State, because Islam is not a "church", not a religion in the sense we generally use the term.

So just maybe you guys might want to actually answer the question, and think about the point. Here is an example how that's done:

Rea asks: "kindly quote the passage(s) from the Bible that authorize Christians to live under a secular form of government."

The most commonly cited quote is Luke 20:25: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Going too fast for you, Rea?

As I note from time to time, my online monicker (if not the personality) comes from "the Americanist heresy", which is the only one originating in America to have been formally condemned by the Vatican. The nature of the Americanist heresy is precisely the question to be asked about Islam -- that is, in 1854 Pope Pius IX stated plainly what had been Christian doctrine for centuries, that things like free speech, religious liberty, the separation of Church and State, etc., were simply not compatible with being a good Christian in general, and a good Catholic in particular.

The Americanist heresy, inspired by the American experiment, held instead that civics has a moral value IN ITSELF, viz., "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

But -- not everybody believed that then, and not everybody believes it now. For example, in 1854 Pius IX explicitly rejected a whole series of progressive principles in the Syllabus of Errors, and Leo XIII directly condemned "Americanism" in 1899.

So there ARE certain ideologies which are not compatible with being a good American. Do you really deny that?

Arguably one could be a US citizen -- AND a Nazi or a Stalinist, but I dunno anybody who would seriously argue that being either is possible while also being a good American: oil and water.

So the primary question is whether it is possible to be a good Muslim -- AND a good American. I asked al-Awlaki that, and frankly, he conned me.

Once burned, twice shy. Al-Awlaki told me that he would only counsel American Muslims in the US military not to shoot at other Muslims (yet he evidently persuaded Hassan to actually kill his fellow American soldiers because the US military is killing Muslims), and he insisted "there is no coercion in religion" when we talked about members of the al Hegira mosque whom I had just met, who were bankers (like the underwear bomber Abdulmuttalab's father).

So these aren't abstract questions.

The Americanist heresy eventually triumphed (not that anybody admits it), in the Vatican II reforms, which abandoned the ancient idea that salvation is exclusively a Catholic, even a Christian prerogative. But it is worth noting here that Islam has never had a Pope, so it never had a Reformation, much less a Vatican II. These are all contributing factors to al Awlaki's view (which he shares with certain Republican politicians) that Islam is not a religion.

So -- Rea: I answered your ignorant question, which I presume you meant rhetorically cuz two seconds thought (if you'd been capable of it) would have reminded you that "render unto Caesar" is not exactly an obscure New Testament quote.

Kindly cite a surah or hadith with a similar message. And when you can't -- kindly quote the Muslim authority that supports your contention.

Well?

Remember --the question is NOT whether the US Constitution forbids the state establishment of a religion.

It's whether Islam is a religion at all, in that context: I dunno as anybody would have defended Nazis and Stalinists as good Americans on RELIGIOUS grounds, after all.

Like I said: if we're not at war with Islam, it's necessary to be able to say what is the Islam with which we are not at war.

If the answer is -- the kind of Islam practiced in China (wtf???) or India (where Muslims are an oppressed minority), and not the ACTUAL faith anchored in Saudi Arabia and taught (with Saudi funding) to a billion plus people all over the world, from Sudan to Indonesia to US prisons: well, that's pretty lame, ain't it?

Sorta the way Marxists used to insist that Communism had never failed because it had never been tried.

Don't get me wrong (but you will anyway): I've argued many times, with quotes, that there IS such an Islam -- but I don't take it for granted. That's why I dug up the quotes.

I commend the practice to you.

I sometimes wonder if Ron Ramsey or any of his military aged loved ones have EVER put their a**es on the line for this country in a combat zone? My gut feelings tell me that, like most Republican chickenhawks, the answer is a RESOUNDING NO.

Ya know, any government official speculating that any religion does not "qualify" for the protection of the First Amendment is egregiously violating the First Amendment.

I doubt that Ramsey will get al-Queda's Recruiter of the Month award for July. His comments may be the worst to date on the mosque issue, but he just doesn't have the worldwide exposure of the Newty Grinch or the Wasilla Wonder. One of those two might actually beat out Darth Cheney and Family for the recruiting honors this month.

P.S What's the Farsi word for "Refudiate"?

Unlike the Catholic Church, Islam is not a centralized religion.

On the other hand, like Christianity in general, the teachings of the church can be used to justify all sorts of things such as genocide and murder. All you need is a little imagination and some ex post facto reasoning. Much like what theAmericanist is doing here.

americanist:
Rea asks: "kindly quote the passage(s) from the Bible that authorize Christians to live under a secular form of government."

The most commonly cited quote is Luke 20:25: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

The vast majority of modern biblical exegisists interpret that passage as dealing with money, the coins which held Caesar's likeness, not government authority. The tension between material and spiritual is a strong theme throughout the gospels; this is but another example of Jesus' teaching on that subject.

You guys are taking for granted precisely the issue in question: What does it mean to say that "Islam" is a religion?

Phalamir: kindly don't assume everybody thinks as sloppily as you do.

Sure, there are a bazillion different schools of thought within Islam. So what? If you'd actually THOUGHT about it, you'd see that proves my question is valid.

An authoritative religion (like Roman Catholicism, which is more or less the paradigm) has at least one virtue: Authority can change its mind effectively.

For example, the Vatican used to insist that believing in democratic civics was incompatible with Catholicism, and then insisted for a generation or two that every Catholic must vote against politicians who wanted to legalize divorce (Casti Connubi), and then it was legalizing contraception. But you know what? A series of Popes lost every one of those, and gradually sorta kinda forgot that had been their position, finally coming around to the idea that the underlying principles (like the emancipation of women) had been Catholic all along. JC Murray had a great line about it, saying that the Church likes to show up with the great guns of her moral authority as soon as the battle is over.

But Islam has always insisted that lending money at interest is a sin. (There are eight ways around it, but your basic 30 year fixed rate mortgage is not one of them. One reason why Abdulmuttalab was persuaded to put a bomb next to his balls is because his family fortune in banking was based on a sin and a crime, to a Muslim.) There is a REASON why the US is referred to as "the great Tempter", yanno.

The question isn't even 'what do we do about that?' It's to ask: what CAN Islam itself do about that?

Islam doesn't have a Pope. It's simply not organized that way -- in a sense, it's more Protestant than the Reformation (which it prefigured in several ways) because it's essentially all about the Text, before which everybody is equal.

Paradoxically, that makes it MORE, not less authoritarian. It's why the gates of itjihad were closed a thousand years ago, how the Ottomans stifled the Arabic nationalism that's always been at the core of Islam (after all, it seems that God speaks classical Arabic), and why you're simply wrong to imagine that all schools of Islam are equal: only the Saudis run the Sacred Cities, and they are by far the biggest funders of Islamic education in the world.

Now, if you were arguing that, say, Shi'ite Islam is compatible with the US Constitution because Shi'ites believe in free speech, religious liberty, and the separation of church and state, etc., as a matter of faith and doctrine, that'd be different.

But they don't.

Nor does any school of Sunni Islam. Not. Frigging.One.

What they DO believe is that Muslims outside of the House of Obedience to God, can keep their heads down and their Muslim-ness intact... until.

Which is what provokes the likes of Republican politicians.

There ARE other points of view, of course: I'm just asking you guys to quote 'em, not insist that they must exist SOMEHOW, just because you suppose everybody more or less shares our American values.

And to get two different shibboleths out of the way: Mikeyes, I'm not defending the history of Christianity. I merely understand it, and cited the New Testament when Rea challenged me to do so.

But a brighter guy than you might have noticed that it doesn't exactly bolster the case for Islam as harmless to note that people of faith have committed spectacular crimes.

Nor is it the question that the First Amendment prohibits the state establishing a religion.

It's what on earth can it mean to insist that Islam IS a religion, when (for example) a sorta prominent guy like al-Awlaki insists that it's NOT?

Which I state a bit more positively: if we're not at war with Islam itself, kindly indicate the Islam with which we are not at war.

Use quotes from named sources, speaking to the point. I suggest you start with the Koran and hadith.

Well?

Dear Americanist:
OK, so you're a scholar, and you can sure sling a quote. What you haven't done yet is explain what the hell THIS has to do with the subject of Steve's post:

I thought my point was pretty clear: if we're NOT at war with Islam, then we need to be able to say what IS the Islam with which we are not at war.

Why? There are certainly Muslims with whom we are at war. There are certainly Muslims who are at war with us. But this has nothing to do with whether law-abiding Muslims in Tennessee should build a community center. Islamic does not automatically mean Islamist, any more than Christian automatically means Christianist.

Do we need to specify which Christianity we're not at war with when we arrest, imprison and execute Tim McVeigh for his reprehensible crime? Of course not. Do we prevent churches from building community centers because of that crime? No.

Just because you let Anwar al-Awlaki shuffle your deck and play word games when you interviewed him doesn't mean Islam isn't a religion. It walks like a religion and it quacks like a religion. Maybe some Muslims (maybe way too many) treat it like a cult. Maybe some Christians (maybe way too many) treat Christianity like a cult.

The idea that we need to define which Islam we're not at war with is pointless and, frankly, silly.

theAmericanist, your question, while interesting, misses the point.

to simplify slightly, you are asking, in essence, can/does a group of people with shared beliefs define itself as a religion, and if so how, and should we grant them the last word on that subject?

the next logical question, and perhaps one raised by those arguing with you above, is whether there is an external, objective way to define a religion -- Prothero's "God Is Not One" spends a lot of time on this question (and he defines it broadly, certainly including Islam but even closer calls).

but for purposes of Benen's post, neither of those interesting questions really matters at all. the issue is how does the First Amendment define religion, and the answer (until the Supreme Court is full of Ramseys) is "very very broadly." For purposes of First Amendment protection, it is at present a settled matter that Islam qualifies, and Ramsey is simply wrong (setting aside the separate argument of whether he knows or cares). Even if some Muslim leaders do not label their beliefs a religion.

(I would note that if lack of central authority is an indicia that something is not a religion, there would be very few "religions" among the Great Religions of the World, and must cults would in fact be religions - that is, using that as an indicia in any way turns what most people accept of the classifications of religions and non-religions on its head).

Hate to ignore the troll, but a little context from the 'Boro itself:

First, Ramsey is running in a distant third for the GOP nod. The lead candidate--up by about 11 points--is Bill Haslam, a pretty typical old TN moderate from the Howard Baker-Bob Corker wing of the party (and yes, Corker is pretty moderate). He's even given money to Al Gore before, which is driving Ramsey and Wamp nuts. So those guys are desperately seeking a wedge issue to inflame the base. The anti-Islam demagoguery is actually a sign of desperation. It may still work, but it is not a sign of their popularity, but the opposite.

Second, there was a huge anti-Islamic Center rally here a couple of weeks ago, led by a couple of local evangelical preachers and the demagogic GOP congressional candidate Lou Ann Zelenik (also trailing in her primary). After marching their petition to the courthouse they were shocked to be greeted by an even LARGER pro-Muslim (and religious freedom) rally at the city square. The TV footage was telling. Every time you saw protesters debating face to face there was about a 30-40 year age difference. What's remarkable is that the forces of tolerance mustered so quickly and effectively. Yes, this is a college town--but it's also summer break and the campus is pretty quiet. As bad as the ad wars make TN politics look, there's a complicated and better reality underneath.

How about a thought for those Muslims who have fought and died in Bush's wars, some of whom are buried in Arlington Cemetery, perhaps the bigots in Tenn. should have fought for the country in their place.
Also, remember the hispanics who have been killed in those wars, now we are throwing their families out of the country.

Um, guys: that's why I cited Nazis and Stalinists.

There ARE certain ideologies (or organizations, if you like) that are not compatible with being an American. I'd argue that Nazism is one of 'em, Stalinism is another -- and in that sense, I'm speaking of belief systems, not organizations or actions.

Are you guys arguing that if such 'isms claimed to be RELIGIONS, they'd be okay?

So I'm not disputing the pedantic points you're so fond of.

I'm just noting that you just proved my point -- that you ASSUME Islam is okay, cuz, gee, it MUST be, since it's, er, a RELIGION, after all. (Which is a pretty weird preconception for folks who are generally doctrinaire secularists.)

The fact is, you can't name nor quote even one Muslim authority who describes Islam in a way that is remotely compatible with the US Constitution. Right?

That's not a good thing -- and it's not a sign the Constitutional protections you're proclaiming are healthy, either. The First Amendment is not a denial mechanism.

I noted in a different thread regarding the Ground Zero mosque that it'd be a good thing if they stated they wouldn't accept any Saudi money.

Likewise, since you guys are weirdly ignorant in your First Amendment dogmatism: during the Cold War, IIRC it was pretty common for folks to make the argument that Soviet funding of various activities (Gus Hall, call your office) changed a First Amendment issue into a restriction of a foreign agent case.

Ten minutes looking through Saudi-funded Islamic education, particularly on the role of women, or the lunatic anti-Semitism, establishes that such 'schooling' isn't compatible with American values. (Honest, that's possible -- and not just by Nazis and Stalinists.) F'r instance, there is a case where a Muslim husband has beaten a rape charge against his wife, by citing shar'ia.

You okay with First Amendment protection -- for rape? On religious grounds?

That's what I mean when I note that, if we're not at war with Islam, we need to be able to indicate the Islam with which we are NOT at war.

Which is spot-on to Steve B's point: he is arguing that some politician objecting to a community center in Tennessee is helping al Qaeda. Hell, I saw him a Republican inadvertently helping al Qaeda and raised him al-Awlaki, who is doing it on purpose.

But I also challenged his (and your) assumption: if we're NOT at war with Islam -- well, kindly prove it by quoting Muslims themselves on just HOW, exactly, one can be a good Muslim and believe in religious liberty (which does not mean religious discrimination in taxation), free speech, the separation of Church and State, and so on.

LOL -- and cr: you really don't want to be that stooopid in public. ALL Biblical scholars know that the question Christ was asked with the coin was whether Jews could pay Roman taxes, since Rome had just established a state religion focused on the divinity of the imperial family, in which coin quite literally Jews had to pay. This is directly related to the scourging of the Temple, which in turn led directly to the Crucifixion. Not exactly a refudiation of the notion that Christ endorsed a separation of church and state, since it has always been a core Christian principle that he didn't preach the overthrow of Rome, even though that's why he was crucified.

The essence of the New Testament narrative is precisely that Christ stated "my Kingdom is not of this world", denoting that yes, Jews (and eventually, Christians) could live in a country where THEIR religion was not state-sponsored. It wasn't until Constantine (and the Creed) that this changed.

Honest, cr, it'd help if you thought about a subject before you reinforce the point you're attempting to rebut.

Don't think I've ever known someone who liked to hear themselves talk so much and, at the same time, was so wrong about virtually everything they said. I'll know not to engage next time.

@theAmericanist - Honest, it'd help if you Googled a subject before you go on and on on a subject about you're going to be so adamant. There are many, many Muslim or Islam-based organizations and individuals who are quite clear and outspoken about the compatibility of Islam and the U.S. Constitution. Honestly! It's interesting to note the monolithic way we tend to view other's faiths: I guarantee you, there are people who attend the mosque in Murfreesboro who are disgusted by militant Islam, and for whom the edicts of this or that Mullah make about as much impact as what some crazy Hasid in Jerusalem has on me as an American Jew. Remember: Tim McVeigh, responsible for the biggest terror attack on Americans before 9/11/2001, was (once) a registered Republican and a card-carrying member of the NRA. He was a committed racist. No one is surprised at the confluence of those three leanings.

Steve is right: we (Americans) look like bigots for the way our "leaders" have gone on about this. It's a local land use issue and should be handled as such. If a challenge to Muslim's right to build a mosque made it to the SCOTUS, even the current court would find for them. What a crappy election year this is going to be.

"cult" vs. "religion" is an ultimately pointless discussion. A cult is simply a group of people who worship a certain way, and is ultimately a synonym for religion. the idea it means "wacky, freaky nutjobs" is popular misunderstanding of the term. Every religion, by definition, is a cult - and is simultaneous comprised of a multitude of smaller cults who differ in certain ways of worshiping from the Platonic ideal of that religion's worship. So Christians are a cult (because they adhere to aq certain set of - admittedly broad - beliefs and practices. Methodists are a cult within that, since they have a set of distinct practices that separate them from other Christians, even though they do conform to the broad cult-set of Christians. Likewise, Bethesda UMC in Tamarac FL is a cult, since it has certain practices that differentiates it from other UMC churches (even if in small, basically trivial ways). As such, saying a "cult' doesn't get First Amendment protections is saying all religious institutions are denied said protections.

Also, ultimately, no religion is compatible with the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear that its authority comes from the humans living under its framework. Every religion acknowledges some non-human-living-under-the-Constitution as a greater authority. So, at the end of all things, any religion will side against the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution or the Bible/Quran/Vedas/Dianetics - one has to choose and we know where the religious fall: on the side of anti-Americanism. So throwing the Christians out is just as vital to the safety and integrity of the United States as the Muslims - maybe more so, since the number of bomb- and trigger-happy Jeebus-freaks in the US is quite a bit higher then the Muslims - gotta get rid of the log/beam before we get rid of the speck/mote

Of course Islam is a cult, not a religion. Just look at all the paintings and statues of Allah in every mosque! And if we give them an inch, there'll be miles and miles of Allah (holding a crescent) in every public square, too.

As a Tennessean, I'm very glad that Wamp and Ramsey are splitting the wingnut vote, handing the primary to Haslam, who really is (as RMcD above noted) moderate by Republican standards.

Just based on my observations as a native Southerner, there's been a real explosion of crazy since the beginning of 2009. I wonder what caused that? It's enough to make this Southern liberal contemplate an exit strategy. Though, to be fair, I detected an upsurge of crazy in Suffolk County, Long Island last time I was visiting my in-laws - tea-baggers had a float in the New Suffolk Independence Day parade. So it's not like the South is alone in this.

ManOutofTime sez: "here are many, many Muslim or Islam-based organizations and individuals who are quite clear and outspoken about the compatibility of Islam and the U.S. Constitution..."

Then it ought to be easy to quote some. Well?

Especially since Phalamir sez you're wrong: " ultimately, no religion is compatible with the Constitution."

LOL -- you guys are just pitiful.

BTW -- as I noted upthread, there ARE such folks: the late, lamented Jamil Diab, for one, who taught W. Deen Muhammad to love the US Constitution -- and, somewhat troublingly for Phalamir, the Declaration of Independence that notes the divine origin of rights.

My point is simply that you guys confuse your ignorance with principled knowledge.

Doubt that? Cite your sources... by name, within quotation marks.

Umm, the DoI is a separate document from the Constitution. It was a justification for breaking politically with Britain. The Constitution is a document establishing much later as a legal framework for the nation that came out of the American Revolution (and wasn't even the first such document). The DoI does not have any effect on the Constitution and holds no legal weight on the Constitution, so it can claim that God as described specifically by John Brown is the only true God and only those who follow said man can really be Americans ... and that would have jack-all to do with the Constitution, sinc e they are not connected in any legal sense.

"theAmericanist's mother is a traitor-terrorist to America for not aborting him" citation: Phalamir

BTW the existence or not of quotation marks neither adds not detracts from a source, it is simply a way to denote a direct quotation. Any academic could tell you that an accurate paraphrase is equally "authoritative" as a quote - you use what is appropriate to a situation.

Do you really think he cares whether or not he's aiding al Qaeda? The Republicans know very well that the path they've been following is one of destruction of the US, but as long as they get to milk the people for another few billion dollars, they don't give a darn.

Another Tennessean here. An Islamic community center here in Nashville was vandalized a few months ago, and the outpouring of support for them was heartening.

People of all faiths and none showed up with scrub-brushes and paint to help with the cleanup.

Ramsey and Wamp are clowns. Their sort of wingnuttery ain't gonna fly with the good people of this state.

LOL -- pretty weak sauce on Wonder bread, Phalamir.

It's one thing to assert, as you did, that all religions are incompatible with the US Constitution. It's another to ask, as somebody did, for a quote from the Bible that authorizes (if you want to think of it that way) the separation of Church and State.

I ignored the first, because it is gobsmacking ignorance. There are MANY faiths that are wholly compatible with the US Constitution, notably those faiths which specifically preach that all the righteous please God, regardless of forms of worship. (This is part of the covenant with Noah, Genesis 8:20 through 9:19, which establishes for folks who believe the Bible story that we are all descended from Noah, and thus covered by the covenant with him.)

I actually answered the second, because it was a question. I noted the source, and used quotes.

See how this works? Making a false statement is a bad thing. Answering a question truthfully is a good thing. I asked you a question.

Your 'response' is a false statement, denoting that you're ignorant, and know nothing of what you're talking about. Answering a question accurately, as I did, denotes instead that, someone not only knows a little about the subject, but also treats the folks they're talking to with a certain respect: I don't ask people to believe what I'm saying, cuz I'm saying it. I show 'em what I think, and where I got the idea.

See, I think it's pretty clear that you're not accurately paraphrasing. You have no fucking clue what Islam actually teaches, which you're trying to cover with that weak sauce. You've been found out, dude.

The reason you can't quote even one surah or hadith that authorizes religious liberty, free speech, the separation of Church and State, and so on, is because THERE AREN'T ANY.

Prove me wrong.

The reason you can't quote even one Muslim authority -- although you keep insisting that there are lots and lots of 'em -- who explains how someone can be a good Muslim and embrace those good things, is because YOU DON'T KNOW OF ANY.

Prove me wrong. Psst... this is where the capacity to use quotes would come in handy.

Well?

What's more curious is why you would brag about and defend your ignorance, rather than even attempt to answer a simple question -- which exercise, you'd find, is very helpful in demonstrating (if only to yourself) what you don't know.

LOL -- and oh, yeah: as long as we're working on Phalamir's illiteracy...

Somebody said on a not insignificant occasion for the legal essence of America in 1863 "Fourscore and seven years ago..."

Do the math. Or is arithmetic among the skills you lack?

Irony: A troll who has not offered a single source whining about how people don't offer sources in their posts.

Nothing funnier than a guy getting owned -- repeatedly -- but not being able to actually see it.

I guess you didn't notice Genesis 8:20-9:19, answering one question.

Or noting Anwar al-Awlaki, Jamil Diab, and W. Deen Muhammed.

Or were you simply baffled by "Fourscore and seven years ago..."?

You COULD look that one up.