The American Spectator

Kenny| 9.9.10 @ 6:27AM

Islam is a cancer in America.

Mark| 9.9.10 @ 1:48PM

I find it interesting that much is being made of this "burn the Koran" day but where was the outrage from leaders and others when our military was ordered to burn the Bible in Afghanistan. They were taken away from the Christian soldiers and burned so that the Muslim's wouldn't be offended or evangelized too. Nothing much said about it but it's clear on many web sites that it happened. Even reported by CNN (communist news network). Check out the internet sites on it. This is clearly to inflame and start something between the O's administration and his brother Islamic's. That's clear enough evidence to me that Obama IS a Muslim. He sides with them at every venue but won't stick up for his own Christian Nation.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.9.10 @ 2:55PM

I completely agree that when it comes to certain people being PC, and subsequently more tolerant of say, burning bibles, but intolerant for burning Korans--it is clear that those particular people are hypocrites (regardless of if they are trying to please the minority). I do see a few more things however...for instance, when it comes to Christians versus Muslims, in this day and age, we are more likely to offend someone we are currently at war with-- if we offend Muslims. On the other hand, if we offend Christians, there isn't an apparent increased threat of violence towards our soldiers or citizens. So, because we are at war with Muslim nations, it is true that burning the Koran is going to have a much more negative impact on our country and soldiers (potentially) than burning the Bible would. Does this mean that is one is more right or wrong to burn? Not at all, both are freedoms of expression, but it does point out a clear relationship of which act will cause more harm than good.

Also, Obama has every right to be a Muslim, just as you do, or I do. We do have that right, and it is a fundamental right represented by the First Ammendment.

For anyone to compare burning a Koran, to building a mosque, involves a lack of reason. It is true, that both are freedoms of expression and/or religion perhaps. That I am not disputing. My point is that one act is meant to alienate, and demonstrate hatred and disrespect to Muslims. The other act, is meant to bring Muslims together to a communal place of worship and prayer. A true comparison would be to say that building a church is the same as building a mosque (both are places of worship/prayer--regardless of whether we belong to one religion or the other). Another true comparison would be that burning a Bible is the same as burning a Koran. Both are demonstrations of hatred and intolerance towards the religion represented by that book.
If we do not allow everyone to practice their religion equally (within the bounds of the law), then we are not protecting that freedom of religion. If Christians are allowed to build a church near ground zero, or anywhere for that matter, then Muslims should be allowed the same right. People that disagree with that "equally applied freedom" are generally themselves intolerant of the other religion (in this case Islamic religion). We must leave bias out of this, and think about our own rights. What if a group of Christians were told that they were not allowed to build a church in a mostly muslim neighborhood because it may offend people? I'd say, too bad! If there are mosques in that neighborhood, and Christians need a place of worship as well, then I'd hope fairness would prevail and allow the church to be built. Its hard for some people to imagine this if the tables were turned--but it is necessary to demonstrate that the law and freedoms apply to everyone equally.
Peace and love to you all!

-Lagius

...but for the wrong reason| 9.9.10 @ 3:10PM

"For anyone to compare burning a Koran, to building a mosque, involves a lack of reason."
I agree. To keep the comparison equal, maybe he should consider burning a koran on a site where 3,000 muslims were killed.

Nue Yorke| 9.10.10 @ 9:45AM

Do you happen to know the religious beliefs of each individual that was killed in Manhattan that day? For all you know that is the site where 3,000 muslims died, some of whom where not American citizens either.

Possum Dearie| 9.10.10 @ 10:46AM

Those 3,000 Americans who died had families and friends, and their religious faith is known, actually. Some people who died on September 11, 2001 were Muslim, including the 19 hijackers. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

"For anyone to compare burning a Koran, to building a mosque, involves a lack of reason." The pastor called the bluff of the mosque proponents, who are perverting the interpretation of the First Amendment. In fact, it's not really the issue with the mosque; that's why they keep emphasizing our "freedom" and moving the goalposts. First, it was a mosque. Then it's a community center like the YMCA but also with a mosque. Then they had the money. Wait, Con Ed owns half the lot. "Money is no object," but the imam is on a State Dept funded tour of petrocapitals to raise money, some of which has been connected to the Muslim Brotherhood already. It's all smoke and mirrors. There is a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero on Warren St. There are a 100 mosques in NYC, and last year four were closed because they were funded by the Iranian government.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.10.10 @ 6:21PM

Possum Dearie,

Its funny that one of the highest, if not the highest contributor for funding this new Mosque in New York, is none other than Saudi Prince Al-Waleed--supposedly an individual that may be linked to terrorist groups. Ironically, this prince is also the second highest shareholder of News Corp, which is the parent company of Fox News. So for one thing, if anyone wants to reduce funding for the Mosque, as Jon Stewart put it, we as a nation must stop watching FOX News! The more viewers that watch FOX News, the more money Prince Al-waleed makes as the second top shareholder, and more money he can contribute to the Mosque. It's amazing what one discovers when you "follow the money"...and what an ironic twist, with such an "anti-mosque" news network (by most of the commentators that is)...
Peace and love to you!
-Lagius

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 8:43PM

So isn't it nice that FOX News is independant enough to go against Al-Waleed in every possible way! Would that our Universities did that, instead of selling themselves as chattel to Saudi Arabia.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.13.10 @ 9:27AM

MZK1,

FOX News is a conservative network, despite their claim to be "fair and balanced"....just as MSNBC is a more liberal network. You ask if it is nice that they are "independent enough" to go against Al-Waleed, but due to his high stake as a shareholder, one could say that his investments help to pay the salary of those Fox News Commentators. Even if you chose NOT to look at it that way, those commentators do what they do for better ratings. They know that their main viewer base is conservative and so they will appeal to those viewers even if it means being against the Mosque (and in this case, against their 2nd leading shareholder). So in reality, what we can see from this is that money triumphs over principles in this case. The shareholder will no doubt continue to hold his shares, even though he is a Muslim, and Fox News is against the very mosque he is contributing to. As for the commentators, even though they know the more viewers watch FOX, (even if they are against the mosque), by getting more viewers to watch the show, they are contributing to the building of the mosque. Due to the higher advertisement rates, revenue and thus the flow of money to the shareholder (Prince Al-Waleed). Those commentators are doing what they do for the money as well, so neither party involved seems to care about these connections. I don't see Hannity 0r any other FOX News commentator, boycotting their own Fox News show, until Prince Al-Waleed sells his shares, do you? It's because they don't care about the connection, neither of them, they care more about their money/ratings/etc.

I just found the story hilarious because Fox News never mentioned Prince Al-Waleed, rather they just mentioned the possible "terrorist funds" coming from the "Kingdom Foundation". On Fox News, they showed the picture of Imam Abdul Rauf when talking about the "Kingdom Foundation" funding the mosque (and supposedly supported by "terrorist" dollars). What they neglected to tell people on the show, either out of ignorance or purposeful omission (the clear choice was omission, since the funder's name can be easily looked up on Google), was that the primary funder was the second leading shareholder of News Corp., the parent company of Fox News. It is clear why those on Fox News neglected to share his name, as it would be that much more easy for people to look him up, and find his connections to Fox News. True hypocrisy on Fox News' end. Not surprising to me at all. This demonstrates that money, ratings, and their agenda triumphed over real principles and honest information. Who wants "honesty" when you can get much higher ratings instead?
Well...not Fox News anyways...

Peace and love to you MZK1
-Lagius

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 2:19PM

You forgot CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, which continue to be left-wing despite economics. Not to mention the NYT, WaPo, the womens' magazines, comic books (!), etc. The rest of FOX is certainly not conservative, but they understood the market, and put Roger Ailes in charge. After that, it's Roger's baby. The Wash Times (not that I would give money to the Moonies) restored representative government to the U.S., when it seemed the one-note press was determining which political scandals counted (Watergate), and which did not (Filegate). Fox does the same, and I will accept twenty Mosques if that is the price.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.13.10 @ 6:02PM

MZK1,

I see. It's just like the old saying, "Everyone has a price"...

I also could care less about the building of Mosques, if they want to do it, so be it.
I just found this specific Fox News hypocrisy hilarious!

It's true that every single news outlet is biased in one direction or the other. It is inescapable. The most important thing is that people exercise their right to observe several different biased news sources-- as opposed to just watching news from multiple sources that are all biased the same. I admit, that I personally enjoy flipping back and forth between FOX and MSNBC and see what spins each network puts on a story. Then I can research the facts afterward for myself (again from multiple credible sources). Most people don't do that. Most people just watch one biased source or the other, and if they agree with what they hear or read--not only do they continue to watch that particular news source, but they also don't bother to look up the "facts" afterward. This is the one thing that I wish more viewers would do. I bet they'd be surprised as to what they think is "truth". Not that I think that the majority of people in this country will every do this, but I can dream can't I?

Peace and love to you MZK1,
-Lagius

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 7:11PM

For someone who speaks of peace and love, that's a nasty comment. Some things can be traded in, others you give your life for. I have no beef with Islam, just with the way it is currently interpreted, in general. This is more of an issue of insulting victims, and possibly encouraging enemies.

At one time the U.S. had many newspapers, of differing political parties. Unfortunately, due to technology, all major outlets ended up somewhere in the camp of the Democratic party. The first change was with the WashTimes, then modern talk radio, than Fox and the Internet. Without Fox, there isn't a major TV outlet that is not at least moderately left-of-center. And don't worry, we cannot escape left-wing views; they surround us in every medium. (This is why only right-wing talk radio works, in general.)

And by the way, for me this is more than theory. I live in Northern Israel; the way we are protrayed in the news can mean life or death for me and my family. By the way, there is no Line up here, and generally Jews and Moslems and Christians live together in peace and harmony, more or less. My boss is Moslem, BTW. You get more of a problem in Jerusalem, where there are people who never accepted citizenship; the sort who sit in a hospital and cheer when terror victims are brought in, while they wait for Jewish doctors to treat them.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.14.10 @ 11:30AM

MZK1,

I'm not sure what you mean by "nasty comment"?
Which was nasty, or not true?

As for this being an issue of "insulting victims"...how is this so? Were you not aware that there were Muslims that worked in the WTC? Were you also not aware that there were one if not two mosques already in the WTC before it was destroyed? Believe it or not, some of the victims in that building were Muslim, and there was already at least one mosque in the building before it went down. So would building a mosque near ground zero really be an insult? Or would it be more of a tribute to those Muslims that died in the building? Or even really just returning the mosque that was already there. I think the latter...

Peace and love to you MZK1,
-Lagius

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 3:32PM

Lagiusmeatius:

Generally agree with your reasoning/sentiments. But I've been a non-theist for a long time, and evermore convinced that "religious" moralizing, based as it is in god(s)' pronouncements about what's absolutely right and wrong, is the wellspring of most warfare.

So......my knee-jerk reaction to the Koran-burning stuff is to say "Good start! Now let's throw tons of Bibles and Torahs and Talmuds into the fire as well." The Vedic Scriptures? Hmm. Yeah, probably those too, although they're at least more "humbling" and cooperation-facilitative than the aforementioned.

Oh, well.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.9.10 @ 4:05PM

Ralph, I totally agree with you regarding religion. Religion, particularly the theistic religions are one of the leading causes of war in this world. There is no doubt in my mind that getting rid of theistic religions and instead focusing on common sense and just love in general would reduce war in this world. Religion has brought on so much persecution and needless death...from the time of the Hebrew slaves, to the Crusades, to holy wars going on today...theistic religion has been the cause of so much death and destruction in the world--even though both parties believe in "God", it never ends...
Peace and love to you Ralph!

"...but for the wrong reason",

Again where is your reasoning in your argument. Are we to never allow anyone to build a mosque or church where death has occurred? People die everyday, but this never stops anyone, and hasn't before. Why all of a sudden do we say, "That's too close to where people died! You can't build a place of worship or prayer there! " It's complete non-sense to think that. Would 1 mile away be "good enough", how about 10 miles? 100 miles? Do you see my point here? It shouldn't matter how close it is to some disaster that happened in the past. If we are saying that they can't build it because it was Muslim terrorists that caused those deaths, then you are implying that all Muslims are terrorists! Unless you have some other line of logical reasoning you'd like to try? That would be a big mistake...as well its presuming that we can prove that Muslims were indeed the cause of the 9/11 tragedy, which we can't prove--nor does it matter if they did or didn't regarding this issue. Remember that the black boxes for that flight were never found, so we can never know what happened in that cockpit or who was in it. That's a different argument for a different time. Staying on track here, it doesn't matter if they build it a mile away or a hundred miles away...someone would still complain. As well, who should say, "It has to be at least this far away from ground zero..." Which goes to show that it has nothing to do with what people "should" do...rather there is another underlying agenda here.

Peace and love to you all,
-Lagius

BazzaMcKenzie| 9.9.10 @ 7:12PM

So which religions were Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot adhering to when they murdered tens of millions of their countrymen?

Mahommed was a vicious warlord who invented a religious philosophy to justify his rampages and to keep his followers in line. He was not a religious person who somehow found himself in charge of a government. The Crusades were a reaction to an invasion by adherents to the politico-religious system called Islam.

Far more people have been killed by political systems than by religions, though it is true that political leaders have often claimed divine support for their actions, as did medieval European kings, though Christ never taught anything that would support such a position.

There is a great deal of muddy thinking about religion by those without religious beliefs.

Randy| 9.10.10 @ 9:11AM

Amen. Your last sentence says it all. That explains why we have so much strife concerning religion. The blame lies with those who don't understand religion and the fact so many evil people are doing or have done things in the name of religion.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.10.10 @ 11:04AM

I totally agree with you regarding the intentions of Christ. I have studied religion as a former Catholic, and former born-again Christian, and I have seen little regard to the real teachings of Christ in the Bible. People use Christ or biblical teachings to justify war and it was true that Christ was regarded as a pacifist not a war lord (no pun intended).

There is definitely a great deal of muddy thinking about religion by those without those beliefs. The same goes for those that have the beliefs however. They are often misguided by their own interpretations of different religious scripture and often led to abandon family members, engage in war, or become a suicide bomber in the name of God.

To answer your first question, their murdering millions appeared to be politically motivated, as opposed to religiously, however one can regard their actions as religious as well. It doesn't need to be a common denomination to be a religion. Any personal sense or opinion of what is right and wrong constitutes religion in many ways. You could say Hitler's "religion", or one component of it, was Supremacism. As for Stalin, he was regarded as an Atheist, which although he tried to ban "religion" during his reign, Atheism in itself is also a religion. His Atheism didn't necessarily motivate him to murder millions, but in a way it did. He tried to ban other religions, really just "theistic religions", as they seemed to interfere with his beliefs and intentions. During his reign, synagogues, mosques, and churches were raided. Speaking of which--Let's not follow in those foot-steps and try to "block" only certain mosques or churches from being built as he did (in his case it was all of them).

I agree with you in part that more people have been killed by political systems than religion. However, again, I would say that religion was still involved. People's justification of what was morally right or wrong can constitute as part of their religion.

Also, many people have been killed by political systems in last 100 years, where the population has been exponentially increased from previous numbers, so more people died, as more people were involved (due to population differences) between now and the past (where many conflicts were religious-based, but there were far less people on earth to be effected/killed by those conflicts).

Peace and love to you BazzaMcKenzie,
-Lagius

DENNIS| 9.13.10 @ 6:49PM

There is no such thing as a former born again Christian. A professing Christian, perhaps. Big difference, if you understand Christianity.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.15.10 @ 3:15PM

Dennis,

Actually there is such thing. I am an example of one. I used to be a born-again Christian for years and years and it had changed my life. Then I changed my religious views dramatically.

Peace and love to you Dennis,
-Lagius

Gregory Fulton| 9.12.10 @ 7:27PM

You've got it right - it is not religion that is the cause of man on man violence, in general. It is they with absolute lack of any concern for fellow humans, or other humans of a certain ilk, who broadcast from authority (could be "religious") or despotic position to a cadre of zombies who hack their way to hell.

Richard Ong| 9.13.10 @ 1:27AM

Precisely.

Mayte| 9.9.10 @ 8:49PM

Religion has not brought slavery or hatred or war. That was brought on by evil fanatics who manipulate anything, including religion, for their hateful selfish purposes. If you read the Bible or most religious documents you would find a lot of enlightenment. Also, if you would attend a sermon every now and then, especially a Christian one. Advocating burning of any book is proposed only by an ignorant person. Ignorance and arrogance are closely linked and you are a great example in placing yourself so high above others because you are a "non" theist as you so dumbly put it, inventing a word for your own agrandizement. Any other words to describe yourself and put anyone else down?

Lagiusmeatius| 9.10.10 @ 11:28AM

Mayte,

Thanks for all the kind words. Non-theist? You prefer Atheist I suppose? You know every word in the dictionary hasn't always been there. Words are added, given known roots, prefixes, suffixes, etc. Shakespeare has even added many words to the English language. Not to get off topic, but words that I use, even if not in the dictionary can be understood by many through simple reasoning.

More importantly, I haven't put anyone "down" by my words, but rather just pointed out some occurrences caused by religion. I didn't mean to offend you Mayte. I assume most people on this post are pretty thick-skinned as am I, but I shouldn't presume that with you, so I am sorry.

Religion has brought war--what about the crusades? Hatred and war? What about the ongoing battle over the "holy land". What about Hitler killing millions of Jews? Was there no hatred their at least partly based on religion? You can look at history from a number of different angles. Religion during the time of Christ and before inspired some people to stone those they thought were demon possessed--when in fact they may have even been epileptic. Are you joking? It's not a very funny joke if you are. There are many people that have been persecuted because of their religion, and many that have killed because of their religion.

I am a former born-again Christian, and an ordained minister, and have attended plenty of sermons. I do see enlightenment in almost every religion, but there are always problems, contradictions, literal versus metaphorical mis-interpretations, etc., that can't be avoided. Religion is a very powerful meme that exists, and its properties allow it to have such remarkable fecundity, longevity, and fidelity...written scriptures to stand the test of time, telling people to spread the religion, telling them they will be damned if they don't believe it, and rewarded if they do. It is a brilliant meme, and that is why it has lasted for so long. Even though science and logic have trumped many religious beliefs over the years, and had scientists persecuted as a result of it along the way, people still believe it. Think about the Inquisition during the time of Galileo, and Copernicus. "Holy men" claiming that these scientists were committing acts of heresy and were tortured by these religious leaders until those scientists were forced to "admit" they were wrong--that the earth was the center of the solar system (even though they knew it was the sun). You are telling me that nobody has died, no war, or hatred, has come from religion, just check the history.

It fills voids for many people, and gives them another reason to live (sometimes the only apparent one). I am familiar with it. I see the benefits, but also the disadvantages. These are my points here, which I hope you can understand. Even if you choose not to agree with me, I still respect you and only offer this information to you. Peace and love to you Mayte!

-Lagius

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 2:26PM

I wasn't aware that anything happened to Copernicus, or that Galileo was tortured.

BTW, the problem wasn't that the Church rejected science, but that it accepted it (Aristotle), leading to problems when "settled science" was found to be false.

For all the problems caused to us by the Maimonidean controversy, in a way it was good for us Jews because it kept us from making the same mistake.

Lagiusmeatius| 2.4.11 @ 10:36AM

Copernicus and Galileo weren't themselves tortured. What I meant was that men such as themselves (scientists of that era) were tortured and killed. I will mention that Galileo was threatened with the torture, as Pope Urban VIII, ordered him to be interrogated as a result of his "heresy". I believe Galileo agreed to keep his mouth shut, at least at that time, to save his own life. He knew that these men would not listen to reason, and so he agreed to say "You're right, I'm wrong...sorry bout' that..."
Many other men didn't get the chance to survive and were tortured to death--all in the name of religious supremacy.

Yes, as I've just mentioned, one of the main problems was that the church rejected science. When it was proven that the Earth was not the center of the solar system, but rather it was the Sun, the church felt the pinch--with their geocentric (Earth is most important and central) view collapsing before their very eyes. They knew they'd lose control faster than ever if their claims/beliefs were disproved by science. Thus, they rejected science in many ways for a long time, to try and minimize this obvious threat.

Peace and love to you mzk1,
-Lagius

Mark James| 9.13.10 @ 3:42PM

Atheism or non-theism is an intellectually difficult if not impossible position to take. To be truly non-theistic would require omniscience and that would make you "God" thereby negating your non-theism in that direction would it not?

Lagiusmeatius| 9.15.10 @ 3:21PM

Mark James,

Explain your reasoning here...How would a person being non-theistic require them to be omniscient?

Why would they have to "know everything", in order to not believe in a god or gods? That makes no sense at all. I'd like to see your line of reasoning here...

Peace and love to you Mark James,
-Lagius

Tony in Central PA| 9.9.10 @ 9:13PM

Yes, how quickly men forget that the world enjoyed a brief religion - free Utopia under the kindly thumb of Joe Stalin.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.10.10 @ 12:22PM

I bet Stalin thought it was religion-free, except he was an Atheist, and used that religious belief to try and form his "Utopia". It's a shame so many people have died because of religion. Whether it's dying because of their religion, or killing because of their religion (in the case of Stalin). It is a shame. We can only hope that love for one another will prevail and triumph over the desire to kill others that aren't in your "group", be it a culture, religion, race, age, sex, etc. We can only hope, that one day this Utopia presents itself. A day when men of all different mentalities can try to strive towards one common goal. It is indeed only a dream at this point.
Peace and love to you "Tony in Central PA"!
-Lagius

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 8:50PM

So religion is bad because people kill us for it? Talk about rubbing salt in our wounds!

Besides, it doesn't work; as Jung Chang pointed out, the greatest murderer in history, Mao Tse-Tung, was not an ardent beleiver in anything except his own megalomania.

Regarding religions, speaking as a Jew who knows his history, living under Islam was awful, under Christinity was worse, but the Atheists made the others look like ameteurs. And Mao, who didn't believe in anything, perhaps beat them all.

ThomNJ| 9.10.10 @ 10:00AM

"What if a group of Christians were told that they were not allowed to build a church in a mostly muslim neighborhood because it may offend people? I'd say, too bad! If there are mosques in that neighborhood, and Christians need a place of worship as well, then I'd hope fairness would prevail and allow the church to be built." - This has been going on for centuries - and it most certainly is one-sided with Christians and Jews (or others) not be permitted to build or repair existing church/synagogues in muslim countries; so I find your argument naive at best.

Your reference to the crusades seems also missing something. It seems to be missing the fact that the crusades were purely a defensive mission to fight back at islam's continued oppression, subjugation and killiing of the previously and mostly Christian Middle East. There certainly has been too much bloodshed, but Christianity didn't start it - the muslims did.

Fundamentally (and not defending burning the koran), this pastor is perhaps inadvertently pointing out just how intolerant islam really is - and always will be. There is no "fairness" with islam - you might think there is - until there are enough of them around you to change the way things work. You then find that their tolerance is quite a bit different and yours will need to be increased several orders of magnitude.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.10.10 @ 11:39AM

ThomNJ,

It doesn't matter if it has been one-sided in the past or who supposedly "started it". This doesn't make my argument "naive at best", but rather reciprocal and unbiased. We mustn't act like children and justify any opinion based on the argument "He started it first!". That would be an exercise of elementary school tactics. As Jesus said in the New Testament, "Turn the other cheek". Not that I am a believer in the Bible as a whole, but there is some good advice in certain places. My point was that religion has caused some war, hatred, and death. Regardless of who "started it", religion is religion, and it has been one of the many causes of death, war, and hatred in the world. That is my point here.

Peace and love to you ThomNJ!
-Lagius

Margie| 9.10.10 @ 2:52PM

Religion is man's way to God. Christ is the only Way to God.
John 14:6~ "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father, but by Me."

True Christians serve the Truth and not Religion.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.10.10 @ 6:09PM

Margie,

Be that as it may that you want to call your religion "Truth" rather than religion, it is still a religion. Lets not forget the definition of "religion". Religion is a set of beliefs, concerning the origin and purpose of the universe, belief in or worship of a "god" or "gods" or "God" if you want to emphasize the singular (for those that are monotheistic). Religion is this set of beliefs, and trying to call it "Truth" rather than religion, as to somehow put it "above" other belief systems is merely your opinion and preference. Most people that have a religion would agree that their religion is the "Truth", while everyone else's is not the "Truth". A very typical belief by those that think they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Which is why this statement of yours doesn't surprise me at all...

"True Christians" would also follow the actual teachings of Christ, and rid themselves of material possessions, for the more wealth and materials one carries in this life will be useless in the afterlife and turns one away from "Him". This would include computers and internet service Margie. So are you just quoting scripture for our reference, or were you implying that you are one of these "True Christians"...hmmm...seems rather hypocritical if you are claiming to be one of these.

Perhaps you should follow the teachings of Jesus if you are, and commit your life to spreading the word to others in need of this "Truth", traveling on foot as Jesus did with his disciples, leaving material possessions behind, and promoting peace and the word of God. You can start by donating your computer to someone or just throwing it away, as it is just another material object of "this world", a secular invention which has brought about much suffering, greed, and been one of the largest causes of the spread of more secular information than divine information...Either way, peace and love to you Margie!

-Lagius

Margie| 9.10.10 @ 6:42PM

Once again you are warped in your responses. Read the Bible. Jesus Himself is the Truth. Read the verses where it talks about Religion and see what God has to say. Not good. So, being that you are a self confessed fallen away Christian what are you doing pretending to be otherwise and preaching at others with your lies?

Yes people all say that their Religion is truth but that doesn't make it so. What I said, and if you were a believer you would have agreed because it was from the Bible itself~ is that Jesus Himself said He IS the Truth. Jesus isn't a Religion, He is the Son of God. He died in your place for your sins and therefore you and I were bought with a price, as the Bible says. Following Him means you go according to the Bible and not the doctrines of men. Unless you want to play games and twist what He says.

And no you are a total fraud and you know it. Being a Christians has nothing to do with getting rid of your computer and having to liver like a monk.

And as for "Peace"~

"Agree with God, and be at peace; thereby good will come to you." Job 22:21.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.15.10 @ 3:38PM

Margie,

First off, just because you read something in a book does not make it true. That might come as a big surprise to you. This includes the Bible. I see the Bible as a book written by men who believe they were inspired by "God". The same goes for the Koran. Another book written by man, supposedly inspired by "God". So to use the Bible to prove any kind of point is futile and meaningless.

Second, I have read the Bible. I was a Christian for years and years and enjoyed it very much. It was entertaining to say the least, but also contained some generally good ideas/"morals" that most men can live by. If you've read the New Testament, then you'd know that Jesus taught his followers to be non-materialistic, as wealth and materials in this world stray you from the path of "God". Jesus explained that they are not important, as they will not help you enter the kingdom of "God". I tell you this, not because I believe it is really "truth" in any way. But rather, because you chose to mention Scripture, I decided to use it as well and prove that you do not follow it as closely as you think. So once again I say, you can get rid of your secular technology including your computer, and internet, and go out on foot as Jesus did and preach to the masses with nothing other than yourself and the clothes on your body. Otherwise, you demonstrate that you are nothing more than a hypocrite. So prove me wrong, and do it! Get rid of the computer, and go preach. I would respect you much more if you did. You don't think you have to live like Jesus did (a monk apparently) to be a Christian, but you are not following his teachings and example fully if you stray from that. Introducing materialistic things of this world will only stray you further. It goes to show that many people claiming to be "Christians" are really just Christians in name only. So if you choose not to follow Christ's example, as is mentioned in the Bible (you should read it more closely if you disagree), then don't mention scripture as a source of anything unless you are prepared to actually follow it.

I know you call me a fraud, and a liar. I choose to refrain from calling you names, as I'd rather choose to apply the golden rule and have more respect for my fellow man (or woman). Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!

Peace and love to you Margie!
-Lagius

Possum Dearie| 9.10.10 @ 11:07AM

Egyptian Mohammad Atta; Marwan al-Shehhi from UAE; Hani Hanjour, the Saudi pilot who flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon; Ziad Jarrah from Beirut was from a "secular Muslim" family that "was easygoing -- the men drank whiskey and the women wore short skirts about town and bikinis at the beach." They were all Muslim. They saw jihad not as "the individual's daily struggle for his own soul," but jihad as a Muslim's " obligation to fight on behalf of his beliefs, against nonbelievers and corrupters of belief." To Atta and a friend who called himself Omar (ultimately he became the backstage coordinator of the 2001 attacks under his real name, Ramzi Binalshibh), "no matter where they fought, their real enemies were the Jews, and ultimately the Americans."

Let's call things by their proper names and speak the plain truth here.

Lela| 9.13.10 @ 1:08AM

How about 8,000 miles away, like in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, Meat?
Peace and love to you, too!

Lagiusmeatius| 9.15.10 @ 3:44PM

Lela,

I love the "Meat" reference! Nice! I hope you see my point here regarding the distance. There is no way to determine how far away a Mosque has to be, for it to be "ok". This is because choosing a distance is completely arbitrary, which goes to show the argument for a correct or right distance is futile. You can probably see that I can easily say to your "8000 miles away" recommendation, "Why that far?" Is that really far enough? Why did you choose that distance? I can also say, "let's pick a distance that still lies in the U.S."--unless you are against all mosques in the U.S. (perhaps churches or any place of worship as well--to make it "even-steven"?)...
Maybe you were just joking...

Peace and love to you Lela,
-Lagius

Wife of a scandalous nation| 9.9.10 @ 11:35PM

I think that it became the "in" thing to condemn Christians. So, to build a mosque there would be to condone anyone but a Christian. Well then, let's put a Buddha there too! At least I can relate to that!
Here here! Let's all write our own version of the bible and build an interdenomiational church there, next to that!

Possum Dearie| 9.10.10 @ 11:13AM

To the politicized Muslims of the OPEC cartel and their bought politicians, condemning Christians has always been "in." We're dangerously close to a redo of the Roman Empire, and Bloomberg loves Plato's Republic. I remember that from his first campaign. He also remembers his family buying a home in a WASP-y MA neighborhood and going through their Christian lawyer so as to protect their identity. He is a willing dhimmi, because he has always resented "small town Christian values" and is likely excited to be doing business is Dubai.

clarityrising| 9.11.10 @ 3:02AM

What a total misunderstanding of events, and by the way, a Christian, Greek Orthodox church was denied permission to REBUILD their pre-existing church that was destroyed by the falling towers. Now to enlighten your ignorance, there is nothing peaceful and kumbays about the mosque burning. It is in fact about intolerance because muslims build monuments at the sites of conquests; read your history. And the fact that it is named the Cordoba mosque is even more enlightening. The preacher burning the koran is not about hate, it is about bringing to light the hypocrisy of the muslims who demand tolerance but give none. Get a clue.

rrebell| 9.11.10 @ 11:10AM

The WTC was destroyed and the near 3000 Americans and others were murdered in the name os Islam, by Islamist criminals. Their crime is not a crime in the eye of the moslems. Their aim is not bridge building or goodwill. Had they have goodwill they would not provoke American sensitivities. They are going to build their Victory Mosque and the immam is treatening with moslem retaliation if the Mosque were not built. Burning the Qur'an does not kill anybody, or maybe moslems will kill because of it. It seems that their key words are death and kill. I do not hear from them love or forgivness, probably they are not in their dictionary. Peace is in their dictionary, but it has to be their kind of peace that means cemetery for everybody else. Bismillah.

Gregory Fulton| 9.12.10 @ 7:09PM

"Also, Obama has every right to be a Muslim, just as you do, or I do. We do have that right, and it is a fundamental right represented by the First Ammendment."
The article contends that there is no such "First Amendment" right as you propose. But that the 1st was meant to prevent the federal government from interfering with the states from setting up their own religious tests for office and establishments of official religions.

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 2:28PM

Actually, the right not to have requirements to hold Federal office is in the constitution itself, even before the bill of rights. Bless the Founders for that.

Joanna| 9.9.10 @ 4:10PM

That I didn't know, though it does make sense. Now, I'm not being P.C. here. I'm simply against the possibility of this escalating into who knows what! The sort of crazies who rammed the WTC and who treat Christians in their country with utter disdain (also ordering soldiers to burn the Bible) would stop at nothing if their book is burned! It could result in an action to make September 11th look no worse than a rained out picnic!

Problem is, we're bending over backwards to be TOLERANT of those who have NO tolerance of others. How far will we go? Obama proudly stated that the U.S. was no longer a Christian nation. How long before we become a Muslim nation, en masse, with the LIBERAL women, so proud of their tolerance, being treated with little or no tolerance or respect, by those they went out of their way to show respect to.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.9.10 @ 4:31PM

Joanna,

I completely understand your concern. There are many people that bend over backwards to be tolerant of minorities (whether its culture, race, religion, etc.). I will say that labeling Muslims as intolerant is misleading. There are many, many, many moderate Muslims in the world, and many in this country. The problem is that we try to please every religion, culture, etc., but you can't make everyone equally happy, no matter what we try. We still have laws that must be upheld, so even it says to stone a woman who has a child out of wedlock in the Old Testament of the bible (which it does indeed)...we can't honor that in this country because it contradicts our laws. Some things we can allow however, and that includes allowing people to build mosques, churches, monasteries, temples, etc. , to practice their religion. We also don't know who ran into the WTC, as the black boxes on the planes were never found in the wreckage--so we will never know who was in the cockpit of those planes, or what was said, etc. People presume it was Muslim terrorists because of the media, and hearsay. It seemed to "fit" based on peoples pre-dispositions of Muslims, the ongoing wars in the middle east, etc. Not to mention the fact that someone needs to be blamed as soon as possible! Unfortunately, that's the mentality in most situations. All the finger pointers hard at work! Even if we could prove it was Muslims in the cockpit, their actions would not speak for all Muslims. Just as one democrat or republican, or conservative or liberal's actions DO NOT speak for the rest in those groups. There are always extremists and morons that ruin it for everyone in every group. The key is to look past that extremism and embrace those that are moderate and ultimately just want peace in the world. I have several friends at work that are Muslims, and they are very kind people that never have any intention to harm anyone. If anything, they wish they weren't lumped into the same group as the violent extremists. By constantly assuming that extremists represent the entire group, for which they may be associated with in name or otherwise, is illogical and will never accomplish anything good in the world. I do however understand your frustration regarding this issue.
Peace and love to you Joanna!

-Lagius

South Texan| 9.9.10 @ 5:16PM

Perhaps we should let all murderers do what ever they want so we can show our tolerance.

Lagiusmeatius| 9.9.10 @ 6:08PM

South Texan,

I don't think that sounds very reasonable at all.
Why do you think we should do this?

-Lagius

BazzaMcKenzie| 9.9.10 @ 7:30PM

I think South Texan is just showing the logical consequences of your woolly thinking.

You assert "There are many, many, many moderate Muslims in the world, and many in this country." Where is the evidence of these many moderate Muslims? Have they en masse turned on the terrorists and destroyed them? If their numbers are so large, surely they must have the capacity to overwhelm the terrorists in their midst.

Have the Saudis and the Egyptians and Syrians thrown open their countries to Christians and encouraged them to build churches?

Lenin spoke of the importance of "useful idiots" in the West in fostering and supporting the progress of communism, presenting it as a mild and unthreatening political philosophy. Islam takes the same approach and has found an unlimited supply of useful idiots, usually the same sort of people who supported communism against their own country.

Jwoo| 9.10.10 @ 12:13AM

What's illogical is your assertion that we should or shouldn't do something because of what Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Syria does or doesn't do it. The whole freaking point of America is to be ABOVE these cavemen.

Christians went through the same history of violence that the Middle East is still stuck in, and eventually the people rose and rejected the lies and manipulation of the religious leaders (the corrupt Catholic Church).

Look at the youth in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Their revolution is coming, make no mistake. People like the radical Mullahs that control these countries are in shorter supply every generation, and as their numbers dwindle, the numbers of those that just want to live their lives in a developed country exponentially increase.

What you are asking will likely happen, and while it may come after a long and grueling world war, that may just be what it takes. You want the majority of moderate Muslims to rise up and "destroy" the extremist minority? Be careful what you wish for.

Mike Bowler| 9.9.10 @ 7:18PM

To say there are "moderate" muslims is kind of misleading. According to the Qu'ran it is mandatory to follow it's edicts. It is NOT up for discussion. The so called "peaceful" passages of the Qu'ran are in the beginning of this book. The Qu'ran requires that where there is conflict between verses, the later verse supercedes the earlier. The verses that call for violence AND deception when dealing with infidels are later in the Qu'ran. Any truly practicing muslim will support the actions of the jihadists, perhaps by laying by and saying Islam is a religion of peace let us build a mosque where our brothers killed so many of you. The idea that a muslim is "moderate" can only apply to one that is not practicing. BELIEVE IT.

Barbara| 9.9.10 @ 11:44PM

Please reference Bible verses in the O.T. regarding the stoning of a woman who has a child out of wedlock. Thk u

Lagiusmeatius| 9.10.10 @ 10:34AM

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (stone women for pre-marital relations)...this would include having a child out of wedlock, but she doesn't even have to bear a child. Just the relations themselves, even if no child is born, subjected her to death.

If you didn't already know this, then you probably haven't read the Bible. Or you only read parts that people tell you to read. You must read it from front to back for it to be a complete story. Then you realize how much isn't followed by so many believers. Some follow the Old Testament, some only the New, and some both...either way there are some shocking consequences for people. Especially when they look at other cultures and religions and say, "they kill women for these "sins", the bible doesn't tell us to do that...only the Kuran". Little do they know that much of what is written in the Koran came from the Old Testament. As the Old Testament was written much earlier than the Koran, and has precedence.

Peace and love to you Barbara,
-Lagius

NotALibertarian| 9.10.10 @ 1:48PM

Some things, Lagius:
First off, some of your judgments seem pretty selective. Somewhere above you claim that the violence done in the name of Christianity equals that of violence done by atheist-fascists because of population growth. Really? Are you a statistician? Have you actually crunched the numbers? And talk about assumptions.

As for Old Testament Israel, just about every race on earth carried out capital punishment during Old Testament times. What set Israel apart from the nations around them was not its violent punishments for law-breakers; it was the kind of things people were punished for (many laws concerned relationships that damage the lives of children).
You engage in moral equivalence regarding the murderous Communists by impying that the religious wars of Europe would have been more bloody if there had been more people to kill, but you show the OT faith no similar circumspection in considering real-world circumstances at the time.

That's part of why your perspective on this is so unconvincing. You lump all faiths in together under Religion, and gloss over significant differences with some pretty weak explanations.
The The Old Testament penalties on mortal sins, for example, are not even followed by contemporary Jews today. (Jesus Christ came and changed that for the rest of us who revere Jehovah.)
But religious Muslims today carry out extremely violent punishments. In other words, Hear about any Christian people beheading people lately? Notice how much more just the legal systems are in the Christianized West?

As a Christian with an anabaptist heritage, I distinguish between Christians and people who are Christianized. Sheesh, even the ungodly, unbelieving Voltaire noticed that anabaptists were different. Yes, most self-described Christians today have reverted back to the Law of Moses when it comes to capital punishment and war. But I would much rather live among them, than Muslims.
Why? Because Islam and Judeo-Christianity are DIFFERENT. They are not the same. One (even the misunderstood brand of Christianity) is better, one is brutal.

Deep down you know this, but you are so insulated from this reality that you can afford to ignore it, and present yourself as more open and fair-minded than the rest of us. Go live in Afghanistan for a while, and then come back and tell us how equal Islam and Christianity are.

Margie| 9.10.10 @ 3:01PM

So you yourself state that you are a former Christian and so you think you can get away with trying to pervert what God says or does in the Bible? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you are a reprobate you ought not to be talking about God's intentions at all.

Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases." Ps. 115:3.

You really do know better!

darcy| 9.11.10 @ 3:18PM

He is an apostate, an unbeliever. Christ's forgiveness is foolishness to him. Ignore him, for he only writes here to lead others astray:

"It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin." Luke 17:2

This thread is about Islam, and he has made of it an opportunity to spew his hatred against our Christ. Get thee behind us, Satan, is all I can say to him.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:06PM

Oh, for heaven's sake! Stop commenting about religions you don't understand!

That verse is talking about Adultery, not pre-marital. The term, "to take", everywhere in the Bible, refers to marriage (contrast v. 25), generally betrothal, which is when you give the woman a ring. To get out of that, you need a full divorce. However, the couple do not live together until the second part of marriage, which today we do at the same time but originally was separate.

Premarital in Judaism is considered immoral, but it is not anything like adultery, incest, etc. It is, in fact, permitted to Gentiles, and even to Jews the prohibition may be Rabbinic. Even if it is Biblical, it is a relatively light prohibition, except in a moral sense.

And, by the way, do I think Moslems should be killing adulteresses? Not without evidence, and while ignoring the lover. But if they actually follow Sharia, and have the required four witnesses, and the lover is given the same punishment, then more power to them. I wish the U.S. had some sanction for it.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:08PM

In other words, not the way it's done in Saudi Arabia. Maybe Nigeria does it correctly. And I would prefer a more humane method than what is commonly called "stoning".

GTurner| 9.10.10 @ 1:51AM

LaggardMeathead (or whatever): There are such things as PRINCIPLES in this world, and particularly in this COUNTRY. They start with truths held to be self-evident (There is a creator, he has endowed us with unalienable rights; life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc). There is no inherent honor in being "moderate" any more than there is in being "non-theristic"> Please quit with the diatribe about not being able to prove that Musilims were responsible for 9/11. You just sound like the "morons" you seem to really like to denigrate. You behave as if people here are maintaining that ALL Muslims are "bad", and that its your job to edumacate us stupid rednecks. BEGONE!

I think there is a general consensus that building a Mosque near ground zero is in poor taste. I also think there is a majority that find the prospect of burning ANY books as a demonstration against ANYONE is unwise. The point of this article was that the rediculous references to the first ammendment in the arguements associated with BOTH these proposed acts are inappropriate and inconsistent with what the first ammendment is/was all about. Most everyone who has read the Constitution and is conversant with the principles of the founding will agree. The ammendment is all about keeping the Federal Government out of the business of the states. Shamefully, the States no longer seem willing to press their case, and there's no clear way to shut the big O's pie-hole on the subject...

Lagiusmeatius| 9.10.10 @ 10:16AM

GTurner (see I know how to spell YOUR name--but I assume you spelled mine so to be funny or what-have-you. Very, very, clever.)

Ironically, one of my nick-names is Meat, so you gave me a chuckle too...

There are such things as principles in this world, including respect for someone's name..hint-hint.

If you can prove that it was Muslims that caused the crash, then we can talk. Otherwise, we'll have to skip that for now, since you have no argument other than you saying "Please quit with the diatribe about not being able to prove that Musilims were responsible for 9/11."

I don't think everyone on this post thinks that all Muslims are bad, but I can assume that there are at least a few...why do you think building a Mosque near ground zero is in bad taste? Is it, once again, because of your presumption that it was Muslims that caused the tragedy? Even if it were, given that they had to be extremists in some fashion (Muslim or not), would that mean that all Muslims should suffer from several Muslims actions? Again I ask, where is your reasoning for that? Answer me this, how far away can they build it. It's already not at ground zero, but several blocks away. Does it have to be 1 mile away? 10 miles? 100 miles? 1000 miles? what is your answer. What sounds like a reasonable distance to you? If you have a number chosen that is NOT in poor taste, why that number? Any logical person can see that there is no un-biased or logical way to calculate such a distance, which goes to show that picking some distance has to be arbitrary. Thus, it doesn't matter. If you disagree then give me a distance, and tell me why?
Otherwise, save your empty arguments for the playground.

Also, where is this general consensus coming from? People that hate Muslims? FOX News? Where is this consensus coming from. There's absolutely no way everyone in the country has even given their opinion on this, not even a significant percentage, so please...

I agree with you that the point of this article was to demonstrate the mis-use of the 1st Ammendment regarding religion. My point is, regardless of the 1st ammendment, if people are allowed to build a temple or church in an area, then it can't matter who the temple is for (which religion that is). That would be discrimination and obviously unfair. As I mentioned in a previous post, if you wanted to build a Christian church in a mostly Muslim neighborhood, and some may be offended by it, should that change your being able to build it there--or even by default mean that it is in poor taste? What if you just want your own place of worship, and you aren't trying to offend Muslims, but just have what they have? Is that not fair, and in good taste? Answer me that, please...if the tables were turned.
Peace and love to you GTurner,
-Lagius

HA65MPH| 9.10.10 @ 2:35AM

LAG , Yes we DO KNOW who flew all'' the planes that day SEPT. 11 ...THERE WERE RECORDINGS BACK AND FORTH , CELL PHONES BEING USED , HEARING THE SCREAMS OF ONE FLIGHT ATTENDANT THROAT BEING CUT , YES WE KNOW .

Lagiusmeatius| 9.10.10 @ 9:54AM

HA65MPH,

LAG? Hmm...close so I'll let it slide...perhaps you can't type very quickly so you summarize. No biggie...

The point is we don't know who was in the cockpit, and we don't know that they were Muslims. Take this scenario for example: imagine people being hired to take the plane down. Imagine that some of these hired are in the cabin with the rest of the passengers asserting or allowing people to assume that they are Muslims. Would that not serve a great political purpose to the man that was in charge at the time? George W. Bush? Would you really be shocked if you found out that someone else, other than Muslims were ultimately responsible for orchestrating that crash? It gave us a reason to "stick together", as Alan Jackson put it when he profited off of the tragedy "The day the world stopped turning on 9/11"...it gave us further reason to go to war. It gave politicians in that administration a way (whether intentional or not) to distract us from other issues happening during the same time. Even though George Bush was on camera, reading or what-have-you to elementary children, when informed by an assistant of what had just happened at the WTC. What did he do? Was he heroic in those moments? Was he quick to jump to action as if surprised by what had happened? Nope. He just sat there for many minutes with an indifferent look on his face. There was no reason for him to act polite and pretend nothing had happened. We had supposedly "just been attacked on our homeland"...and he sat there...before "doing" anything about it. Is it really surprising if we found out that there were other people involved in orchestrating that crash? It gave Americans a reason to hate people in the middle east even more so, and a reason to hate ALL Muslims even though extremists were supposedly the culprits. No doubt extremists were involved, and no doubt they could appear to be Muslims. My point is that, this tragedy that occurred, unfortunately, served interests for other people other than Muslims. Would you be surprised if the government or some top officials sacrificed 3000 people to serve a cause such as that. I wouldn't. Many more people die everyday due to starvation with no regard to those deaths. We only care about what we see in the media. When things hit us close, at home, and ends up on the news. Not everyone, but most people think this way. Until I hear the black boxes recovered (which I don't think would ever happen), we'll never know exactly who was in the cockpit, what was said, what language they were speaking, etc. We will never know.

Peace and love to you (I'll use your whole name)
HA65MPH,

-Lagius

Lunar| 9.10.10 @ 11:52AM

I just want to comment on your statement about President Bush's reaction to the news. Do you really think there is anything that can prepare a person to hear that kind of news? Do you remember what kind of reaction you had when you heard what had happened? I don't care to get into a debate about his quality as a President, because I wasn't following politics back then, but to complain that he wasn't heroic in that moment and try to frame that as evidence that he had some foreknowledge of the attack doesn't make sense to me. No matter what hopes we have for our Presidents, there are no character requirements to hold the office. Don't we tend to elect likable people moreso than capable people? It sounds more realistic to me that he would have acted heroically if he did know what was going to happen. Wouldn't you have planned your reaction to such a monumental event, if you went to all the trouble of planning it and pulling it off?

I can concede that you have a point that the hijackers could have been paid to portray a particular race and religion. However, in that case, we have to assume Osama Bin Laden lied when he took credit for the attacks (or did that not happen? It's been awhile, so I may not remember clearly). If OBL and Al Qaeda are responsible, even if they hired people, it is still an islamic [extremist] organization that is responsible. Too many assumptions are required for your proposed alternative (and, I assume any other you can propose, such as aliens, to get really ridiculous) to pan out. That is why I am going to stick with the evidence that people working for the islamic terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the attack, some of whom went to fight school prior to the hijacking, were actually responsible.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:10PM

Until you wrote this I thought you were rational, but misinformed. Now I see you are just another nut.

Possum Dearie| 9.10.10 @ 11:19AM

Lagius, You keep referencing these mysterious black boxes, as if this explained anything to anyone but Alex Jones. Since I'm not wearing my tin foil hat, can you please elaborate on your point? KISS rule, please. Who do you think was behind 911? Thanks.

Ryan| 9.12.10 @ 1:30PM

Right. Bending over backward to remain steadfast in what this country supposedly guarantees each and every citizen - freedom. And when was this ever a christian nation? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Pretty sure that lays it out right there. Can you think of some middle eastern countries who DO uphold a state recognized religion? How's that working out? Would you prefer to emulate them?

This country is not a religious anything and I sure hope it never comes to that. The people in this country are free to believe in anything they want and if that is threatened in any way, shape or form by bigots such as yourself, then this ceases to be America.

9/11 has ushered in a whole new era of hate and intolerance in this country and it makes me absolutely ill.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:12PM

Then why does the most categorical intolerance in these comments seem to come from atheists?

James| 9.9.10 @ 6:39PM

Uhh, Mark, the bible burning was reported in May, 2009 by CNN. A Lt. Col. said that it happened "about a year ago". So, I guess you meant to say that it was George W Bush, as Commander in Chief, who was the Bible burning President, not Obama.

Todd| 9.9.10 @ 9:37PM

Congratulations James, you win the prize for dumbest comment on the Spectator today. Do you know when Obozo was inaugurated? It was definitely well before May 2009.

Raffle| 9.9.10 @ 10:43PM

James, in May of 2009 President George W Bush was in Crawford Texas, not the White House. Opps.

Alan Brooks| 9.9.10 @ 6:42PM

Isn't politics getting childish? this is Onion magazine politics.

Ret. Marine| 9.9.10 @ 6:55PM

"but wont stick up for his own Christain Nation" First off this is not his Nation, and he may pretend to be a Christian, as well as a son of America, but that is still in the Judges box at the time being and who in the hell would claim to be aq Christian while promoting whole sale slaughter of born and unborn children. Don't acuss me of being a birther either, if he were ligit, why is he hiding all of gis records from the publkic, just the facts man, facts.

HA65MPH| 9.10.10 @ 2:42AM

RET. MARINE , Thank you for your SERVICE. barry soreto'' aka BHO'' ..IS A MUSLIM . 'PERIOD'. His strings are being pulled by 'soros' ..and yes , he is a SNAKE IN A SUIT. ..WATCH WHAT ''IT'' DOES , NOT HIS TELEPROMTER ''WORDS'' ..He lies- LIES .. ! nuff 'said !

Mark James| 9.13.10 @ 2:46PM

I understand your sentiment and support your outrage at the Bible burning, but that is NOT OUR COUNTRY. We were there as guests. Regardless of our moral standing in helping them overthrow tyranny, it still is their country.

Joe| 9.9.10 @ 7:44PM

Islam is a cancer...period.

Ryan| 9.12.10 @ 1:35PM

Religion is cancer... period.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:14PM

So who's the intolerant bigot, now? I would say "Atheism is cancer, period", but I won't stoop to your level.

Jacobite| 9.9.10 @ 8:24PM

Jeez, could we cut the bottomless pool of crap here? Mohammed is either the last prophet of Allah, and Jews and Christians are infidels if they do not acknowledge him, or Mohammed is a lying bag of camel-crap, who's Koran is no more to be honored than Ron Hubbard's scientology books. We ought not to treat lies as truth. As a Christian, evidently a vanishing breed in the US, I accord the Koran no respect, and I feel zero need to respect the beliefs of Mohammedans. Or, at least, no need to accord them one iota more respect than they show to Christianity. Prostrating yourself before an alien religion, while allowing them to abuse and humiliate your fellow believers without a protest, will lead them to despise you, and justly so. You are a coward, and a pathetic one. Slavery is your just reward, and Mohammedans are just the folks to arrange it for you.

GTurner| 9.10.10 @ 2:06AM

Spoken like a true 21st century American. Your founding fathers would be SOOOO proud.

Of course, the BEAUTY of America lies in part in that you don't have to show ANYONE any "respect". You just have to take the consequences of that rediculous philosophy. Your "eye for an eye" approach (he hit me FIRST, so I hit him back) will do nothing but propagate strife, Middle East style, indefinitely.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

George F| 9.10.10 @ 10:01AM

One addition to your comment: Islam is a cancer on the world. And like cancer in people, this cancer should be recognized and treated.

Jeff| 9.22.10 @ 9:28AM

Progressives are a cancer to the Constitution and our freedoms. They need a good dose of radiation.

Shamus| 9.9.10 @ 6:31AM

Burning the Koran is like volunteering to have your head chopped off.

Booger| 9.9.10 @ 8:48AM

Dear Shameful,

I, too, object to burning the Koran. I find my Koran to be much more flavorful when wrapped in bacon and slow roasted over an apple-wood fire. As to "volunteering to have my head chopped off", I have an insurance policy against such unpleasantries which involves 230-grain, hollow, lead projectiles travelling at approximately 900 feet per second.

metamarcisf| 9.9.10 @ 10:52AM

What a dipshit

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 12:19PM

And besides, I agree with Ann Coulter, it helps to contribute to global warming.

Stephanie| 9.9.10 @ 12:46PM

Booger, I think you are funny. Plus, I agree with you!

A.M. Mallett| 9.9.10 @ 1:21PM

Well, you can use those hollow points until Oba Mao's EPA determines to ban lead bullets to protect the environment.

Bob| 9.9.10 @ 2:26PM

The EPA dropped that last week at least for the time being. Love the Oba Mao that is quiet catchy.
Booger 550 grain pumpkin ball rounds are better insurance.

Big10bill| 9.9.10 @ 2:12PM

I find this all entertaining, but thank God we are in the USA or we would all have our heads cut off for even TALKING about burning the Quran. The Muslim religion is an INTOLERANT one, thus the head removal syndrome, the absence of rights for women in their countries, and the need to maintain our 2nd amendment rights without infringement. Christians would ask for your forgiveness for burning the Bible, not machete your skull. http://www.independent.co.uk/o.....72201.html

joanna| 9.9.10 @ 4:21PM

I prefer not having the Koran in my home at all. In fact, and this will likely get me killed, but after 9/11, I chucked my Koran (given to me after I called into a radio show and talked to someone about their interpretation of Jesus). This was PRE-9/11.

I'm not sure there is a way out. Don't do anything and that allows the Islamic cause to advance to a point where NO OTHER cause/religion/view will be tolerated. But the matter of burning the Koran could backfire to the point where the liberal media and government go OUT OF THEIR way to escalate the building of the Mosque in order to prevent a home front war, which could bring Islam into North America at full force that much sooner!

Ret Marine| 9.9.10 @ 6:57PM

Gotta love those ,45acp's hey?

George S| 9.9.10 @ 6:31AM

Bloomberg defending the right to light up? How surprising. What with all that second-hand Koran smoke...

John Malcolm| 9.9.10 @ 1:17PM

That's the best chuckle I've had all day. I'm gonna use that all week. Thanks!

Elizabeth Schremp| 9.9.10 @ 6:45AM

Pastor Jones and his flock are brilliant! They are "the news", and many laboring talkinghead pundits are very jealous.What will they accomplish? Well, we will see who is so tolerant. Muslims will be whining like babies, as usual.

Jim Whittle| 9.9.10 @ 8:19AM

Pastor Jones has forgotten that the true offense of the gospel is the cross. Burning the Koran is antithetical to the gospel.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 12:22PM

It is quite silly, actually and I don't know where this guy's really at. But I think the larger point is that if our troops were allowed to fight like men and actually win this war, this stupid little issue wouldn't BE an issue. I think it's all bogus.

old white guy| 9.9.10 @ 4:12PM

our troops are in a war against islamic jihad. burning the book that is responsible for the damn violence won't make our war any less violent and won't get any more killed. i agree we should ramp up and kill them until they beg for mercy and then we show them mercy

D Right One| 9.9.10 @ 5:02PM

Hmm, I agree/disagree with a lot of comments on here, but I totally disagree with giving them mercy. I was just thinking of the invasion of Islamic forces into Italy back in the Middle Ages. They were eventually turned back. The Muslims should have been slaughtered from the face of the Earth then. Now, they number over a billion and counting. They will not give us mercy. We shouldn't give them any either.

Joanna| 9.9.10 @ 4:22PM

AMEN!!! Thank you for reminding those of us who should know!

A.M. Mallett| 9.9.10 @ 1:23PM

I would rather turn a horde of pigs loose in a mosque.

John Malcolm| 9.9.10 @ 1:30PM

I recently read about a woman in Italy who put a pig on a leash and let it urinate and defecate on the lot of a proposed mosque. Needless to say, they never built the mosque on that lot.

Nancy in NC| 9.9.10 @ 3:12PM

What a brilliant idea. Someone should pass off that nugget of wisdom to the folks in NYC. Hell, they could run about a dozen hogs around the block. We've got plenty of hogs in NC, and no doubt, plenty of folks willing to donate.

JKS| 9.9.10 @ 4:12PM

I think we need to haul a bunch of swine to Ground Zero and let them run 'hog wild'! (pun intended). We should then coat all our ammo going overseas in a ever so light coating of hogs blood. General Pershing got it right.

Islam is a regime| 9.9.10 @ 7:53PM

Bloomberg is a pig. That hasn't discouraged muslims has it?

Ret. Marine| 9.9.10 @ 6:47AM

First off-no one gives a flying leap of sheet what ole bloomie and the hildabeast have to say, both are equally ignorant of anything having to do with the Constitution, they use it conviently when and only when it suits their intended goals.
I have no problem with the pastor burning the qoran, its his right to burn anything he wishes, it does not make it sensible or appropriate to do so but nonetheless its his right. The only reason the "won" opens his mouth to any event is to prove once again that you cannot fix stupid and you damn sure can fill an an empty mind with nothing in response.
This problem will not go away until someone in a leadership and revelent role of our way of life here in these United States understands and makes it crystasl clear to the vast amount of idiots calling themselves American's, minus a mind, islam, muslims and their way of totalitarianism is not going to work here in these United States and not be a threat to all things we hold near and dear while pretending to be a religion, it is simple a mechanizism of an evil ideology. Can't get away with the facts. Just because some in the so-called political ideology (islam) do not conform to its evil intents does not mean by any means they are not for it and the outcome, to say nothing is to confirm its tenets and in the end are behind those who create the evil acts. You can bull-shit some but, not all. When the ideology (islam) confesses what is in plain sight and demands change to everyone in its ranks we might get a start in understanding the faith is not a faith but, a political, social, and military doctrine to those who willing submit to the devil. And by no means don't use common sense in the same sentence as the two idiots ( bloomie- the hildabeast) you mentioned in this article and expect any one to think either knows anything of the Constitution or the death cult, because they are into it for the money, plain and simple. These two are anything but a Patriot. They are in it for themselves and could care less of you, me or the best for this Nation. You can dress pigs up to party but, they will still sheet on everything in front of them.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 12:26PM

Exactly correct, Ret. Marine.

Whether or not it's "a good thing" to burn the already flaming evil Koran isn't the point. The point is that we need to recognize evil for evil!

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 3:40PM

Ret. Marine:

Very much inclined to agree with you that Islam is the "mechanism of an evil ideology."

But I'd go you one better and suggest that Judaism and Christianity are even worse in that regard. All three of the sonsabitchin' arrogant ideologies/theologies (which flow through each other historically, by the way) have led to millions of needless deaths in the name of "spiritual purity" or whatever.

Total horseshit.

Eh?

JKS| 9.9.10 @ 4:15PM

Hey Ralphey boy,

You might want to look up the number of people secular humanism is responsible for killing in the last century. You would find that it totals more than all other deaths attributed to every other religion in the history of man - combined.

Ret. Marine| 9.9.10 @ 7:05PM

Don't confuse ol ralphy with the facts. TROLL WATCH- supervisor.

Michael| 9.9.10 @ 7:04AM

The one comment about the planned Koran burning from written critics on the web has been it will "endanger US troops." I guess US troops were in no danger before. It beggars belief that the General in charge thinks it will put his men in harms way. Is anybody out there really getting this logic? I'm not advocating burning books, I could care less, but I think the Reverend is trying to make a point about the frustration of the masses in regards to the extremist Islamic threat, which our Gov seems happy to use as an election tool. Our combat troops retreat from combat duty and the next day some troops die helping Iraqis. It's a little cognitive dissonance. Are we being played? I'm not a big conspiracy guy; I think they won't make up stories, just feed the press and do what they want. Oh well, what's the point, the conservatives won't do much differently; spend and gloat, bend and break.

CassandraToday| 9.9.10 @ 1:14PM

You're calling *Petraeus* a wimp? He's more man than all you armchair PFCs in this comment column combined.

A.M. Mallett| 9.9.10 @ 1:26PM

What does a man named Cassandra know about Petraeus being a man?

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 3:46PM

Mallett:

What a cheap, stupid, cowardly shot. Back-shootin' bushwhacker!

CassandraToday| 9.9.10 @ 5:47PM

Let me see if I can explain this in a way that you can understand, A.M.Mallett. Cassandra is a woman's name. I am a woman. I can tell the difference between a man who is genuinely courageous, and a man who talks tough but is a weakling inside. Learning to tell this difference is a skill that women have to learn, because -- as this comment column illustrates -- there are a lot of tough-talking, weakling men in the world.

James| 9.9.10 @ 6:44PM

Excellent rejoinder.

David T.| 9.9.10 @ 1:49PM

Gen Petraeus is certainly no wimp but like too many military leaders today he suffers from a bad case of political correctness and a penchant for trying to be nice to our enemies.

David Tbull| 9.9.10 @ 2:51PM

I have met GEN Petraeus and have had the good fortune to listen to him on several occasions when he has discussed our role in this region I believe that their are very few people who have as firm a grasp on what is going on over there and how we can affect it. Trust me the man is neither a wimp or a PC type person, if he tells you that he believes that burning the Koran will incite the locals in the region he is more than likely correct. Also, one of my best soldiers was named Marilyn. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Smeagal| 9.9.10 @ 3:38PM

Like the bombing of their city streets & buildings and the killing of innocents while doing so doesn't incite "the locals." Petraeus is right, but loses that wisdom as he continues fighting an illegal war.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 3:44PM

No huge fan of Petraeus, but I support your defense of him here.

Hear, hear.

Nancy in NC| 9.9.10 @ 3:21PM

Like those maggots need an excuse to act like barbarians? Please.

Petraeus didn't learn much from McKrystle.
Sometimes it's wiser to just keep your pie whole closed. The men and women in Afghanistan are already in danger for pete's sake. Does anyone really think that the Taliban and cronies will play nice if the Fla. reverend refrains from burning the Koran?

Personally, if you can't burn them all, why bother. I'm beginning to believe that Islam is not even a real religion, but an evil ideology that we need to stop catering to. I'm sick of seeing their warped ideas being paraded as if they were perfectly OK...sharia law, etc. What a joke.

Wake up, America.

E.Patrick Mosman| 9.9.10 @ 7:13AM

It is incomprehensible that our politicians continue to bow before and support a "religious" cause that can work its followers into violent anti-American rage with threats of death and destruction to Americans everywhere over the burning of a book , the presence of a painting or a cartoon but not only condones but supports suicide bombers, the stoning to death of one of its followers, the subjection of non-believers and women and Saudi Arabia's banning of the Christian Bible, Jewish torahs and religious houses of worship.
Isn't there something wrong with demanding tolerance for those who show no tolerance for others?

Big10bill| 9.9.10 @ 2:25PM

I second that emotion. http://www.independent.co.uk/o.....72201.html

Nancy in NC| 9.9.10 @ 3:22PM

Amen!!!

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 3:50PM

Mr. Mosman:

"Isn't there something wrong with demanding tolerance for those who show no tolerance for others?"

Bin Laden thought so. 9/11 was his showing that he and others would not tolerate those who would not tolerate others.

Eh?

E. Patrick Mosman| 9.9.10 @ 6:14PM

Mr Novy,
"Bin Laden thought so. 9/11 was his showing that he and others would not tolerate those who would not tolerate others.
Eh?"
Eh?Eh?

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 7:33PM

He's a friggen canuck, he isn't expected to make sense.

Tim| 9.9.10 @ 7:16AM

When you scrape all of the BS off of this Koran Burning debate one is left with this fact.

When someone does something distastefull the normal reaction in a civilized society is to either ignore it or condem it and then simply move on.

There is a real problem when some teenager has pre marital sex and is then stoned to death in the name of a religion as oppossed to simply being given other less severe punishments or counseling.

Condoms are often thrown at priests inside churches and crucifixes are spit and urinated on and the Star of David is routinely burned and the Bibles and the copies of the Torah are sometimes trashed in the public square to protest this or that.

These actions are all insensitive to millions of believers yet no body is worried that folks that do this sort of stuff will be tortured or the head will be chopped off or some world wide retaliation will occur.

The mask has truly been taken off on this one!
The fact is, this is no better than insulting a "Gang" member who then drives by your house to burn it down or worse.

What is so sad is that our so called world leaders are giving in to this ridiculous intolerance.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 3:53PM

Tim:

"Condoms are often thrown at priests inside churches and crucifixes are spit and urinated on and the Star of David is routinely burned and the Bibles and the copies of the Torah are sometimes trashed in the public square to protest this or that."

Would that were true. Those things happen all too seldom.

NotALibertarian| 9.9.10 @ 6:07PM

What a stunning remark.

I can't account for your foray into moral equivalence here, but your perception that Christianity -- Crusades and all -- and Islam are on the same level is the product of either delusion, ignorance, or malice.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 7:38PM

Agree with the delusion, ignorance, or malice. He's an atheist bastard, to him all religions are equally bad, morally equivalent, facts be damned.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:19PM

Oh, so how many more Kristallnacht's do you want?

The hell with Godwin's law. I know which side of WWII this guy belonged on.

Stephanie| 9.9.10 @ 7:22AM

As Rush has said time and again, in America, EVERYONE has the right to be stupid.

Jim O'Brien| 9.9.10 @ 7:44AM

The Ayatollah Khomeini said, "Islam is politics or it is nothing". He should know; it is not a religion but a political ideology whose goal is totalitarian, theocracy. Islam does not recognize secular law including our Constitution. It is subversive. Mosques (and sharia courts) should be outlawed. Immigration by Muslims should be shut down. Investigate more aggressively Muslim charities, to prevent more money being funneled to terrorists. Prohibit Muslims from serving in our military. Bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan so they can continue to fight each other. Move our troops from those countries to Pakistan, to prevent the terrorists from getting control of nuclear weapons.

For those Muslims already in the United States, best wishes so long as you abide by our laws. Hopefully all the cardiologists, gastroenterologists, etc. will choose to stay here.

Lee Zerher| 9.9.10 @ 12:49PM

Right on Jim.

Richard H. Davis| 9.9.10 @ 1:17PM

An amazing display of ignorance. Move our troops to Pakistan??? The Pakistanis really dislike America. Do we invade another Muslim country? Bomb Iran? Nobody (sane) believes that that will stop the nuclear program - it will only slow it down, and it will mean an end to all oil supplies passing thru the Strait of Hormuz - that's more than 10% of the world's supply

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 3:55PM

Hear, hear.

I'd only add "willful" -- and/or maybe "insane" -- to your first sentence.

John M.| 9.9.10 @ 2:07PM

Well done Jimmy. Mrs. O'Brien would be proud of you lad. No more muslim immigrants. No more mosques. Let the piggys micturate on the land and other lands where a mosque is planned.

Doofus Don| 9.9.10 @ 2:52PM

I am amazed that someone actually knows the word "micturate" and even more amazed that they found a way to use it in a sentence.

Kudos to you John M. for this amazing feat!

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 3:58PM

Doofus:

He misused it.
Suggest you retract your kudos.

yuwei| 9.9.10 @ 7:55AM

The Koran-burning is a good occasion to see the true INTOLERANT nature of muslims. Why are the muslims so upset ? They've burned down so many churches and persecuted so many Christians, which is still going on in the muslim world. Eye for the eye. Muslims now are so arrogant with their threat of force and death to anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Tim*| 9.9.10 @ 8:15AM

I burned my falafels this morning.

Does that count ?

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 9.9.10 @ 8:35AM

Tim: Burning your falafels is wrong, and the President will be releasing a statement about your actions later on this afternoon. But you're not the only guilty party here, last year while I was still in Iraq, I drank a soda, and ate a chocolate bar, everyday at noon during Ramadan, within viewing distance of any of the Iraqi force passing by. Mmmm!! Chocolate!! Was it wrong? Yes!! Did I give an "F"? No. Was the chocolate bar good? Damn right it was, although most of the time, it was completely melted by the time I found some Iraqis to eat it in front of. But I didn't care, that's what they invented baby wipes for, for cleaning up chocolate on your hands and face, while making Muslims passing by really hungry and highly insulted!! USA, USA!!

PJ| 9.9.10 @ 9:38AM

LL&L: Just curious, what was the Iraqis' reaction when they saw you eating chocolate or drinking soda during Ramadan?

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 9.9.10 @ 12:07PM

PJ: I don't think they minded too much? But then again, I had no idea of what they were saying about me, when I was doing that (because I don't, nor do I ever want to learn to speak their language-English is tough enough!!). So they could've been planning on cutting my head off, or blowing me up. Who knows? But I was always able to keep them at bay, you see I've got this really cool Clint Eastwood stare, that I've been working on for years, and whenever they got to close to me, I'd just pull my eyebrows down, and they tended to back away. Call it my Super Power, if you will (it's a pretty cool stare, if I do say so myself)!!

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 12:30PM

He;s telling the truth about that stare, I'm one of the few who actually have a picture!

PJ| 9.9.10 @ 6:18PM

LL&L: It could have been that Clint Eastwood stare. Most likely you kept them at bay because of all the heat you were packing, making you look like the Terminator walking with his twin brother! (I assume you carry at least an automatic w/lots of ammo when on patrol.)

BTW, I also thank you for your service.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 9.9.10 @ 7:31PM

PJ: But of course I was carry heat too, I'm dumb, but I'm not stupid (and my stare only goes so far). You see, while you're over there, you carry your weapon everywhere you go (including sleeping with it). So much so, that by the time you get back home, you find yourself walking back into a room you just left looking for it. That urge passes after a couple of days, but in between, you sometimes look ridiculous . Oh yeah, thank you and Sheila too for the kind words, it's appreciated.

Margie: I took that photo I sent to you last year at the 9/12 rally in Washington DC, while on leave from Iraq. So this weekend I put in a pass, and I'm heading up there again, if my Commander signs off on it. But I'm sure he will? So if you and the Hubby are going too (and I hope you both are), maybe we can meet up, and do some protesting together. Do you still have my cell number?

Margie| 9.10.10 @ 3:47PM

Hi L's,

Yes I do have it. I'll call ya.

InLineFour| 9.9.10 @ 12:47PM

LLL, on the flipside, does anyone know what happened to the woman who sued her U.S. muslim employer for firing her after she ate a BLT sandwich for lunch in the comapany breakroom in front of other, mostly muslim employees?

Sheila| 9.9.10 @ 11:24AM

LL&L - I like your style, and thank you for your service.

While the author is correct that most of the original states had specific religious requirements for office that were specifically constitutional (i.e. that one be a Christian), his premise that burning a Koran would thus be prohibited is incorrect. Although Congress is not supposed to make any laws regarding religion, the states can, and those can include prohibiting the practice of the medieval pedophilia cult of Islam. As far as the tired, old argument that this somehow "reduces" us or brings us to the Muslims' level, spare me that tripe. Standing up for one's race, culture, and country in no way diminishes one; behaving like a willing dhimmi surely does. Decline and fall.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:00PM

Sheila:

"medieval pedophilia cult of Islam"?

Huh? Or rather....WTF?

NavyBrat| 9.9.10 @ 9:00AM

Now Tim, THAT'S a crime. Being as how there's no good falafel here in G*dforsaken Pittsburgh, I'm envious that you're even in a place where one can get it for breakfast.

I'm truly green with envy!

Tim*| 9.9.10 @ 9:25AM

I get em at McFalafels.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:24PM

See if there's a Kosher Pizza store in Squirrel Hill and McKeesport. Kosher Pizza stores generally sell felafals, for historical reasons.

chris haynes| 9.9.10 @ 8:15AM

Thanks for an accurate if obvious reading of the first ammendment. Remarkable, as the word congress means....congress, it guarantees the citiizens of individual states the right to establish Islam, or any other religion they choose.

We have 2 million in the armed forces , some getting killed in strategic Afgahnistan, others milking the system, who defend, well, God knows what. Certainly not the freedoms our constitution specifically guarantees, that our tyrants have taken away. Tell me again about how they hate us for our freedom.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 11:44AM

That was, indeed, and accurate reading of the Constitution ... right up until 1868. In that year, the Constitution was amended to provide that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was this Fourteenth Amendment, not any concept of a "living Constitution", that now protected all American citizens against the states, and not just Congress, infringing their fundamental liberties. It's this very same clause that prevents the states from transgressing your Second Amendment gun ownership rights. Otherwise, the liberal state gun control laws you rail against would not violate the Constitution either.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 12:12PM

As usual the 14th Am. is dragged out to prove that federalism was destroyed after the Civil War. It is a myth RCV. See Raoul Berger's *Government by Judiciary* for a demolition of this activist interpretation of the 14th.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 1:13PM

Nothing activist about it. The nation had just come through a bloody Civil War. The people -- at least those on the side that prevailed -- recognized that if we were to avoid a second one, national cohesion was an important value to promote over states' rights. We were no longer 13 individual colonies united against Britian, but had become a nation, and the Fourteenth Amendment was expressly adopted and pushed by the so-called "Radical Reconstructionists" precisely for national over state interests. Berger's analysis -- which I have read -- minimizes the driving nationalist force of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the distrust of state governments that the Civil War had engendered.

John Malcolm| 9.9.10 @ 2:15PM

Theory and intent are not as important as ground truth.

An example of the real world is cited by RCV, "It's this very same clause that prevents the states from transgressing your Second Amendment gun ownership rights."

Vern relates how Berger demolishes "this activist interpretation of the 14th." Vern's example is of an academic nature with no direct correlation outside of the ivory tower.

Accordingly, ACV has the more compelling case.

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 2:20PM

For the 14th Amendment to be interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the Founding principles of this Nation and the Bill of Rights, is unconstitutional and makes the 14th Amendment Null and Void. It has been improperly used by nefarious people to completely undermine the principle upon which our Republic was founded, that being self-government/self-determination and a system of Federalism. If the original drafters of the 14th Amendment, and the 3/4 of the people of the U.S. who ratified it had meant it to be interpreted as it is today they would have repealed the 9th and 10th Amendments (Bill of Rights), as, under such interpretation, it is in direct conflict with those two amendments. The original drafters and ratifiers were seeking to incorporate Blacks (and possibly others such as American indians), nothing more and nothing less. What activist judges and statists have done is use the 14th Amendment, like they do the 'Commerce Clause' and other bastardizations of the Consitution to expand Federal power. Rather than prevent a second civil war, this interpretation sows the seeds for a second one. This, notwithstanding that it has been used occasionally for good things such as the recent incorporation of the second amendment.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 2:51PM

Why would the Blaine Amendment of 1875 be needed if the 14th Amendment already incorporated the Bill of Rights against the States?

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:04PM

Vern:

Because the federal government (Grant Administration) was lackadaisical in enforcement. Same is/was true of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 4:26PM

The Blaine Amendment failed. Maybe that's because people concluded it WASN'T needed.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 4:30PM

If what you're talking about is the movement for state constitutional provisions banning state aid to parochial schools (which came to be called "little Blaine amendments", as opposed to the federal Blaine amendment itself), the motivation -- apart from underlying anti-catholicism -- was to make specific something that is even today vexing under First Amendment jurisprudence: how much state involvement vis-a-vis aid to religious schools violates the Establishment Clause. That is not a clear issue, even today.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 6:01PM

No, the reason is that the 14th Amendment did not change our federal structure, regardless of Bingham's loose rhetoric. Blaine needed to introduce the Amendment because the 1st Amendment only restricted the federal government. If they 14th had changed that, the amendment would not have been necessary. Instead, the 14th was all about the rights of blacks -- nothing more.

The States did not believe they were destroying our federal system when they voted for the 14th. It was only in 1947 that federalism was in principle destroyed (though Obama makes selective use of it in practise).

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 7:02PM

Vern, in 1868, the states victorious in the Civil War had just gone through a cataclysm of blood and gore. It was as monumental in the lifes of the American people at the time as the Revolution had been. (Lincoln was not being rhetorical in the Gettysburg Address in justaposing the Revolution and the Civil War in his opening sentences.) The state vs. federal issue was looked at very differently by the Radical Reconstructionists and their supporters who wrote and secured passage of the 13th through 15th amendments. They did not have the confidence in state governments or the fear of the federal government that the Founders, who came out of a very different crucible, did. Indeed, that same shift in power from state to federal government motivated the subsequent 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments, all of which further eroded state power vs. federal power.

You may lament that shift, but it's an historical fact. If you want to change it, propose some new Amendments, but that's the Constitution we now have.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 8:54PM

RCV, you seem to think the radical republicans were 1960s liberals. They weren't. Northerners still hated blacks after the Civil War, and even the radical republicans weren't going to do anything beyond what the people wanted. They merely constitutionalized the Civil Rights Act of 1866, nothing more.

Judges today have usurped power that does not rightly belong to them. The passage of time does not make it right.

They all ought to be arrested and thrown in jail, but alas this is not a perfect world.

John Malcolm| 9.9.10 @ 10:52PM

Vern Crisler & RCV:

Thanks for the education, gentlemen.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:27PM

I think this may be true for religious freedom, but not for disestablishment. Or do you also want to make the State requirement for trial by jury in civil trials like the federalo one? And the second amendment does not mention Congress, unlike the first.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.9.10 @ 8:18AM

Whenever books are burned citizens should be concerned. However, when Bush was President the military burned Bibles in Afghanistan and nary a word was heard from the MSM.

If this situation proves anything it proves how the news can be twisted and turned.

The Koran burning pastor has all of 50 people in his congregation.

The U.S. military is a powerhouse who burned Bibles.

In the midst of the facts, we are often led astray.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2.....ghanistan/

hardcard| 9.9.10 @ 8:21AM

a Christian Pastor in a tiny congregation wants to burn a book made of paper and ink. I think the pastor is mistaken. The pastor should put the aforementioned book in osama bin laden's back pocket and then burn it. now that makes more sense.

Trebuchet| 9.9.10 @ 8:26AM

Why don't we burn the ACLU instead.

Rogerone| 9.9.10 @ 2:15PM

Hey Trebuchet. Yes, burn the ACLU and their grey Volvo stationwagons with them. Hubba hubba.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:07PM

Trebuchet & Rogerone:

Boy, you guys must be awful popular at the local cockfight.

Dave (now in S. Korea)| 9.9.10 @ 8:28AM

"The planned burning of copies of the Koran is a gratuitously stupid and ugly act, one which will mirror radical Islam's violence not illuminate it." Mr. Neumayr you are much too bright to believe that statement. Burning the Koran is nothing like burning people in the World Trade Center. That's what Islam's violence did. While a self-proclaimed Christian like Jones should not act in such a hateful way, please stop with the pathetic comparisons and the dubious assertion that burning a Koran is even an act of violence.

vtwin| 9.9.10 @ 8:33AM

"The same...false interpretation of the First Amendment that protects [the building of a] mosque also protects the...burning of the Koran." "The truth is that the First Amendment protects neither..."

WTF?

Troy| 9.9.10 @ 10:09AM

You know, when I saw the title of this article I thougth it was going to be an insightful article on the difference between free expression and inciting to riot. Instead it's an article about how the states don't necessarily have to obey the US constitution. I thought we settled that back in 1865.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 10:16AM

Yes vtwin, Neumayer is correct. As orginally written, the 1st Amendment prohibitions were on Congress, not individuals or states. Recent jurisprudence did all that in. Book burning was regulated in past decades. And yes, there were state religions -that was all perfectly constitutional. The Warren Court began the quick deconstruction of our federalist society. And today, it continues.

And I find very amusing that the very same people who declared that dipping a crucifix in urine was both Art and protected Free Speech, are wetting thier pants over the Koran burning. It is way too late in the game to change the rules. And Progressives look like total cowards when they demand we be sensitive to Muslims while ridiculing Christians. You can't have it both ways.

If this was the 1920s, Rev Jones and his tiny group of misfits would have been threatened with jail time, and talk of the Cordoba Mosque would be just that -talk.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 11:46AM

See comment above: That was, indeed, an accurate reading of the Constitution ... right up until 1868. In that year, the Constitution was amended to provide that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was this Fourteenth Amendment, not any concept of a "living Constitution", that now protected all American citizens against the states, and not just Congress, infringing their fundamental liberties. It's this very same clause that prevents the states from transgressing your Second Amendment gun ownership rights. Otherwise, the liberal state gun control laws you rail against would not violate the Constitution either.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 12:14PM

No, this happened in the late 1940's. It's called the doctrine of incorporation.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 1:15PM

Yes, Vern, but you should read those opinions. The "incorporation" referred to was the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 2:34PM

RCV, "privileges and immunities" are not part of original Amendments but part of Article 4. All the 14th did was to include blacks under the term "citizen."

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 2:41PM

Read Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago (quoted below) and learn why you are just plain wrong about this issue, Vern.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 2:53PM

RCV, if the 14th did all you say, why would they have needed the 15th or the Blaine Amendment?

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 2:27PM

That's right Vern, is was the purposeful bastardization of the 14th Amendment, for the express purpose of expanding Federal power.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:09PM

RCV:

Bingo.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:09PM

RCV:

Bingo.

Nunya| 9.9.10 @ 11:59AM

While I agree with the article on the original intent of the 1st Amendment, we must also remember that the 14th amendment changed how the first 10 were applied to the states. The first section states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That pretty muched changed how judges must interpret the application of the 1st amendment, and why it DOES apply to the states today.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 12:17PM

No, Nunya, that's just an historical myth. Read the court cases that followed the 14th. They did not interpet the 14th in that way, not until one case in the 1920s and then finally the late 1940s when judicial activism began to infect our Republic by way of the incorporation doctrine.

Nunya| 9.9.10 @ 12:55PM

I do not profess to be a law historian, I have not studied the cases immediately after the 14th was ratified. It has been my understanding that the 14th applied the first 10 to the states, and that is how I interpret the first section.

If I am wrong, I stand corrected.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 1:16PM

You are absolutely right.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 1:23PM

Vern is correct. The 14th Amendment pertained to the recently freed slaves and the continuence of Jim Crow laws. It was not the intent of Congress who wrote this law to give judges a new theory on how to apply the law. The incorporation concept is just that - a legal concept invented by our Robed Masters.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 2:38PM

Even Justice Clarence Thomas -- about as unactivist and conservative a jurist we have ever had on the bench -- recognizes that the privileges and immunities clause in the Fourteenth Amendment was expressly meant to apply the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states. In the latest gun control case, McDonald v. Chicago, Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion that "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause." In his scholarly review of the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Thomas noted that, "Many statements by Members of Congress corroborate the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause enforced constitutionally enumerated rights against the States."

It's just plain silly to blame "activist judges" for the incorporation theory. Do some reading on your own. Justice Thomas did. And even he came to the same conclusion that any rational person who can read history did.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 2:57PM

Even if the outcome was good, it was just wrong of Thomas to use the 14th to achieve it. He has granted the basic activist principle in order to achieve a good purpose. That's how tyranny always begins -- in the name of doing something good.

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 3:03PM

This is simply because of the theory of 'Judicial Precedent'. Which unfortunately is a strong part of American Jurisprudence. I have to laugh when on rare occasion Judicial Precedent is ignored, because some previous interpretation was so obnoxious (activist) as to basically release or demand that a judge release himself from the constraints of judicial precedent, and the left goes bananas, crying 'judicial activism', rich.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:16PM

RCV:

Generally agree with your position, however I still intensely resent Justice Black's statement in Adamson about the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights by "the people." I think he essentially gutted it or turned it on its head -- with the silent acquiescence of his brethren.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 4:23PM

I'm curious: What do you think is meant by the Ninth Amendment's express reminder that there are unenumerated rights reserved by the People?

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 2:41PM

Let's get this reponse where it's suppose to be:

That's right JP, if the 14th Amendment was originally meant to be interpreted as it is today by leftists, it would have, according to Nunya, made the Bill of Rights irrelevant. If the 14th Amendment was interpreted when it was drafted as it is being today, it would never have been ratified.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:11PM

JP:

Wrong! Read Rep. Bingham's speeches on the House floor at the time of the Amendment's introduction.

NotALibertarian| 9.9.10 @ 2:23PM

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You don't seem to be reading this amendment very logically.
If the first clause was really intended to address the entire first set of ten as you say, why does the second clause repeat part of the Fifth Amendment so specifically? You don't repeat a tiny portion of the "entirety" if the first statement covers the entirety.
Secondly, the latter clause insists on due process of law. It in no way speaks of limiting the states' ability to MAKE laws. Logically, that kind of language would replace "Congress" (as in the First Amendment) with "States" and read, "The respective STATES shall make no law . . . "

What am I missing here?

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 2:37PM

That's right JP, if the 14th Amendment was originally meant to be interpreted as it is today by leftists, it would have, according to Nunya, made the Bill of Rights irrelevant. If the 14th Amendment was interpreted when it was drafted as it is being today, it would never have been ratified.

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 2:39PM

Nothing, you are thinking logically and correctly.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:31PM

NotALibertarian:

"You don't repeat a tiny portion of the 'entirety' if the first statement covers the entirety."

Yes, you do, if the lunkheads to which it was up to to enforce just still didn't "get it."

and

"Secondly, the latter clause insists on due process of law. It in no way speaks of limiting the states' ability to MAKE laws. Logically, that kind of language would replace 'Congress' (as in the First Amendment) with 'States' and read, 'The respective STATES shall make no law . . . '"

I'd submit that this does clearly mean that the "states shall not...," even if not as explicit as one might like.

Yeah. Messy, ambiguous, "weasly" language. Written by whom? Those scions of virtue, the members of Congress?

LOL

Share your frustration, but....

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:29PM

The problem is, they can have it both ways and they can always change the rules.

prunejjd| 9.9.10 @ 8:33AM

Let me get this right! The US Military for which David Petraeus serves allowed bibles (The Holy Book for Christians) to be BURNED! That's right, BURNED. And why? So that military men and women in Afghanistan won't try and convert them to Christianity. (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/index.html) Yet this same David Petraeus and Hilliary Clinton State Dept, as well as the President Office and other world leaders, all say it is a disgrace and a provocation to burn the Koran. Where was the concern and outrage when the Bibles were burned? What about the Piss Christ Photo in 1989 where a man was given money by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to have a photo of the Cross with Christ Image in his own urine. Imagine placing a photo of Mohammad in urine and the outcry. Welcome Americans to never never land.

coal carrier| 9.9.10 @ 8:39AM

Food for thought:
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:
The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0..6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for
Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law
as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace.. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Jim O'Brien| 9.9.10 @ 8:50AM

Good post, coal carrier. Another informative book is The Crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis.

Ned| 9.9.10 @ 10:33AM

Coal Carrier - your post is dead on... and also the script that will lead us into the Third World War... or the Fourth if you count the Cold War... "end of this century"? - I only hope it takes that long.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 9.9.10 @ 11:58AM

Great post CC!! Did you notice on those lists you gave us, that when the percentage of Muslims in a Country goes up, the crappier the Country really is? Coincidence? Probably not!! I think I'm going to plan my next vacation to Yemen, I hear they have nice beaches. I'll let you know how that goes.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 1:45PM

I was in Bosnia last fall, a European Muslim country. It's a lot less crappier there than when the "Christian" Serbs were in control. You might also visit Turkey sometime -- the beaches there are really nice.

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 7:14PM

You mean, before the Croations joined with Hitler to massacre the Serbs?

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:35PM

prunejjd:

Jeez, Louise. So many "facts"/"statistics"; so little essential truth.

Substitute "Christian" for "Muslim" and change around a few countries' names and see what you get......over the past 1500-or-so years.

Sheesh.

coal carrier| 9.10.10 @ 9:50AM

I am not sure what happened 1500 years ago Ralph. But I can tell you this, Christians today do not bury the opposition up to their necks and stone them to death.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 7:51PM

Ralphy is stuck in he 5th century with the Islamists.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:39PM

Precisely. Living under Christianity was no picnic, but it reformed itself. (I am including Catholicism here.) Islam may do so one day, but we have to deal with it as it is. (I do not think it is helpful to ask them to give up verses from the Koran; one doesn't ask for heresy. One asks for re-interpretation.)

As far as my own religion is concerned, Judaism is anything but tolerant, but unlike our daughter religions, we were never interested in taking over the world.

Salty| 9.9.10 @ 11:15PM

Wow that was very informative but 100 times more freighting.

Steve A| 9.9.10 @ 8:56AM

"Where one burns books, one soon burns people." Heinrich Heine; German Philosopher; 20 yrs pre Holocaust. This Pastor is a fool. Nothing good can come from this tactic.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:37PM

Steve A:

Amen.

And I'm a longtime atheist.

lol

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 4:46PM

Small wonders never cease.

Ryan| 9.9.10 @ 9:01AM

I think the issues with the Constitution - particularly the 1st and 2nd amendment rights - that weren't originally applicable to the states now OUGHT to be.

It's probably the one good thing about incorporation - that it makes sure that those freedoms are applied to the states. Otherwise, we would probably have worse issues with the 2nd amendment than we already do, and would have lost Heller right out.

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 2:46PM

Ryan, the first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are individual rights.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:39PM

VN Vet:

I think you're substantially correct -- except for the 10th Amendment, which explicitly talks about States' rights. The rest -- especially the Ninth Amendment -- yeah, I think are essentially individual-rights oriented.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:05AM

The 10th Amendment speaks to both the states and/or the people.

mzk1| 9.12.10 @ 9:43PM

So amend it. But I don't quite see the issue; some amendments, like the first, refer to Congress, and some, like the second, do not. Perhaps the others here have more background on this particular issue than I.

Personally, I do not see how you can stretch incorporation to refer to disestablishment, even if you stretch that as far as the S.C. has.

Mimi| 9.9.10 @ 9:07AM

The Iman Rauf..Has spoken! I detect a hidden threat coming from this man. " We have to build it...or you will get more "TERROR". It has to be in this very SPOT... or else!! He and DAISY need two one-way tickets outta HERE!! Just who does he think he is??? "It's my way....or you know...The big BAD terroist is gonna GET You...I SAY STICK IT TO HIM & THE N.Y. TIMES!!

John| 9.9.10 @ 9:14AM

While I agree that the First Amendment of the founders only restricted Congress (it's the first word of the amendment), the problem is that 14th Amendment was passed between then and now and it needs to be addressed.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 12:19PM

No, the 14th has nothing to do with it.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 1:17PM

You keep saying that, Vern, but you're just wrong, and every court that has carefully considered the issue has agreed.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 1:27PM

you need to amend your statement to every court since 1936 has considered this issue and agreed. But, it was in no way shape or form intended by Congress to give the courts this kind of authority. If one doesn't keep the original intent of any amendment in mind, a law or amendmet can eventually mean about anything. The 14th Amendment was focused on the plight of freed slaves, and was not intended to unsurp the rights of the states.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 1:43PM

It was expressly intended to "usurp the rights of the states." Sumner and Stephens and the other Radical Reconstructionists had an abiding distrust of state governments. Read their speeches on the floor of Congress in proposing the Amendments. They had just seen hundreds of thousands of their countrymen killed and maimed in the bloodiest war in American history, and they blamed it on state governments, whom they did not see as protectors of rights. You may not like that history, but those are the facts.

NotALibertarian| 9.9.10 @ 2:45PM

As I mentioned above, RCV, it seems pretty clear from the actual wording of the 14th that it had limited application. The phrase "privileges and immunities" isn't just a phrase out of thin air. It is taken from the Privileges and Immunities Clause ( Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1) specifically, no? From what I understand, the P&I clause addresses how a state must treat people who are citizens of other states.

The point is that you seem to be waaaay over-generalizing what "privileges and immunities" refers to.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 3:20PM

Read Justice Thomas analysis of that very issue in MacDonald. It is a painstaking analysis of precisely what that phrase was understood as meaning. As he says in the beginning of his analysis, "At the time of Reconstruction, the terms 'privileges' and 'immunities' had an established meaning as synonyms for 'rights.' The two words, standing alone or paired to-gether, were used interchangeably with the words 'rights,' 'liberties,' and 'freedoms,' and had been since the time of Blackstone."

Justice Thomas exhaustively reviews the Congressional debates on the issue, as well as the popular debates on ratification, to convincingly prove that it was the express intent of the authors of the Reconstruction amendments to prevent any state from enacting laws which would deny any citizen of the country fundamental rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The opinion is scholarly and masterful, and isn't refuted simply by you saying, "it ain't so."

NotALibertarian| 9.9.10 @ 4:01PM

. . . and if Justice Thomas were to come out and say gays do not have an automatic right to marry in the Constitution, you're going to be satisfied with that, are you?

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 4:20PM

As I do with every legal issue, I'm going to examine his reasoning, look at the underlying constitutional, statutory provisions and governing precedent, and come to a conclusion. I don't start with desired result first on legal interpretation issues.

NotALibertarian| 9.9.10 @ 4:29PM

And look, even a cursory examination of what you purport Justice Thomas to have said shows this opinion to be controversial.

You fail to mention that the other conservative justices refused to go along with Thomas in his "scholarly and masterful" opinion, or that the Slaughter-House Cases -- decided only 5 years after the Fourteenth's adoption -- specifically stated the opposite of what you are saying. If the intent of the authors of the Reconstruction amendments was so clear, the justices in Slaughter-House sure didn't see it.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 4:36PM

Nor did they apply the clear intent of the 14th in Plessy v. Ferguson, either, in upholding state mandated racial segregation. The fact is that after the enactment of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the unreconstructed reactionaries on the Court and in the states did everything they could to undermine those provisions, ejected radical reconstructionists from their states, and put newly-freed African-American citizens back into virtual slavery.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:44PM

RCV et al.:

Yeah, see the so-called "Slaughterhouse Cases."

NotALibertarian| 9.9.10 @ 4:48PM

Interesting.

NotALibertarian| 9.9.10 @ 6:43PM

Someone has put forth the explanation that the 14th Amendment focused on slavery, and the rights of ex-slaves/blacks. Your entire explanation here seems to bolster that claim(rather than your own view), because it focuses on ex-slave/racial issues.

. . . soooo . . . can you provide any historical documentation showing the outrage of various elected officials who were just horrified that the states didn't automatically restructure their legislative landscape in 1868 to reflect their now-obligatory application of the Bill of Rights? Was ther a flurry of lawsuits from white citizens oppressed in stubborn states that had heretofore ignored the Bill of Rights?

That would make your narrative more convincing.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:42PM

RCV:

Well put, although I reluctantly applaud Justice Thomas for any reason. lol

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 4:49PM

I'm generally no fan either. And even though, as a matter of public policy, I have supported strong gun control laws, Thomas's opinion in MacDonald is utterly compelling as a matter of legal analysis and history.

Ret. Marine| 9.9.10 @ 7:28PM

RVC, this does not make the courts right in its final decission.

Havoc| 9.9.10 @ 9:20AM

Presumably, there is some form of organized buggery (complete with 'Holy Book') that our betters could muster the courage to oppose. If Islam does not qualify for that opposition - what does?

Burn that koran! In fact, let's burn them by the truckload.

Proud Veteran| 9.9.10 @ 9:23AM

I agree that Pastor Jones is a fool. If he had the smarts to photograph a burning Kuran and call it "art", we'd be giving him an endowment and celebrating his "vision"! Just as we do with anti-Christian works of "art".

Bob in Western NY| 9.9.10 @ 9:27AM

I enjoyed this article. However, I can't wrap my head around making radical Islam equilivant with burning a Koran. Put differently, if Islamists most radical intent were to burn Bibles, I'd say "go for it - so long as you're wasting your own money to buy the books, you can do what you want with them."

Radical Islamists are in a league of their own. I wouldn't want them anywhere around.....

Average Infidel| 9.9.10 @ 7:32PM

Hate to break it to you there but, the filth muslims in your neck of the neighborhoos are the very ones laughting and carring on when the towers went down, watch your back. P.S. I was once an investigator for the M.J. White 's office and I can attest to the vipers nest that still exist in your city pal.

Steve A| 9.9.10 @ 9:56AM

Let them have their Koran, let them have their Imam, let them have their mosque. If they get frisky & want to play jihad, we make them a martyr via the US military. Thanks for coming, end of story.

Ned the Red| 9.9.10 @ 10:05AM

Everyone opposed to the Koran burning fire should show up in support of the Muslim religion wearing T-shirts and carrying signs emblazoned with images of Mohammed while shouting we support Islam. See how well that works out.

Louis Jenkins| 9.9.10 @ 10:11AM

Well, a decidely number of posts today are in favor of the Reverend Jones' act. Yesterday it was about even. A little known fact, the bank has called in the $145,000.00 loan on his church bldg. He's trying to get donations, but for now, it looks like he is losing his church. In the face of adversity he is still going thru with his public burning of the Korans. You see, the Obama crowd can manipulate many factors and no doubt its possible the loan is one of them. (See how the banks now work?) You get out of line and they may call in the mortagage on your home, your car, your student loans, or anything else. As for burning the Koran go for it.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 12:37PM

It's the Obamanation now. Thanks to all who voted for him, or threw away their votes. Are you all going to do it again or do you want more of the same?

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 1:19PM

Again, Margie, and with enthusiasm.

Nancy in NC| 9.9.10 @ 3:44PM

With enthusiasim, uh?

You don't sound like a complete fool, but that's in question now. I cannot comprehend how any thinking person could vote for Yomama. If you fail to see how he is destroying this country, there is no point of me attempting to show you. You have bought into the socialist lie.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 4:39PM

No, it's just that I have a long enough memory to recall when and how we got into this economic mess we're in. Were you not alive and functioning in the summer and fall of 2008?

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 3:17PM

This is typical Alinskite and Chicago thuggery Louis. If you read David Limbaugh's latest book: Crimes Against Liberty, you will see much documentation of this thuggery.

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 3:19PM

Margie, I think he'll only get the true marxist and communist vote next time around.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 3:21PM

Only if the majority of Americans have become "true Marxists and communists", which I don't think is the case.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 7:54PM

Oh, and the useful idiots.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 8:50PM

VN Vet,
And by default he'll get the votes of all those who refuse to vote Republican, sadly.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:09AM

de facto commies, Margie.

Margie| 9.10.10 @ 3:11PM

Indeed. And that's why they hate me, and others like me. If they think they have the right to complain about the present occupant of the WH but they do not partake in voting for the opposition party, yet constantly castigate it, then they are full of deceit and are aligned with the enemy. Useful idiots, all!

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 7:57PM

Libertarians are de facto democraps.

dude| 9.9.10 @ 3:13PM

He is not losing his church, a building is not a church.

here's a question, I have an e-book quran on my harddrive. I delete it, or better yet overwrite it with a gif

of some piggies, are the Islamists gonna chop my head off for that?

you do realize that all of the Muslim efforts are in vain. Their "god" (a luminescent angel) lost the war 2000+ years ago.

and I too don't think that burning the qurans is a good idea, they should shred and compost them with a little dog and pig manure and put them on their roses instead.

ps just for good measure here is a pic of Mohammad's exit end of his alimentary canal >>>>> *

Louis Jenkins| 9.9.10 @ 3:49PM

Well, if the muslims find out hang on to your head. There are some who say that the Muslims are the coming war of Revelation. I don't know but the more I read the more I'm beginning to come to that conclusion.

This I do know and understand: America cannot exist as we know it with Muslims calling all the shots. And make no mistake about it, they are out to call all of them. We can tip toe around the issue, shhhhh...be quiet, we don't want to piss them off because they may...whatever. Stand up people and be counted, or lay down and be rolled over. The choice is yours. I have already decided my fate.

PS: I stated his "church bldg." Didn't mean he was losing his congregation or his beliefs.

Tim*| 9.9.10 @ 10:42AM

Well , there goes The Mortgage Burning Party .

RichTex| 9.9.10 @ 10:55AM

Ann Coulter has endorsed the Koran burning because it would contribute to global warming. I think that instead, the books should be shredded so they could be recycled. Into toilet paper. To supply Gitmo.
However, imagine what the reaction would be if Rev. Jones announced that prior to the burning, he was going to wrap each Koran in an American flag? How could the Pinkos in the media and in the Obama administration denounce it then?

Tony Raskoon| 9.9.10 @ 3:16PM

Her global warming comment was satire. At the end of her piece she states that the real reason the mosque should not be built and that the Koran should not be burned is that both are unkind.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 4:26PM

She said unkind toward those who are Muslims and mean us no harm. Not unkind to the jihadists.

CallMeIshmael| 9.9.10 @ 10:56AM

So what will they do that they're not already doing, fly planes into our buildings? What does the schoolyard bully say? "If you fight back I'll really get mad!" Did we back down from insulting the Japanese after Pearl Harbor? Were we afraid to insult the Nazis? Burning books is stupid but so is all name calling. Durring war that's what you do. You don't see muslims afraid to offend us. It's time to man up guys.

Eric Cartman| 9.9.10 @ 11:23AM

Hell, no we weren't afraid of the Nazis! And did I hears someone say it's over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! What it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain't over now! We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons. But that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. And Terry Jones is just the guy to do it!

Tony Raskoon| 9.9.10 @ 3:12PM

Still laughing! I heard the echoes of Belushi in this thread too.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 12:39PM

You're looking in the mirror, Liberal Reader/Nate.

ontheright| 9.9.10 @ 11:25AM

Just in case there was any question regarding coal carrier's post - may have to cut & paste into browser. Enjoy.

http://bigpeace.com/stzu/2010/.....-the-west/

Nate| 9.9.10 @ 11:38AM

The author of this piece doesn't seem to understand how the Constitution works.

The "founding fathers' first amendment" is totally besides the point -- and that's what the founding fathers' intention was.

Let me explain.

The Constitution does not ONLY say what its authors intended it to say, although what they intended it to mean is a controlling and important horizon within which to read it.

But the 1st amendment by acts of the Supreme Court was INCORPORATED by means of a Constitutional process the founding fathers certainly DID intend. The states and local governments are bound by the 1st amendment, and a series of precedents beginning in the EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY support the claims by those defending the moron who wants to burn Korans and the imam who wants to build a mosque.

Sorry folks. The Constitution doesn't only apply when the Tea Party is comfortable with the results.

The Koran-burning douche bag in Florida is protected by the 1st amendment, and so is the imam you all would love to demonize but can't.

buddha8| 9.9.10 @ 12:27PM

I find Newmaur's understanding of the genesis
of the First Amendment interesting, but incomplete.
That amendment:
1. Intends to prohibit a National religion supported
by the government(as in England):"establish"
2. It seems to permit states the option to prefer
one form of religion, as long as that religion is not
mandatory for all, or a condition of public office
(as Vermont did).
3. It Affirms the Individual's Inalienable right
to be free to be or not be Religious in any way--
but that's because the Founders were certain ALL rational humans already had a Natural Religion
innate in their soul:beliefs(mono-theos,soul,
retributative afterlife)cult to One God(in any form),moral code(4taboo re:sex,killing,theft,lie)
and free choice(not by birth or parents)of any or no religious community affiliation.

This innate Natural Religion was an errant
hypothesis of the Aufklarung. Historical &
comparative studies of religions reveals
that None of these beliefs or practices are
universal by historical fact or innateness.

So, I think burning the Qur'an would be
an exercise of free speech(1st Amendment)--
a good one at that IF it is a Protest against the
explicit affirmations of violence and sexism in
the text of the Qur'an itself!!

JP| 9.9.10 @ 1:32PM

Nate,
You are wrong- simply wrong. Read the actual words. The prohibitions were on Congress and not the states. Again, how many indivdual states had state religions? (answer: 6). There is no way you can ignore simple facts. Incorporation is a legal concept, and not a constitutional mandate. It is used simply as a means to circumvent the strict seperations of powers written into the Constitution. I suggest you spend several weekends reading the Federalist Papers.

Nate| 9.9.10 @ 2:13PM

JP --

Again, like many conservatives, you don't seem to understand the role of the Constitution in our political system.

You cannot just "read the words." The words of the Constitution refer only to the Congress, but again, the protection offered by the 1st amendment has been extended by the courts (which were established by the Constitution itself) to the states. The process is called "incorporation."

So.... even though the text of the Constitution refers to Congress it is now, for example, unconstitutional for a town government to establish an official religion.

This is called civics, JP. Your distinction between "a legal concept" and the Constitution is ridiculous. We interpret the Constitution's meaning via legal concepts. The two are inseparable. And this IS the founding intent. The founders didn't imagine the Constitution would be interpreted by right wing disc jockeys on the radio; they intended that very learned men who were trained in rigorous legal analysis would interpret the Constitution.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 3:05PM

Nate, James Madison wanted to apply the First Amendment to the States, but his amendment was NOT ACCEPTED by the delegates. Religion was up to the States, not the federal government. Of course, the States eventually disestablished and isentangled on their own over the next 100 years or so, but that was their business, not the central government's.

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 3:27PM

What Nate is saying is that activist judges can illegally, tyrannically change the meaning of the Constitution and he's all for it.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 4:27PM

Righteo! (As good ol' Felix the Cat used to say).

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:49PM

Vern:

"Nate, James Madison wanted to apply the First Amendment to the States, but his amendment was NOT ACCEPTED by the delegates. Religion was up to the States, not the federal government."

duh

Yeah.

That's why the 14th Amendment was enacted.

double duh

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 5:47PM

As I keep asking, why was the Blaine Amendment needed if the 14th already applied the 1st Amendment to the States? In fact, the purpose of the 14th was to constitutionalize the civil rights bill of that time -- to give Africans BASIC rights, but not all rights (else there wouldn't have been a need for the 15th).

james wilson| 9.9.10 @ 12:30PM

So, a man inhabiting the United States and faithfully following the instructions of the Koran would be arrested for murder, rape, polygamy, and mayhem, but someone pissing on his instructional booklet might share a jail cell with him.
Clarity of thinking requires a courage, not intelligence.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 12:45PM

And if they're taking away the guy's bank loan on his church, the full measure of insanity has to quote a phrase, "come home to roost." ~Courtesy of the New ObamaNation.

Tony Raskoon| 9.9.10 @ 3:18PM

Sweet home Chicago!

Oldefarte| 9.9.10 @ 12:44PM

Putting aside the first amendment, I'm entirely in support of this church's koran burning [and think that others should lend their political support toward same]. True, it is STUPID [with a capital S] but so is the Muslim outrage over same [or cartoons concerning their Mohammed]. If the burning could be used as a counter-threat to force these radical-extremists from building their mosque at ground zero and force them to cease and desist, so be it. WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ranger roach| 9.9.10 @ 12:54PM

A major difference between the USA and the Muslim world...

Burn Bibles, hundreds of Bibles if you like, and the Main Stream Media will simply report it as some type of "new art performance" and the rest of us will simply be concerned with the cost of printing all of those Bibles that just went up in smoke...

Religious truth endures, and doesn't matter much if the Holy Book is burned or not... the burning of a book or books does not affect the truth...

It is true that burning books reduces the available reading material... and since Israel prints more books than the entire Muslim world combined every year, maybe that's why the Muslims are so concerned about burning the Koran... ;-)

Lets send them some Batman Comics, and maybe that settle them down! ;-)

Ranger Roach

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:54PM

ranger roach:

Newsflash: The "Main Stream Media" nowadays is FOX News all too much. And they absolutely would NOT report the story as you suggest. So WTF are you talking about?

Jeez.

Steve A| 9.9.10 @ 12:56PM

It all boils down to this...The Koran burner & the Imam have 2 things in common: They are both legally entitled to engage in these activities & they are both ethically wrong to do so.

murph| 9.9.10 @ 1:55PM

There is nothing ethically wrong about building on property you own something you are authorized to build.

Nor is there anything ethically wrong with denouncing the same construction.

You scream loud enough, the builder may change their mind. But if they don't - screaming about ethics is about all you can do about it.

Steve A| 9.9.10 @ 2:48PM

Murph, So you are telling me you are in favor of the building of the mosque?? If not, then on what basis are you opposed if not ethically?? If I have a zoning variance to build a strip joint next to a middle school this is just cool in your book? If not, then why not? I await your non-reply.

murph| 9.9.10 @ 3:06PM

You miss the pont, Steve - Park 51 has cleared the "not in my backyard" legal hurdle already.

The people complaining now are free to complain, but they don't have a legal argument.

If you can get a zoning variance for your strip club - I could do what Park 51 opponents are doing now (scream and cry) but I don't have to, since the protection of minors is a valid state interest that would prevent you from ever getting your variance.

Steve A| 9.9.10 @ 3:47PM

Murph, Arghhhh! I get the legal aspect of all of it. The fact is that if you are opposed to either of these actions (mosque or burning Korans) it is a MORAL objection, not legal. I realize it will not stop either action to complain. The point is that there is a valid ethical objection not to engage in these actions, that's all. A pleasure to debate you. I enjoy this, although I actually think we probably agree at the end of it.

murph| 9.9.10 @ 4:44PM

Ahh, I see where we passed each other on the way to the same place. Looks like you got there ahead of me. *grin*

My objection is to those who would equate their personal objection with a legal argument against these two conducts.

You can always have a moral objection - and the law might even afford you an opportunity to bar the zoning of something you disapprove of.
But that ship has sailed, and now the law is on the side of the property owners.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 4:34PM

Well Steve A,

I;m not so sure about it being ethically wrong to burn the already flaming evil book called the Koran. After all, the Apostles and disciples burned the evil books of the false Religions they read before they were enlightened. And did so with zeal for the Lord. Read:

"Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily." Acts 19:18-20.

I was thinking today. If I were very rich I would like to purchase all of the Korans sold in the U.S. and burn them in my backyard. This would cause thousands to come to me and ask why I was doing this. I would then have the pleasure of standing up on an overturned crate and preaching to them all the gospel of Jesus Christ!

murph| 9.9.10 @ 4:50PM

I would agree that you, this nutjob preacher, or anyone else has a right to burn books they own on property they own (assuming there's no fire control regulation that prevents it).

The most tangible objection I'd offer is that if ANY video of this foolishness is created - it will be a recruiting goldmine for our enemies. They will play it in their camps and madrassas - and untold members of one faith will damn the followers of another based on the actions of a fringe lunatic.

Which is precisely what is happening when people equate the sponsors of Park 51 with the psychopaths who authored 9/11.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 5:00PM

Christians do not stop preaching against evil and false Religions just because they are told that it is "unethical" to do so, or are threatened with violence.

The days of persecution will never be over till Christ's 2nd coming. Read Mt. 24.

"And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs. "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for My Name's sake." Mt. 24:6-9.

If I had a Koran, I'd glady burn it.

Steve A| 9.10.10 @ 9:02AM

Hi Marg, To borrow a phrase from an x-president, "I feel your pain." I completely understand where you are coming from. However, you need to consider this..... Where do you then stop after you take this action?? Do you barbecue the book of Mormon, Jehova W texts, Hindu, Budhist etc.?? So , according to your theory, you torch anything BUT the KJ Version of the bible. While I agree that these other religions & scriptures are at the base, false, you are setting up an eventual disaster by heading down this road. JC would not torch the Koran, he would preach the gospel & let you decide.

Margie| 9.10.10 @ 3:22PM

Hi Steve,

Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers and also called them a brood of vipers. He also told the Jews who refused to believe in Him despite the miracles He performed before their very eyes that they were "of their Father the Devil!" John 8.

Jesus was not a wimp. And when He returns it is going to be too late for those who choose to reject Him now so better get ready while you can by taking a stand on the Truth and speaking out against evil. If someone wants to burn the Godless Koran I sure don't have a problem with that.

And also~ you assign to me a theory I do not hold. I wouldn't torch anything but the KJV. I'm aware of the flaws in most versions of the Bible because men are flawed. I like the Interlinear Bible translated from the Greek and Hebrew as literally as possible.

And why not torch what you despise? The disciples did. I've never burned a book, personally. I think that was great and they did it to honor the true and only God. In the book of Acts it says that many were converted and added to their number after that.

Barbecue sounds good but I wouldn't waste the sauce.

beckncall| 9.9.10 @ 1:08PM

Our constitution does grant people freedom of religion, but it does not grant them the right to promote a political agenda hiding behind religion.

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 3:59PM

Of course it does.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:55PM

Hear, hear.

Yeah.

Duh.

James Claypool| 9.9.10 @ 1:10PM

"Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution,and of the . . . [First Amendment], the general,if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the
freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
Commentary on the Constitution of the United States

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:56PM

Mr. Claypool:

So what?

wgant| 9.9.10 @ 1:17PM

While I agree about the original intent, I think it's important to hold states to the same set of liberty-protecting amendments. I could be wrong, but the author doesn't have to be so rude to those who do believe NO government has the right to shut you up or restrict worship. We're not ignorant... just principled.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 1:41PM

By 1820 no states possessed state religions. And all states that were allowed into the US wrote thier own constitutions, which by and large mirrored the US Constitution. I think people like you have an inverted sense of justice. The intent of the Constitution was to give the states the widest degree of latitude, while at the same time guarenteeing through the federal government our enumerated rights. The intent was that the vast majority of our laws and regulations would be written and the state level - that is, where the people have the greatest say.

What we've ended up with is the opposite. And too many people have it backwards. They have a loyalty and allegience to a federal bureaucracy that steals them blind, and regulates thier every move.

Nate| 9.9.10 @ 2:46PM

You just say this because you wish there was still such a thing as SEGREGATION.

There's really only one reason why these issues ever come up.

And they have a name for it. It's called FASCISM.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 3:09PM

Okay, Godwin's Law applies here. Rational conversation is now officially over.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 4:59PM

Vern:

Know what Godwin's Law is.
For the first time here, agree with you.
Rational discussion over.

lol

Nate| 9.9.10 @ 5:29PM

Vern --

There's nothing wrong with discussing fascist impulses in our culture when they actually do arise.

And the impulse to identify and scapegoat religious and ethnic minorities as a cause for what ails society is most certainly a fascistic impulse -- as is the fantasy that the states would be much better off if they were free to engage in terrorizing minorities without the meddling of the federal government ....

We only hear about "states rights" when people are feeling in need of bullying some unpopular or historically marginalized group.

That is to say, we only hear about it from people who are prone to fascistic impulses.

(By the way, I said nothing about "Nazis," which is what I took "Godwin's Law" to refer to.)

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 3:32PM

I knew you were an asshole from your post above you didn't need to prove it.

Nancy in NC| 9.9.10 @ 3:55PM

And the name for your line of thought...tyranny.

The federal government has TOO much power and is TOO large.

And yeah, I wouldn't mind a little segregation from the likes of radical Islamics who wish all infidels dead. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to be the case as we have many that prefer political correctness over common sense.

Kimberly Boldt| 9.9.10 @ 1:17PM

Dear George,

"Congress shall make no law...." true, regarding the 1st Amendment, and the states according to the 10th can make their own laws, HOWEVER, the states CANNOT infringe on ANYONE'S natural rights which the Constitution is there to protect. In other words, the states cannot violate the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. All judges and government officials, public servants, etc., including those in the states, are sworn to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, "natural rights" endowed by our Creator. These are rights we all have at birth and cannot be taken away by any man or state. These rights come from God. As long as what you do is not stepping on the rights of others, what business is it of ours or the government's what an individual does? None.

The Pastor in Florida is not stepping on his neighbor's rights nor is he endangering his neighbors or doing any harm other than a political protest. Some say it will ignite more terrorism which has yet to be proven. Some say it will endanger our soldiers overseas of whom are ALREADY in danger, and being killed by the thousands because of our police actions in countries where we should not be. Remember, Congress never formally declared war on another nation or people.

People have a right to be stupid in this country. People have a natural right to screw up and suffer the consequences of their actions. When are people going to stop trying save other people from themselves? That's what personal responsibility is all about. And people cannot learn personal responsibility if you keep interfering in their natural rights. Whether it's pointless or not is not your concern or my concern. It's none of our business!

So, as a student of the Constitution, The Federalist, and the letters and writings of the Founding Fathers, I have to respectfully disagree with you on these points.

We should not be honoring another heathen religion or it's customs and practices in a nation that was declared to be a Christian nation by Supreme Court decision of 1892.

This is a Christian nation founded by Christians for Christians for the purpose of Christian self-government. The Founding Fathers honored no other gods or religions and stated so in many of their writings, one of which is in The Federalist No. 2 written by John Jay who was the FIRST Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

So therefore, burning the Koran is an exercise in natural rights of religion and political protest. Natural rights supersede ALL the laws of men, therefore this pastor has every right to do what he's doing, and I for one think it's great that this man has the courage to take a stand and is willing to die for his beliefs.

David Cay Johnston| 9.9.10 @ 1:19PM

The author should actually READ the Constitution, notably Article Six, especially the last clause:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Reasonable Doubt| 9.9.10 @ 1:20PM

How many Koran burnings were held in America prior to the jihaddis crashing the planes into our buildings and our innocent people inside them?
Zero. So what - now they are going to really get mad?
Jones act is provacative ; but we, and our troops, will be in no more danger after this event then we were before it. We already are endangered.

Kimberly Boldt| 9.10.10 @ 11:21AM

Yes, excellent point!

William W. Wexler| 9.9.10 @ 1:24PM

This is the kind of historical revisionist pablum that dumbs down the right wing and contributes to Idiot America. In regular America, nobody would have tried to pull off this sleight-of-hand trick:

"Six of the thirteen states that signed the Constitution ran established churches. It is a historical fact that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them. Those six states would have never signed the Constitution otherwise. They insisted on the language, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," to make clear that the federal government had no right to establish its own religion and disestablish theirs. The wall of separation in the Constitution is not between government and religion but between the federal government and the states' religious activities."

No, it is a historical fact that the First Amendment to the Constitution was written AFTER the signing of the document. The Constitution was signed by 39 delegates on 9/17/1787. The document was ratified by the ninth state, New Hampshire, in June 1788, which made the Constitution a legal document under which to operate the US Federal government.

On 9/25/ 1789, Congress approved 12 Amendments to the Constitution. This was over a year after the Constitution was ratified by the required 9 states, nearly 15 months after it.

So that makes your basic premise a lie. And an easily disproved one at that. But what else would one expect from The Becktator? Just another right wing meat grinder, making sausage of facts and when you run out of them, make up your own.

-Wexler

PS Again, to those posters who would be inclined to pose as me, I would remind everyone here that I have made a policy of only ONE POST PER THREAD, so any further posts in this thread with my name on them are by fucking posers who would be banned from any other site.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 1:45PM

William,
Read the 1st Amendment. Which institution was the prohibition focused on explicitly? BTW, those 6 states continued to uphold thier state religions years after the ratification of our Constitution.

VN Vet| 9.9.10 @ 3:53PM

Well duh. Yes indeed the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, were indeed ratified subsequent to the Constitution. You seem to make a point without a point. Further illumination finds that several people, anti-federalists such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, said they would refuse to support the ratification of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was included. So those wishing to gain their support in ratifying the Constitution promised that a Bill of Rights would be adopted. Which of course it was, and which the promise of, made the ratification of the Constitution possible. James Madison actually argued against the Bill of Rights on the premise that it was redundant. He said that the Constitution that they had drafted gave limited powers to the federal government and all other rights and power were reserved to the states or the people. He held that enacting a Bill of Rights would allow evil doers at some future time to maintain that since a certain right wasn't included in the Bill of Rights, it must not be a right at all. Jefferson, though not a part of the Constitutional Convention, said that the federal government had very limited enumerated powers, very few of which were domestic.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 5:07PM

VN Vet:

Excellent point about Madison's reservations about "redundancy." It is indeed a pity, but spelling things out -- time and time again -- seems to be necessary for lots of official lunkheads. Even Madison eventually became convinced of the need for it. Eh?

Sigh.

Skip| 9.9.10 @ 1:28PM

But, like it or not, the 14th amendment "incorporated" the first (and others) to apply to the states. This historical analysis is obsolete due to the 14th and the incorporation doctrine.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 1:46PM

Skip,
Where in the 14th Amendment is the Incorporation Doctrine mentioned?

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 2:12PM

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Among the "privileges and immunities" of US citizens are those fundamental rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Nate| 9.9.10 @ 2:44PM

RCV --

The 14th amendment just seals the deal. By the 1820s the 1st amendment was being interpreted as extending to state governments. I don't have time right now to research case law, but this isn't a debate that serious people on the right or the left are having. You don't have -- for example -- Justice Thomas or Scalia arguing that the 1st amendment only applies to the Congress! Every once in a while we hear this sort of thing from reactionaries who claim to revere the Constitution without really understanding how it works in our society.

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 2:59PM

Nate, it is you who have a deficient understanding of the Constitution. The last State did not even disestablish its State church until the 1830s. If you don't have time to research "case law" perhaps you should not comment on this issue.

VN Veet| 9.9.10 @ 4:09PM

As I stated above, the reason judges are going along with the reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is because of 'Judicial Precedent'. A factor that is too strong in American Jurisprudence. It's like someone saying there is a 'separation clause' in the 1st Amendment and the error keeps getting repeated over and over.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:18AM

Don't know where that extra 'e' came from.

NotALibertarian| 9.9.10 @ 3:02PM

"Among the 'privileges and immunities' of US citizens are those fundamental rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights."

. . . errrr, MAYBE the "privileges or immunities " of US citizens are the privileges and immunities specifically covered by the Privileges and Immunities Clause ?

Vern Crisler| 9.9.10 @ 5:52PM

Hi NotALibertarian. Priviliges and immunities at the time meant BASIC rights (life, liberty, property). It did not refer to other, less basic rights, such as freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, etc (i.e., political rights). P&I are part of Article 4, written before the Bill of Rights.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 5:12PM

JP.

It's not. It's in Adamson vs. California, 1948.

Check it out.

Although I agree with the "incorporation doctrine," Justice Black's gratuitous dicta about the limits/nonlimits of federal power consternate me to no end.

Cheers.

Ralph

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 2:44PM

How is disestablishment a right, privilege or immunity?

William W. Wexler| 9.9.10 @ 1:28PM

I think every street vendor who loves America should park their carts in front of a mosque and let the sausages fry.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 2:13PM

I'd vote for in front of your place instead.

William W. Wexler| 9.9.10 @ 3:04PM

Yummy! I love the sound of sizzzzling sausages.

LeoInTheWoods| 9.9.10 @ 1:28PM

There's a religous guy who is hiding behind the first amendment to incite the public with an act of insensitivity that will create easily predicted outrage in the public. This incitement may encourage Muslims to support the terrorists.
Am I describing Terry Jones or Feisel Abdul Rauf?
These guys are using the same technique with the same impact. They might as well be members of the same PR team.
The damage is done, as the PR is the end they seek. What they do from here forward is anticlimax.

mavigozler| 9.9.10 @ 1:36PM

I just love it when American Spectator and its disturbed readership chime in about how the government---whether it is the state or the federal one!---actually abused its citizens by denying them liberties that they should not have denied! Neumayr is basically stating this.

Who gives a rat's ass how the generation of our founders lived!!!??? (And more to the point: that we should continue living in the way that they did!?)

Numerous cultural and societal obscenities existed 240-some years ago, but that does not demand that we conform to them just because they are our founders, and because it was a relative golden age that saw progress out of medievalism: blacks were enslaved and actually gave an extra fraction of a vote (3/5) to their white masters--this is but one obscenity---and women and children were the---what was it?---chattel property of the male of the household, who was the only one qualified for the right to vote. Laws against blasphemy, witchcraft/Satanic practice, fornication, divorce, a woman's right to choose, and numerous other behaviors and acts that should not and never be regulated by any government jurisdiction were the order of the day. And many of them really were unconstitutional even by standards of that time! The Constitution was to protect against tyrannies of the majority, but they still existed in practice. Does that mean that we still have to put up with tyrannies of the majority when the case at hand is manifestly unconstiutional.

Neumayr is trying to argue INANELY that practice defied principle at the time of our founding fathers, and so because of this, we should let it continue!

WRONG!

It is perfectly right and acceptable to interpret the First TODAY in such a way that it represents the PROGRESS of civilization rather than its STAGNATION, stuck in a rut made 240-some years ago. Just because the principles of the First were abused by one jurisdiction does not mean that the practice continue to be allowed.

Neumayr is just another nutty "Tenther" whose hypocrisy is exposed when there is a 5-4 right-wing Supreme Court ruling overturning a LOCAL or STATE law that denies something like conceal-and-carry to the next guy to be featured in Breaking News when he snuffs out two dozen lives at a shopping mall within the span of time that it takes to empty an AK-47 clip.

You right wingers who drool with every new post of Am. Spectator certainly need perspective, but by the very essence of your nature---that is, of being a right winger---you are clearly unable to get perspective. Yes, I am basically rephrasing the fundamentally understood characteristic of the right winger: an individual "too stupid to get out being stupid."

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 5:17PM

mavigozler:

Hey:

Fundamentally agree with you. But don't blow a gasket. Tain't worth it. Give 'em two cents' worth, and that's it. Don't raise your blood pressure too much. OK?

lol

Regards,

Ralph

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 5:17PM

mavigozler:

Hey:

Fundamentally agree with you. But don't blow a gasket. Tain't worth it. Give 'em two cents' worth, and that's it. Don't raise your blood pressure too much. OK?

lol

Regards,

Ralph

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 2:47PM

"chattel property of the male of the household"

Really? Care to give a decent LEGAL source for this? I really get tired of this sort of simplification. I can tell you that men in at least one state could be whipped for wife-beating.

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 2:50PM

If you don't like the constitution amend it. Otherwise, who's to say what's progress? Justice Taney flagrently ignored history (original intent!) and desclared the laws were not meant to apply to Blacks (not slaves, Blacks). That's where wour philisophy gets you.

BTW, I have no problem with most of the laws your mentioned.

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 2:51PM

you

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 2:52PM

Sorry for the typos. This is my wife's laptop, and I can't see the keyboard for the glare.

James| 9.9.10 @ 1:37PM

I'm sorry but right now I'm looking at more than 20 quotes or references from and to James Madison and I can't find a single one that supports the writer with regards to established churches on any level either federal or state. And since Mr. Madison wrote the First Amendment I'm inclined, as should most conservatives, to defer to him on this subject.

As should we on the mosque. First Amendment issues aside, what about property rights issues? My fellow conservatives ranted and raved during Kelo vs New London regarding how property owners should be largely free to do what they want with their own property. The Founders elevated property rights right up there with individual rights. So someone explain to me why that developer on that basis isn't free to do what he wants with his own property? He does own it doesn't he?

All too often these days my fellow conservatives love the Founders except when They get in the way of what they want to do. "Show me the article" seemingly only applies to liberals, never to conservatives when it in fact applies to both. I hate to tell everyone, but conservatives have to play by the rules too.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 1:53PM

James,
You don't have to guess at anything. Just read the damn Amendment. Why is it so difficult for people to understand plain English? If Madison and the other signees of the Bill of Rights wanted to include state governments they would have. People today have become so indoctrinated that if 2+2 was a political question, half of this nation would insist the answer is 5, and provide all of the peer reviewed professional journals to prove it so.

And James, please refrain from calling yourself a conservative. Anyone who understands the Kelo case knows that the case applied to local governments taking private property and using it not for public use, but for private gain. That is, the local governments siezed private property and sold it to another private organization for profit.

james| 9.9.10 @ 3:47PM

Conceded that the First Amendment applies to the federal government, still can you provide a single quote from Madison or any of the Founders that supports the position taken by the writer of this article? I didn't see one. If you have one please share it with the class.

The main point I was making with my Kelo which you so conveniently ignored was this, to what extent does the developer who owns the site of the proposed mosque have the right to do what he wishes WITH HIS PROPERTY? It's a simple question. Is it too much to ask for an answer here? And if you say he doesn't have the right to build the mosque there, then again a few quotes from the Founders supporting your position from a property rights perspective would be much appreciated.

Supposedly all modern conservative thought today is rooted in three places, the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence and the Unalienable Rights Doctrine, the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights, the embodiement of the Unalienable Rights Doctrine, and the wisdom of the Founders, especially Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin.

A final comment on the mosque. Thomas Paine said the following:

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

I agree which means we're going to have to defend the rights of Muslims in this country. Which also means that when Newt says utter nonsense like no more mosques in this country until Saudi Arabia allows the building of churces there, it's time for him to go.

Thanks for your time folks.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 4:02PM

James,
Kelo obtained the property from the city, who seized the property from home owners. They city claimed they had they right to do so under emminent domain considerations; but Emminent Domain applies to public use of the property, such as roads, fire stations, and parks. The city argued (and the majroity on the SOCTUS agreed) that increasing city tax revenues qualifies as "public use". This stands the 4th Amendment on its head, which explcitly forbids such actions. Since Kelo, there have been over 2 dozen similar takings by local governments against its citizens.

Ralph Novy| 9.9.10 @ 5:21PM

James:

Yo. Now although I think we might ostensibly disagree over a number of policy/legislative proposals, we might perhaps reach some sort of compromise because you're eminently decent and fair and reasonable. This is unfortunately untrue of so many of your current-day "conservative" brothers and sisters.

Sigh.

Jim O'Brien| 9.9.10 @ 1:37PM

http://www.johnstonsarchive.ne.....rism1.html

Anyone -- just look at this list of the thousands killed by Muslim terrorists around the world. And our general in Afghanistan is concerned about some pastor in Gainesville, FL burning a book?! He must be drinking the same Kool-aid as Obama.

Margie| 9.9.10 @ 4:39PM

"He must be drinking the same Kool-aid as Obama."

Bingo!

Vasu Murti| 9.9.10 @ 1:40PM

The original intent of the Founding Fathers was a secular society.

In 1787 when the framers excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they were widely denounced as immoral and the document was denounced as godless, which is precisely what it is. Opponents of the Constitution challenged ratifying conventions in nearly every state, calling attention to Article VI, Section 3: “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

An anti-federalist in North Carolina wrote: “The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. Pagans, Deists and Mohammedans might obtain office among us.” Amos Singletary of Massachussetts, one of the most outspoken critics of the Constitution, said that he “hoped to see Christians (in power), yet by the Constitution, a papist or an infidel was as eligible as they.”

Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wrote that “there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief in the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.”

Martin’s report shows that a “Christian nation” faction had its say during the convention, and that its views were consciously rejected.

The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christianity.” Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as the “no religious test” clause (Article VI), and “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment)

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). The words “under God” did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them.

Similarly, “In God we Trust” was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins beginning in 1864. The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is “E Pluribus Unum” (“Of Many, One”) celebrating plurality and diversity.

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bonds,” not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based upon the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority.

The Declaration deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, etc., and doesn’t discuss religion at all. The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, opposed to Christianity and the supernatural.

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. However, Jefferson admitted, “In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man and that other parts are the fabric of very inferior minds...”

It was Thomas Jefferson who established the separation of church and state. Jefferson was deeply suspicious of religion and of clergy wielding political power.

Jefferson helped create the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, incurring the wrath of Christians by his fervent defense of toleration of atheists:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Jefferson advocated a “wall of separation” between church and state not to protect the church from government intrusion, but to preserve the freedom of the people:

“I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been taught;” he observed, “but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and established by kingcraft, constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of mankind.”

Jefferson and the founding fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment. Their world view was based upon Deism, secularism, and rationalism.

“The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight,” wrote Jefferson. “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter...we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this...”

As late as 1820, Jefferson was convinced everyone in the United States would die a Unitarian. Jefferson, Madison and Paine’s writings indicate that America was never intended to be a Christian theocracy.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God,” wrote Jefferson, “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Similarly, in an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Jefferson expressed anger at judges who had based rulings on their belief that Christianity is part of the common law. Cartwright had written a book critical of these judges, and Jefferson was glad to see it. Observed Jefferson, “The proof of the contrary, which you have produced, is controvertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.”

Jefferson challenged “the best-read lawyer to produce another script of authority for this judicial forgery” and concluded, “What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!”

As president, Jefferson put his “wall of separation” theory into practice. He refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and fasting, insisting that they violate the First Amendment.

As early as 1779, Jefferson proposed a bill before the Virginia legislature that would have established a series of elementary schools to teach the basics—reading, writing, and arithmetic. Jefferson even suggested that “no religious reading, instruction, or exercise shall be prescribed or practiced, inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.” Jefferson did not regard public schools as the proper agent to form children’s religious views.

As president, James Madison also put his separationist philosophy into action. He vetoed two bills he believed would violate church-state separation. The first was an act incorporating the Episcopal Church in the District of Columbia that gave the church the authority to care for the poor. The second was a proposed land grant to a Baptist church in Mississippi. Had Madison, the father of the Constitution, believed that all the First Amendment was intended to do was bar setting up a state church, he would have approved these bills. Instead, he vetoed both, and in his veto messages to Congress explicitly stated that he was rejecting the bills because they violated the First Amendment.

Later in his life, James Madison came out against state-paid chaplains, writing, “The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.”

He also concluded that his calling for days of prayer and fasting during his presidency had been unconstitutional.

In an 1819 letter to Robert Walsh, Madison wrote, “the number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.”

In an undated essay called the “Detached Memoranda,” written in the early 1800s, Madison wrote, “Strongly guarded...is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States.”

In 1833 Madison responded to a letter sent to him by Jasper Adams. Adams had written a pamphlet titled “The Relations of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States,” which tried to prove that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Madison wrote back: “In the papal system, government and religion are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of government.”

Madison, like Jefferson, was confident that separation of church and state would protect both the institutions of government and religion. Late in his life, Madison wrote to a Lutheran minister about this, declaring, “A due distinction...between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations...A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.”

In the early part of the 19th century, a general understanding existed that the government should not promote religion, or favor one religion over another. In 1825, Congress passed legislation requiring post offices to handle mail on Sundays. Many people protested, arguing that this violated the Christian Sabbath. Congress debated the matter for a few years before deciding in 1829 to retain Sunday mail handling. Senator Richard Johnson of Kentucky wrote that the government had no business favoring Sunday as a state-mandated day of rest:

“It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true, or what is false,” Johnson observed. “Our Government is a civil and not a religious institution. Our Constitution recognizes in every person the right to choose his own religion, and to enjoy it freely, without molestation. Whatever may be the religious sentiments of citizens, and however variant, they are alike entitled to protection from the Government, so long as they do not invade the rights of others...They (Sunday mail handling opponents) appear, in many instances, to lay it down as an axiom, that the practice is a violation of the law of God. Should Congress, in their legislative capacity, adopt the sentiment, it would establish the principle that the Legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision in a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society, or endangering its liberties. If this principle is introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds.

“Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for violation of what Government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the Constitution has wisely withheld from our Government the power of defining the divine law.”

For additional information, please read Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State (Prometheus Books: 2003) by Rob Boston.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State was founded as a bipartisan organization in the 1940s.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 1:54PM

And your point?

murph| 9.9.10 @ 2:04PM

Uh, that would be that this "the US was founded as a Christian nation" is a sentimental load of bunk.

You're welcome. And Vasu Murti? Well done!

JP| 9.9.10 @ 4:05PM

And what pray tell does that have to do with this subject. BTW, there is no mention of Seperation of Church and State anywhere in our Constitution. However, there is a direct prohibition on Congress which forbids it from interferring with religious institutions.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:21AM

And the Constitution concludes with: "In the Year of our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and eighty-seven. While the old Articles of Confederation and our Charter document, the Declaration of Independence, speak to religion, the Constitution is silent except for the above statement. This is because the Constitution was all about the Federal Govenment. A govenment that was to have little power (limited government). Especially, the federal govenment had no business in the religion of the citizens of the U.S., either promoting or inhibiting it. The major power was to be vested in the separate states, and I believe all their Constitutions favorably address religion. There is no 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution. The only wall, though not stated, that the Founders wanted where religion was concerned, was to require the fed gov to stay out of religious affairs. The Founders and the citizens of the United States were very religious, most were Christians. In fact, when scholarship was done on everything that the Founders spoke and wrote about in their lifetimes, 34% came from the Holy Bible. Far more than any other topic or subject, or source. So it's fairly safe to conclude that while others like John Locke, Adam Smith, Blackstone's Commentaries, etc., were juxtaposed and had influence on the Founders in drafting our Constitution, religion, specifically Christianity, had the greatest influence. The record is repleat with admonitions of religion by the Founders, far too many to list here (closely associated is their admonitions that only the prescribed method enumerated in the Constitution be used to amend it. Of the 55 delegates to the Convention in 1787 only two, maybe three were deists, the rest were of religion, most Christian. Jefferson, who was in France while the Constitution was being drafted, and was probably the most ambivalent of the Founders about his religion, upon finding he was being touted as an atheist or deist by detractors of religion, came forward and proclaimed that he was indeed a Christian. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the U.S. in the 1820's to determine what had caused the U.S. to become so great so quickly, he found that it was religion. He said that where in europe religion and government were always at odds with each other, in America they were one, and its citizens couldn't imagine one without the other. That religion was woven into the fabric of our unique republican form of government. The Supreme Court has even held, 1892, that religion was intregal to the well-being of the U.S. Speaking of the Supreme Court, the Ten Commandments are chisled all over the building. There is a bust of Moses there. There are religious symbols in/on Fed Gov buildings all over DC. On the top of the Washington Monument there is an aluminum cap with the inscription: Laus Deo: "Praise Be To God". A fitting memorial to probably the most religious of our Founders. How religious the people of the U.S. were is also demonstrated by how they responded to Thomas Paine after his 'The Rights of Man', which caused Paine to become a man without a country, and caused him for the rest of his life to regret writing this ignominious tome.

" The wall of separation in the Constitution is not between government and religion but between the federal government and the states' (or the people's)

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:26AM

" The wall of separation in the Constitution is not between government and religion but between the federal government and the states' (or the people's)

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:28AM

C'mon Spectator let me finish my post.

This quote from the article above is completely accurate. I concluded this years ago after extensively reading and researching the Founders. To the extent that the Founders conceived a wall, though never stated as such, e.g., except for Jefferson's letter they never used that phraseology, was to prevent the Federal Government from interfering in the religious affairs of the citizenry. Not only did they desire this government non-intervention, but they voiced their belief that religion was an important and necessary mechanism for the well-being and viability of the nation. That they drafted a document that was tolerant of other religions,non-religions, or viewpoints, etc., is consistent with and a measure of their principled endeavor. Just as the Constitution guarantees that the minority opinion be a part of any debate, to influence to whatever degree it can that debate, without abdicating in the end, majority rule. The theory of 'separation of church and state' didn't occur until 1947 upon leftists coming across Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, thought they had found the 'smoking gun'. But Jefferson, who was in France during the summer of 1787, never stated anything that the Founders didn't believe, though he was the only one to use that phrase. What he was reiterating was that there was an imaginary wall that prevents the Fed Gov from interfering in most of the American citizen's business, including religion. I can understand people today not being able to get their head around this concept, because of the extent that the (Fed) Government has usurped its Constitutional authority. When one reads the Founders, one is struck by how much they considered government but a necessary evil. The Founders didn't fear the citizenry, they feared the Fed Gov. As they stated, the only power that the Fed Government has is expressly enumerated in the Constitution. It has no other power beyond that. Imagine that it took 160 years for anyone to begin touting a 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution. Further, consider that for the first 30 to 50 years of our nation's history, high office was held in one stripe or another by many of the Founders themselves. Yet no one of them thought to enforce a 'separation of church and state'. I tend to believe that the closer to the Founding the more accurate the interpretation, especially in view of that stated in the previous sentence. Not by constructing something sinister 160 years later. They were also wary of the judiciary and stated their fears emphatically, a fear that has unfortunately come to pass. They felt that the judiciary held the greatest opportunity for evil-doing, which with the benefit of hindsight, shows them to have been very prescient. Hamilton writes most of the numbers on the judiciary in the Federalist Papers.

VN Vet| 9.13.10 @ 3:33PM

One correction here: it was actually Thomas Paine's 'The Age of Reason'. Not his 'The Rights of Man'.

Jack| 9.9.10 @ 4:40PM

You have made a great Point! One of the true threats to the people is a religion gone amuck. At the time they were trying to make sure that religions did not govern and now we see the biggest threat to our well being as citizens is Islam with it's usurping of governments with it's own laws.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:33AM

Islam is more of a cult than a boni fide religion.

Jerome Gress| 9.9.10 @ 5:23PM

Well, the constitution does say "Year of Our Lord, 1787." Go figure.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State was founded as "Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State." It seems those pesky Catholics (not Americans, apparently) were having lots of babies, moving to the suburbs after the war and starting more and more Catholic schools. They wanted the federal government to support those schools. Can't have that, can we?

Now to some of the other points raised in this dialogue.

The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment was made a nullity by the Slaughterhouse Cases, sometime in the 1870's. There hasn't been a 14th amendment case since then that has relied on that clause. Justice Thomas was advocating in McDonald that the Court should overrule Slaughterhouse and rely on the P&I clause to incorporate the 2nd amendment against the states. Even Scalia would not go there.

For the first 25 years or so after the 14th was adopted the Supreme Court routinely rejected incorporation of any of the Bill of Rights. Although it is arguable that the draftsmen of this amendment did in fact want the Bill of Right to apply to the states the Court of that era refused to do so.

Around 1898 it incorporated the takings clause of the 5th amendment in a case out of Chicago.

Most of the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights was incorporated gradually, beginning with some 1st amendment cases in the 1910's. Incorporation of the criminal procedure rights in the 4th, 5th, and 6th started in the 1930's, but most were incorporated under the Warren Court in the 1960's.

The 2nd amendment was incorporated this year.

The Court has relied on the Due Process Clause for this incorporation. As some commenters here have noted, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the plain language of the amendment. Except that we have had more than 100 years to do something about it and we have not.

Regardless of what the founders believed or intended, there is no way any district or appeals court today would rule that a state could prohibit this church in Florida from burning Korans. The Supreme Court could, but they would be overruling a mountain of free exercise of religion cases.

TR| 9.9.10 @ 6:22PM

It took forever to scroll past your long-winded diatribe. A lot of crap just to say nothing.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:43AM

Anti-Americans United for Separation of Church and State is an atheist organization. Their mantra regarding the religion part of the 1st Amendment is: "freedom FROM religion."

redshirt| 9.9.10 @ 9:49PM

Thank you for the excellent comment on the separation of church and state, and the monumental intellect of Jefferson, and some of the early founders.

Also, thank you to those helping to elucidate the Constitutional arguments.

But...

Hopefully, people are not losing sight of reality here. This, to repeat others comments, is a side show. A political distraction from really big problems of encroaching socialism and stealth taxation. The people must work hard against the ever expanding power of the state and inflationary monetary policy. Let's get back on point here. We have to get the statists out of government.

PS: Personally, I see religions as all too often just a system to manipulate and control people. Unfortunately, Islam is overtly constructed to overtake self governance and as such stands in contradiction to natural rights and the individual. Fortunately, people are individuals, and I suspect that in the long run, moderate Muslims will overtake the radicals and refashion Islam. In the meantime, one can understand why Americans are expressing the complete range of responses to the present situation.

As for the "State" I don't much trust people in government at any level to do the right thing, unless they are expressly trying to cut my taxes, increase my freedoms, and defend my natural rights.

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 6:57PM

I don't see any support for what you said, that the U.S. was to be founded as a secular society. A secular GOVERNMENT, perhaps.

Ken Roberts| 9.9.10 @ 1:41PM

It is nothing more than something to take our eye of off of the ball whilst they do us in with something they are planning . so Wake up ! and smell the deceit and look for something that really matters. An old trick and unfortunately many are falling for it again. There is cap and tax there is the jobs killer bill and many others that deserve the attention and not the mosque nor the Quran Koran burning . Tom Jefferson did not go far enough when he went after the pirates in the war of 1812 he should have killed them all to the dogs they owned. Let them burn the bibles and work to stop the mosque ,it may be doomed any way because money is getting in their way . Who cares about a simple book burning .

John Malcolm| 9.9.10 @ 2:29PM

Concur. It also serves to stoke fear and anger at Muslims if (when) the two fronts of the war (Iraq and Afghanistan) are expanded to a third and a fourth (Pakistan and Iran). This galvanizes public support, absent genuine, public debate.

robbie| 9.9.10 @ 1:42PM

FUHGETABOUTIT ! It's enough to make Barney Frank gag...were that possible.

berry| 9.9.10 @ 1:46PM

Too funny ! Superb !

ONTIME| 9.9.10 @ 2:20PM

As far as the threats from the insane islamics go, that's just a contiunation of their common speech pattern, so nothing there has changed. The Pastor is executing his rights not exactly how Christians think but still he like the flag burners can pursue that end by our law.

Rauf, the islamic imam in NY is also threatening the country now if he is not allowed to build his mosque and like the Pastor, he is not quite clear on the concept that in order to get respect, you need to show some. To a islamic nutcase, the word respect means "we always win" or submitt or else and that's the way their idea of religion works and why it won't work when they try and bully the western religions.

NOZZLE| 9.9.10 @ 2:46PM

Kosovo is Serbia, let us know when the US is going to pay for the reconstruction of 100's of Orthodox Christian churches and monastaries most dating back over a thousand years ago that were destroyed by your precious muslim filth while your military stood around and did nothing to stop them.

TR| 9.9.10 @ 6:30PM

Good point Nozzle. Same for the destruction caused by the muslims a few years ago when they overran and occupied that church in Jerusalem - the name escapes me, maybe someone can correct me, but I remeber it was just a couple years ago. They took over an historic church for several weeks, burned and desecrated all of the relics inside but not a peep from the world media, because, after all, they are peace loving muslims who would never cause destruction. IMHO they are the scourge of the planet, and I am prepared for the eventual holy was that will eradicate them.

Informed Counsel| 9.9.10 @ 2:48PM

Plan to burn Quran at church draws outrage

By The Associated Press,
First Amendment Center Online
09.08.10

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear in several landmark rulings that speech deemed offensive to many people, even a majority, cannot be suppressed by the government unless it is clearly directed to intimidate someone or incite violence, legal experts said.

"Are you just saying something or are you trying to incite violence? That kind of becomes the dividing line," said Ruthann Robson, a constitutional law professor at West Virginia University. "You can speak, and express an opinion, and do it in a symbolic way by burning something, but you can't do it in a way that would incite violence."

The incitement exception comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where the Court held that a Ku Klux Klan’s leader’s speech did not incite violence. The opinion said that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Jones, 58, pastor of about 50 followers at Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, has drawn condemnation from the White House, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, the Vatican, Muslim groups, military veterans and interfaith religious organizations for his plan to burn Qurans this Saturday, Sept. 11, on the ninth anniversary of the 2001 terror attacks.

Jones remains undeterred, saying he wants to dramatically emphasize his belief that the Quran is evil because it promotes violence and radicalism. "We are still determined to it, yes," Jones told the "CBS Early Show."

Muslims consider the Quran the sacred word of God and insist it be treated with the utmost respect, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad.

Yet under U.S. court decisions, burning Qurans to make a point probably isn't illegal.

In one applicable Supreme Court ruling, Texas v. Johnson (1989), the justices struck down laws in Texas and 47 other states that prohibited desecration of the U.S. flag. That case grew out of flag-burning by otherwise nonviolent demonstrators outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas.

In that 5-4 decision, Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Steven Schwinn, law professor at the University of Chicago, said any law that attempted to prohibit Jones from burning the Qurans would likewise be deemed unconstitutional.

"When the government is in the business of suppressing speech, even in the form of action, the regulation is likely to be overturned if it's content-based," Schwinn said.

In another key case in 2003, Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court struck down part of Virginia's law against cross-burning because that portion said all cross-burnings were presumed to be intended to intimidate and to constitute a true threat.

The Virginia law was so broad, the justices said, that it would allow authorities to "arrest, prosecute and convict a person based solely on the fact of cross burning itself. As so interpreted, it would create an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas."

"The First Amendment does not permit such a shortcut," the justices added.

One wild card in Jones' plan is his failure to obtain a fire permit from local officials. Jones has said he plans to stage his bonfire anyway, and authorities said yesterday he would likely only be issued a citation for the violation unless the fire got out of hand.

Lee| 9.9.10 @ 2:48PM

Muslims, throughout history, have been belligerent, antagonistic to and denigrating toward all other people of different religions or philosophies, especially Christians and Jews, even if they do hold Jesus and Mary in high esteem and the Prophets in their just place. Their arrogant attitude wrought such atrocities as beheadings, wholesale slaughter, out and out overthrow, or at least a tax on, and ghetto-izing anyone not adhereing to Islam. Throughout their history this occurred. Yes, they perfected many scientific applications such as algebra and medical advances, but their intolerant ways are a part of their psyche. They haven't awakened to the world around them in an effective way. Why are so many of us duped into accepting their intolerance and belligerence and playing into their politically correct hand? Perhaps because there is the perception that there's no real alternative alive and vibrant in today's world. There is! The truth is out there. Get involved with a church or synagogue. Become somebody for others; not just for yourselves.

Adrian Thurston| 9.9.10 @ 3:01PM

I think when you look at the "religion" of Islam in the cold light of day, you'll see that like "Judaism", neither are religions. They both fit all of the criteria of nationality but without a specific nation in mind.

This is the reason that the world has always had a big problem with both. They both have their own language, culture, traditions, history and mode of dress.

Burning books is wrong, but I do think that discrimninating against Islam but in favor of traditional American religions is the correct way for a true American to go, since Islamic culture is and always has been the traditional enemy of the American Way and everything America stands for.

American needs to wake up to this fact and pass some legislation outlawing those who preach anti-Americanism through anti-American Gods, and anti-American laws. The American way of life will become seriously under threat if Islam is allowed to be legally advocated as a legitimate religion in America. It is nothing of the sort.

Eric| 9.9.10 @ 3:29PM

How about we respect a nations right to exist within it's borders, under it's own laws ? IMO the time to have protected the borders properly has passed. The enemy is within and routing him out requires we know his name and face. His name is communism, his face is masked with makeup such that it appears caring and normal. To tell what it is one need look at what it seeks to do. Set one class above another to rule.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:49AM

Today communism in America is masquerading as 'hope and change'.

reads1| 9.9.10 @ 3:02PM

It is a shame to this Country that West Point and Annapolis have not turned out a George S. Patton or a Bull Halsey since WWII. Both wars in Iraq and Afhghanistan would have long been over and the dust settled!! (Add Harry S. Truman to this too to solve the Iran problem!) this is the only language the Arabs and Persians understand!

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:52AM

Actually, if we would have had a democrap party during WWII that we have now, we would never have won that war. If we would have had to worry about civilian casualties in WWII we would have never won that war.

Eric| 9.9.10 @ 3:16PM

While we are on the subject of activism, may we investigate the true purpose of the activism in the courts? Have they not set themselves above the will of the people? Just ask anyone what makes any law legal and you'll either get one of two answers, the cops say so or the courts say so. Even congress will eek out a response that even their power is subject to the supreme courts interpretation. How did this happen? Well, the courts decided to abandon the right of citizens to form a grand jury that's how. We the people no longer have any direct control over any part of government. The media controls the vote. The two party system is a club.

The three branches of government are well above being held to the same standards of their subjects. No? Well the last job you got fired from for theft, lying or refusing to obey orders didn't leave you rich with cash donations, a golden parachute like no other and a title did it?

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 1:18AM

The courts have as their charge the principled determination of the original intent of a piece of legislation (law). They have to apply the Constitution to the enacted law, irregardless of the will of the people. It's the lawmakers who are suppose to be responsive to the will of the people. However, your point is well taken. We have far too many activist judges in this day who run rough-shod over the Constitution. They set themselves above the Constitution, acting as a de facto non-elected legislature. A sort of mini-Constitutional Convention, re-writing the Consitution the way they wished it was. They have in fact become an oligarchy.

mad libertarian guy| 9.9.10 @ 3:19PM

Uh, the 14th amendment covers your "it's not part of the original constitution" line of half truth.

Though it was not written the way we understand it today, it was changed in the 1860s by the prescribed means.

Your argument, willfully ignorant as it is, would also necessitate the constitutionality of the recently struck down Chicago gun laws because it too was not designed to mean that states could not makes laws against guns. That's why it was recently incorporated to the states.

Eric| 9.9.10 @ 3:40PM

wrong mad. the SC did not rule on the basis of constitutional incorporation of the second amendment. It ruled it had jurisdiction to hear the case because the question of law was between a state and a constitutional rule. The SC stated the second amendment obviously predated the nations founding therefore it predated the governments ability to interfere with it at all. It is a "natural right". Just don't ask Kagan or Sotomayor what a "natural right is, the could give a rats behind. As for the fourteenth amendment, that has nothing to do with anything other than citizenship of those brought here against their will. It has been abused to heck by activists though.

JP| 9.9.10 @ 4:18PM

And the 2nd Amendment makes gun ownership an enumerated right. By joining the Union, the states have to abide by these rights. Most people certainly confuse where the prohibitions exist within our constitutional framework. The 1st Amendment restricts Congress from passing laws against churches, as well as allowing for free political speech (both institutional and individual); the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership -this would apply to both State and Federal governemtns (and local ordinances), etc...

The idea was to protect individuals, thier families and properties from both local and federal encroachment. And the Bill of Rights spelled out where that limit exits. The goal was to have the majority of laws be created at the lowest level of government.

Legal theories such as Incorporation were designed to invert this understanding of Federalism. And, by and large it worked. Federal laws, statutes, regulations, and writs now cover hundreds of thousands of pages, and govern everything from how much water a toilet can flush, to the amount of BTUs a hair dryer can deliver. Something went awry, and not even many conservatives realize how far we've fallen.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 12:37AM

That's right JP, incorporation is just another gimick anti-Americans use to undermine the Constitution.

gary siebel| 9.9.10 @ 3:25PM

Historical accuracy will not penetrate the brain of the liberal, unfortunately. Also unfortunately, they have painted themselves into a corner and cannot back down without losing face.

The First Amendment is specifically intended to protect freedom of conscience; freedom of religion is a by-product of that.

The shrine to the hijackers can be legitimately denied on the grounds of public safety. Even though it seems doubtful the Freedom Tower will ever be built, it is clearly intended to be some sort of shrine, and shrines competing for virtually the same location tend to lead to violence.

Eric| 9.9.10 @ 3:48PM

Exactly. The duty to keep the peace extends beyond any claim of rights. There is no rational reading of a religious structure already described to it's most ardent subscribers as a sign of conquering as peaceful. You can BS some of the people all of the time and if you get their phone numbers you can poll them. If you get their email you can email them. You can fill their children with nonsense and depravity while they attend mandated education too but you can never make them wise, virtuous or happy by law. That entire "religion" is a mistake to allow on our soil.

Josh| 9.9.10 @ 3:45PM

I would like to point out that the acerbic anti-Christianity of the media and the liberal elites are at least partly responsible for this fiasco. One needs to wonder why the media would fixate on such an evidently stupid and insignificant man as this pastor, with his flock clocking in at an astonishing 50 members.

Is is that the media, in an effort to discredit Christians and Christianity in general, seeks to find the most bizarre and unorthodox exemplars of the Christian faith and hold these up to be the norm, thereby bringing ridicule on all Christians everywhere? Has there anywhere been a more insignificant non-event elevated to such heights? Such a thing is newsworthy only to those who believe it to be worthy of note. And for what reason? The attention given this man is so out of proportion to who and what he and his congregation are that I cannot but conclude that those who have brought it to the attention of the public with such determined earnestness have as their motivation (unarticulated and unexamined as it may be) more the ridicule of the man, and by association Christianity, than the outrage of the insult to Islam.

Eric | 9.9.10 @ 3:56PM

What do you mean "partly"? They are wholly responsible for it. In the liberal mind diversity trumps sovereignty. Chaos trumps order. The ruling class must divide the subject to the smallest faction so they may conquer it. To rebuild from the destroyed American experiment has been the goal of Marxists and communists for a century. They are once again preparing to place their boot upon the neck of a population. This time it is ours.

RCV| 9.9.10 @ 4:14PM

LOL

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 1:28AM

Josh, your premise is spot on. One would wonder why the dem media didn't show the same interest in Obumba's church and the Rev Wright, except of course for the fact that it was Obumba's church and it was anything but Christian. It taught and preached anti-Americanism in the form of Black Liberation Theology, a Quasi-religious Afro-Centric Marxism.

JC| 9.9.10 @ 4:44PM

But what we must consider, they will kill you for burning a bunch of papers called a Koran, drawing a cartoon, or speaking against Shiria law (a law that promotes killing, lying, etc. for the sake of their beliefs) and we will not. Where is the reasoning in this. A "preacher" of a 50 person "church" has thousands around the world up in arms; go figure and leave their place to them.

Downie| 9.9.10 @ 5:13PM

WE can burn any G*d D*am thing we want
any G*d D*am time we want ,
any G*d D*m where we want,
with or with out anybodies G*D D*am permission

Any G*d D*m questions?

noneofyourbusiness| 9.9.10 @ 6:48PM

Yes, question.

What God do you pray to, because I beleive you are taking his name in vain, notwithstanding the asterisks.

I believe that is a no, no.

Oh, BTW, there should be an "n" at the end of your "dam's" -- or is the assertion that we can burn what we want, when we want, wherever we want made in the sure knowledge that if things get out of control "God's Dam" will unleash a torrent of water and put it all out?? :-) ).

Cheers!

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 1:31AM

Yes, it should have been gawd damn, but we got the message anyway.

David in MA| 9.9.10 @ 5:53PM

Remember: Never let a crisis go to waste...
(even if you have to create one) may be what was left unsaid...
obama needs a reason to declare that the U.S. Constitution is suspended so he can institute martial law and complete his coup on America and finish turning the country into a socialistic/marxist and maybe islamic state.

Kim| 9.9.10 @ 5:54PM

why was it acceptable for ayers to burn and stomp an American flag in public? why is it acceptable for minorities to put their flag higher or above ours, sometimes ours being upside down? why is it acceptable for the media to show OVER AND OVER a muslim throwing his shoe at President Bush? why aren't states making laws to protect our Christian beliefs? these politicians are pushing the citizens way to far and they will regret it.

chris haynes| 9.9.10 @ 6:26PM

President Bush said, these moslems, what they hate us for is our freedom.

Now this "constitution", it says that congress, not a president/commander in chief/military dictator has the power to declare wars. We've fought 5 major wars since 1945, all of them announced by decree, not by law. Two of them by Bush.

We've had 50 million legal abortions a right guaranteed by this ridiculous constition, affirmed for 40 years. It also prohibits the states from regulating pornograghy, but allows a priest to be punished for endorsing a candidate

I have a little question for our military personnel. How can a sane person take an oath to defend such a joke?

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 1:42AM

Correction, Mr Bush said Jihadists/terrorists/islamofascists.

Correction, the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to abortion. The Founders would never have entertained such an abomination. It was written in by a tyrannically activist Court.

The military take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and they do their level best to hold up their part of the bargain, many times giving their lives in the process. Congressmen and Senators, and Presidents take the same oath, many knowing full well that they have no intention of protecting and defending the Constitution, but rather with their main object to do it harm. Still others have no idea what the Constitution is about.

noneofyourbusiness| 9.9.10 @ 6:40PM

Absolutely astounding that almost none of the comments below actually speak to the content of the article itself. Nothing more than a sounding board (or is that bored?) for mostly vile and venomous sentiments.

As for the premise of the article, the author should stick to pontificating about things he knows something about. Obviously the Constitution is not one of them.

He states:

"The truth is that the First Amendment protects neither the Ground Zero mosque nor Jones's burning of copies of the Koran. How do we know this? Because under the real First Amendment, the one written by the Founding Fathers, local communities within states were perfectly free to pass laws prohibiting the construction of particular religious buildings or pass laws that banned book burnings."

Antime time someone appeals to the "real" anything, red flags should go up.

More importantly, by this logic, the "real" Constitution of the Founders permitted slavery, denied the vote to women, etc...Is the overturning of that the result of the "living" Constitution. No. It is a result of Constitutional changed which altered what is actual (dare I say "real"??).

The only Constitution is the actual Constitution, as amended by the 14th Amendment that nationalized the Bill of Rights and made it apply to the states as well as the federal government.

Once this is recognized, the author's argument is reduced to the pile of nonsense that it is. It has nothing to do with the villainous believers in a "living" Constitution. It is the actual Constitution that actually changed!

Perhaps that is why no one else here has even bothered to pay the content of the article itself any attention at all. Perhaps the readers are just taking the author's own advice at the end of the piece to heart, wherein he advise that the best response to the idiocy of the Florida preacher would be just to ignore him. :-)

Cheers!

redshirt| 9.9.10 @ 9:59PM

I think you missed a massive thread in the blog. There is a huge 14th amendment discussion and many points about judicial legislating.

redshirt| 9.9.10 @ 9:59PM

I think you missed a massive thread in the blog. There is a huge 14th amendment discussion and many points about judicial legislating.

redshirt| 9.9.10 @ 9:59PM

I think you missed a massive thread in the blog. There is a huge 14th amendment discussion and many points about judicial legislating.

redshirt| 9.9.10 @ 10:00PM

sorry, clicking mishap.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 1:45AM

Tis ok, maybe the nitwit will see one of your posts.

The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.9.10 @ 7:15PM

We're buying shrimp, trolls. All this First Amendment talk is stupid. The way the system works for Democrats is:

1. Win elections
2. Select leftist judges
3. Tell these middle class sobs what the First Amendment means. In the end it means what we say it means. Who do these racists think they are?

I am picking the leftist judges like I said I would. Now you idiot trolls need to get out there and win me some elections. This means you need to sell the summer of recovery, my new five year plan, the Chevy Volt, wind farms, raising taxes on everybody so there will be more consumer spending to get the economy going , the advantages of being very hot, very cold and living in mud huts, that Detroit is a beautiful well run city, the upside of crime, bad education systems are not as bad as they sound. There is a lot of work to be done and I had a wonderful day on the golf course. We closing Gitmo, baby.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 1:47AM

LOL...many a truth is told in jest.

Carl-Edward Endicott| 9.9.10 @ 8:05PM

I do think that burning the Koran has as much significance as Dorothy Lamour's burning her sarong.

chris haynes| 9.9.10 @ 8:50PM

Maybe you military men can explain the nonsense youre sworn to defend.

The 1st ammendment. It says congress shall pass no law A establishing, or B disestablishing religion. That is the right of the states. They can do either A or B

Now the 14th ammendment extended the bill of rights. Okay, myself, I guess I cant read english.

But how does extending it prohibit a state from doing A (establishing religion) and require it to do B (disestablishing religion) .

Sir, as the military wants another trillions bucks this year, to protect this inanity from threats on land sea and in the air, I'd appreciate an explanation, sir.

David B| 9.9.10 @ 10:03PM

George Neumayr always writes an interesting column, and this is no exception. Historically I believe that George is right-on. There is much understandable anger against Muslims and against our PC government that makes the book burning issue bigger than it really is. Let them burn a couple of books, who cares? The answer is that many Muslims care. I believe that the NYC Mosque is a travesty and should be stopped. Thank you George for your keen mind.

Ted D| 9.9.10 @ 10:49PM

Burning the Koran may be a provocative act, but I have been told that anyone landing at Riyad, Saudi Arabia with a bible has it confiscated and shredded at the airport. I don't know is this is true or not; but if it is how can any Muslem find fault with anyone destroying a copy of the Koran if their attitude toward the holy book of over 1 billion people is just so much waste paper?

Treboro| 9.10.10 @ 12:00AM

George, you should (in addition to the 14th Amendment) look at what the State Constitutions of NY and FL have to say about free speech and freedom of religion, and the rights of these folks in those jurisdictions under those documents. RBT

Osamas Pajamas| 9.10.10 @ 12:28AM

The Muslim religion is VASTLY more intolerant than that fool preacher in Florida, and while America can survive and thrive while he is yammering at his flock --- the cancer of Islam grows daily and mestatasizes across the land of the formerly free and the no longer brave. There is no obligation to tolerate the intolerant --- the totalitarian religion of Islam. I am an atheist. My Christian friends tell me that they say a prayer for me now and then. Wow. I am SO threatened! Compare their attitude with that of the screaming and screeching headchoppers, the stoners of women [and men], the brainwashers of children, oh --- and the bookburners of Islam. This atheist says to the immigration authorities --- send us more Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists --- and far fewer Muslims. They're not ready for civilized life in America, yet, and they can stick their Muslim shariah law where the sun don't shine...

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 1:50AM

AMEN!

Margie| 9.10.10 @ 3:29PM

Dittos! I say a prayer for you too, PPJ's.

Concerned Conservative| 9.10.10 @ 12:46AM

At this juncture, Religion (and I mean all of it) is no more than an atavistic scourge. Man will not begin to reach his true potential until he can abandon this primitive part of his psyche and soul.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 1:52AM

You're no conservative, you're a Libertarian wingnut.

Flatdog| 9.10.10 @ 3:17AM

A wingnut, please. Leave the "Libertarian" out of this.

True Libertarians believe that anyone should be able to do whatever they like, provided that they do not infringe others' freedoms. Including belief in any religion that they choose.

Wingnut, the Soviets abandoned religion under Uncle Joe Stalin, and how many tens of millions died as a result? They made the Nazis look benevolent by comparison.

Concerned Conservative| 9.10.10 @ 10:34AM

Ah, I see Flatdog has been listening to his Glenn Beck!

Stalin didn't kill tens of millions of people in the name of Atheism but in the name of Communism. Just because a genocidal maniac also happens to be an atheist doesn't mean his atheism was the cause of his murderous rampage. Can you wrap your head around that? I know it deviates from your teachings at Glenn Beck Unviersity, but just give it a try. Also, The Catholic Church has killed hundreds of thousands in their glorious history and I'm pretty sure that WAS done in the name of religion.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 3:17PM

Flatdog, I told you he was a wingnut.

Concerned Conservative| 9.10.10 @ 10:30AM

FACT: Thomas Jefferson re-wrote The New Testament and omitted all supernatural aspects from it.

Was he a "Libertarian wing nut"?

NotALibertarian| 9.10.10 @ 2:02PM

Actually, Thomas Jefferson had some pretty bad ideas at times. He was seduced by the French Revolution for a while -- enough to make people in America leery of him. He also had slaves, so, I wouldn't look to Thomas Jefferson as a consistent source of wisdom.
Let's just say we should all be pretty thankful that Jefferson wasn't the only founding father of this country.

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 3:51PM

You really nailed it NotA(wingnut)Libertarian. It's a good thing that Jefferson was in France and not in Philadelphia the summer of 1787. You are so right about the influence France (this prior to their revolution) had on Jefferson. There are a couple of letters that he and Madison exchanged during that summer and you can tell by Madison's responses that, while being polite, knew what was up with Jefferson, that he was just a bit flighty. Previously, I had thought of Madison as a protege' of Jefferson's, but then realized that wasn't the case at all, Madison was his own man. And a much better man to have become the Father of our Constitution. I've studied the Founders quite alot and have always considered Jeffeson my least favorite. I really wonder if there was a conpiracy to send Jefferson to France as a way to get him away from the upcoming Convention.

To answer the wingnut Libertarian's question, yes Jefferson was a Libertarian wingnut (tho not as acerbic and unhinged as modern Libertarians, e.g., he was no Lew Rockwell), he was in reality an anti-Federalist of the time.

Small 'l' libertarians are close cousins to conservatives, but big 'L' Libertarians are a completely different animal, they're wingnuts. They are atheists, potheads, isolationists, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, and more. They are close cousins to leftists., suffering many of the same maladies and sharing much the same pathology.

FeralCat| 9.10.10 @ 1:28AM

If people don't have the right to burn their own koran or stone it or hang it of bake, boil and fry it, or just throw it out with the rest of the trash, I don't think the Obama administration would be trying so hard to verbally persuade the Pastor of the small Christian Church not to do it. They would just arrest him or sue him or the state of Florida would.

Richard S. Russell| 9.10.10 @ 2:33AM

Does Rev. Jones own the books in question? If yes, then they're his property, and he's entitled to dispose of them as he wishes, as long as he obeys the local fire regulations. (Note that this is different from the Nazis, who stole and burned OTHER people's books.)

Richard S. Russell| 9.10.10 @ 2:35AM

Does Imam Rauf own the Park51 site? If yes, then it's his property, and he's entitled to build a mosque there if he wishes, as long as he obeys the local zoning ordinances.

Flatdog| 9.10.10 @ 3:28AM

Those in favor of the burning of copies of the Koran would do well to ponder this:

Who benefits from the burning? The books are produced by Islamic organizations, and presumably you have to BUY one in order to burn it, unless you chance to find one, or mug a Moslem for his copy...

Lunar| 9.10.10 @ 12:43PM

Agreed. The only personal benefit I can detect for the pastor looks like an attempt at "turnabout is fair play" in order to highlight the intolerance of some Islamists, but a pastor should be more forgiving and less antagonistic. Maybe this is why he only has 50 members in his church.

Margie| 9.10.10 @ 3:35PM

1. Forgiving? Jesus said to forgive IF your brother asks you for it. No one has to forgive the terrorists, that is insane.

1. The murderous terrorists who were Islamists got their instructions form the Koran. "Kill the infidels!" And this pastor has the right to burn that despicable book and for good cause.

3. So~ Sun Young Moon has millions in his "church" does that make him right?

4. Wake up!

RCV| 9.11.10 @ 1:56AM

Margie: Have you ever even read the Qu'ran? If and when you go out to get one to burn, you might actually spend some time reading it. I'm not saying it's going to convert you - it sure didn't me the many times I've read it. But as a Bible reader, you'll find much that is familiar: many familiar old testament stories of Abraham and Moses; many respectful suras on Jesus and Mary, on the immaculate conception and the virgin birth; many familiar praises of God the Father that are consonant with the Torah and the Gospels. To be sure, there are passages that reek of enmity to Jews (as does the Gospel of John, and for many of the same reasons), though many others speak of redemption for sincere Jews and Christians and urge interfaith tolerance.

The Qu'ran is not expressive of my faith, to be sure, for though it is highly respectful and honorific of Jesus, it does not accept him as divine, only as an especially beloved prophet of God whom God caused to be miraculously conceived in Mary's womb and who will come again at Judgment day. And many of its passages have been twisted and misused by islamicists to justify things that are clearly condemned in the Qu'ran. But it is no more accurate to mischaracterize the book as you do than it would be to assert that the Bible advocates slavery, polygamy, slaughter of innocent babies, mass murder of entire populations, etc.

Margie| 9.12.10 @ 4:21PM

"To be sure, there are passages that reek of enmity to Jews (as does the Gospel of John, and for many of the same reasons)"

Lie. There is no enmity toward the Jews in the gospels or in the entire Bible. God loves the Jews and so did the Apostles and disciples. And so do I because of Jesus' love shown toward me!

Jesus told the Jews who refused to believe in Him that they were of their Father the Devil because of their refusal to believe in Him even though He did miracles in front of them. Jesus spoke the truth. That doesn't mean he hated the Jews. You see, you liberals/Leftists love to twist things to suit yourselves. With you there is no right or wrong, and everything is relative.

Like it or not, the truth is that if a person rejects Him they are condemning themselves and it doesn't matter what Religion they call themselves.

Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world and therefore every human being owes Him their service. The amazing thing is, He only asks that we love Him for it, and not reject Him.

I love those who love Me, and those who seek Me diligently find Me." Prov. 8:17.

As for the Koran, being that it states to "Kill the infidels" it nullifies itself. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion, so all of your peace & lovey dovey nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Since you see fit to place yourself above God and in another thread you said that YOU don't think the Bible is true and YOU pick and choose what you believe, you separate yourself from Him.

RCV| 9.13.10 @ 1:34PM

Margie, I would never place myself above God. Unlike you, I don't place human beings -- one of them -- on a level with God. Only God Himself is perfect.

As for you, you pick and choose what Bible verses to follow as well. It says in 1 Peter 13, to "For the Lord's sake, accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor supreme, or of the governors...". That's just bad advice. I wouldn't accept it, you clearly don't and I'm glad Rev. King didn't either when he was with us. I'm sure God is congratulating him for not doing so.

RCV| 9.13.10 @ 1:34PM

"not one of them"

Bob| 9.13.10 @ 6:07AM

What I think is disappointing is that even threatening to set the world ablaze was not enough to draw the attention of the Obama administration to the fact that a large majority of the American populace do not want the GZ mosque, and IMHO it is the adminstration's stubborn refusal to recognize the will of the American public that will provoke someone, somewhere to set fire to, or tear the pages from, a Koran, and the adminstration should take responsibility for the consequences.

Rainboskies| 9.10.10 @ 6:25AM

We're all moving to the One World Beast. Conduct a search for the UN's One World Religion manifesto and you can see where we are heading.

My advice: Take a study course on the Book of Revelations. Open your mind, contemplate the imagery and you can see how events are falling into place.

Carl Peter Klapper| 9.10.10 @ 9:03AM

First of all, the Constitution derives its validity from the people who ratified it, not the "Founding Fathers". The drafters may propose but the people can dispose.

Secondly, the "republican form of government" clause is a counterbalance to state's rights. The fourteenth Amendment further limited that power by placing the rights of citizens above that of states.

Thirdly, Rhode Island would never have ratified if it meant that a religious sect could impose their will on the rest of their citizens. Its founders were fleeing the repressive establishment of religion by the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

That being said, government violates the First Amendment every time they establish Islam by officially "respecting" it, by saying that it is a religion of peace, by declaring that the vicious acts of some Muslims are not derived from Islam and, in general, taking a position in favor of Islam. Neither should government take a position against Islam or any other religion. By the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the "republican form of government" clause, governments at every level should simply butt out and leave it to the people to point out that the only form of peace Islam endorses is a Pax Romana, a peace of oppression, and that the Qu'ran thinks that the offense that Islam so easily takes constitutes a "persecution" worse than the slaughter they perpetrate in response.

Paul| 9.10.10 @ 12:05PM

1. As ratified -- by Rhode Island -- the first word of the 1st Amendment is "Congress." How do you get around that? The 'people' didn't dispose of it, super judge-legislators did.

2. States choose differently: that's the point of Federalism and states's rights, provided such state acts through a republican form of government. How again did the 14th Amendment obliterate "Congress" from the 1st Amendment? Only some 50 years after the Civil War amendment by way of the "incorporation doctrine", whereby Federal courts were put above the state and citizen.

3. Rhode Island may not want that for themselves and handled it through their own state constituion. The settlers and Founders were fleeing a persecution SO THEY COULD SET UP COMMUNITIES BASED ON THEIR RELIGIOUS VALUES. . . which they were denied in their homeland (e.g., Church of England, Roman Catholisism).

p

Steve| 9.10.10 @ 9:17AM

Muslims, blacks, poor, rich, etc, etc.....they are ALL hypocrits !! They all do what the heck they care to do, but whine, protest, and cry like babies when YOU do something THEY don't care for. Blacks don't hesitate to call out "whitey" & "Honky", but don't dare say "nigger"...you'll be sued, Muslims have burnt the Holy Bible & the American flag for decades, but don't mess with their crap. The poor demand more & more assistance, while the rich proclim they 'just can't afford' to pay their fair share.
SHUT UP and deal with it !! The rest of us do !!

JeffT| 9.10.10 @ 10:33AM

If I didn't know better, I would think someone put this "minister" up to burn the Korans so we could have this stupid moral relativist conversation. We're both terrible, so let's just lower our guns and be friends. Bah.

Paul| 9.10.10 @ 11:43AM

Back to the content of the article. . . the 1st Amendment only limits the Federal govt.

The first word of the 1st Amendment is "Congress. . . ".

Only through elitist judicial activism can the literal words of the Constituion be over-written. . . and here we see all the unintended consequences we are reaping today.

p

Lunar| 9.10.10 @ 12:31PM

The argument on the mosque issue (and the Koran-burning, for that matter) is over the wrong issue. Supporters always say, "You can't tell them no, because of the first ammendment." The fact is, individual people can say and believe whatever they want. Even if it is perfectly legal to build that building or burn that book, there is an issue of morality that says these things are wrong, because of the way they will affect other people.

I've said before, and I'll say one more time, the people who want to build the mosque would probably gain support if they would simply acknowledge the controversy this plan has created. Everyone has the right to their emotions, but the opposition is generally being dismissed outright, instead of being addressed. Most of the talk of support I've heard is backed by claims of ignorace, bigotry, and hypocrisy in the opposition as the reason to ignore all opposition, as if it is impossible for anyone to have a legitimate objection. It is just as hypocritical and prejudiced (note definition of prejudice: pre-judging; drawing a conclusion before seeing or hearing the subject; the term does not automatically have anything to do with race) to dismiss the people who oppose it without hearing their reasons.

To clarify my position, I haven't decided whether I think the mosque should be allowed or not. It can't be blocked on legal grounds and it does feel discriminatory to say that an Ismalist building can't be built there, but that doesn't mean it should be built in a site that is objectionable to so many Americans. Anything in that area becomes part of the remembrance of 9/11 and the attackers, themselves (through recognition of their faith and their use of it as justification for the attack) should not be part of that remembrance.

Generalissimo Motors| 9.10.10 @ 12:32PM

In order to burn Korans, you must first purchase them. Profiting the company that prints them, and not really causing any stir. If you want to make an impact, try burning 200 Muslims.

Gary| 9.10.10 @ 12:42PM

The stifling of debate on whether the 1st Amendment was meant to protect creeds that are alien, like Islam (and saying that can get you at least dirty looks from the media and less rigorous parts of academia), has meant that koran bonfires, etc. won't be a passing fad. If reasonable objections to multi-culti pieties are shouted down, then the whackier elements will rise.

NotALibertarian| 9.10.10 @ 2:09PM

Too many people throughout this controversy seem to be confusing book-burning with book-banning. The two are related, as communities in the past who banned books brought them to a central location to burn them.
But the Florida church isn't banning the Koran. They are burning it to show their contempt for it. There's a difference. Do The Indignant & Outraged realize that?

And what is with this insistence that it is ALWAYS bad to burn books? The local authorities recently found a 200-page book of instructions on how to molest children. I sure do think THAT book should be burned.

Margie| 9.10.10 @ 3:40PM

Amen to that, NAL.

I find it pretty disturbing that to a man (or woman) the conservative "leaders" are piling on this pastor. How sad that they actually agree with the Islamist-in-Chief's statements concerning this. If you can't even stand with a lowly pastor who is brave enough to show his disdain against the false Religion who murdered almost 3,000 of our citizens and plans on and IS murdering us as we speak by burning their Murder One handbook, then I fear we are a HOPELESS COUNTRY!!

VN Vet| 9.10.10 @ 3:59PM

Shhhhhh....NAMBLA is a democrap constituency group.

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 6:50PM

I would agree with you, but the issue I think was that is was public.

At one time, book burning was serious, because there were manuscripts. This happened when the Church burned the Talmud; the loss of available copies of religious works may have put an end to French Jewry (of the time), moving the center to Germany. (Thus Ashkenazim, Germans.) Similarly, the Nazis burned Jewish manuscripts.

Today, burning is not diffferent from throwing a book away, except more dignified. (This appears in Jewish law. A Torah written by a heretic is to be burned, not buried like a normal scroll, and not thrown away like something secular.)

But again, this was a public burning, which is like hanging Mohammod in effigy.

Wendy| 9.10.10 @ 5:30PM

This column has it totally wrong. The First Amendment protects the *individual's* inalienable right to freedom of speech. There are only individual rights, not states' rights. States' rights is a false doctrine. Under that doctrine, states have a right to establish slavery.

Federalism gives states the leeway to pass local laws. It is not a free pass for states to violate the rights of the individual. States do not have a right to violate rights any more than the federal government does. Natural law trumps state law. What do you think the Fifth Amendment is all about?

The mosque at Ground Zero is not a First Amendment issue. A militant anti-American movement does not get protection just because it is undergirded by a religion. It is an enemy in war and should be treated as such--in all its manifestations, including the attempt to emplace a future courthouse for Sharia law on American soil. No formal declaration of war is needed. A de facto state of war exists, because they have declared it and acted on it.

The Koran burning is a simple First Amendment issue. Christians do not comprise a violent anti-American movement. No one's rights are threatened by their book burning.

techwreck| 9.11.10 @ 9:42PM

Wendy, As kindly as I can put it, you need refresher courses in political science and American history. Facts are troublesome things, and bending them to fit your political philosophy doesn't strengthen your arguments.

The authors of the Constitution wanted a very limited federal government. That is well documented in their writings. The fact that Supreme Court justices and members of Congress have ignored those writings over the years and we the people have allowed them to get away with creating a federal monster does not change the original intent of those who drafted the Constitution and advocated for its passage.

The only real question is what action are we the people willing to undertake to restore our rights and the rights of our states.

RoyT| 9.10.10 @ 8:15PM

BURN THE EVIL BOOK AND LET THE MONKEY-F*CKER MOOSLIMS CRY ABOUT IT.

there, i think that is a perfectly reasonable solution.

Spook| 9.11.10 @ 11:10PM

Tell me "noneofyourbusiness" about this 14th amendment. Seems to me that it mentions religion and the free expression thereof.
You sure made up a lot of stuff to arrive at your conclusion but the facts are that religion was addresses in the "Bill of Rights" because the states wanted their religion and rights to it protected.

Art| 9.12.10 @ 12:57AM

States rights protect Individual rithts too...

George Neumayr wrote in the penultimate paragraph,

>>"Both incidents are, in varying degrees, acts of gross and pointless incivility that do not truly enjoy constitutional protections ... ."

Does this mean that the individaul can NOT burn his own property, in this case WORDS of hate and violence... printed on paper, bound together in a book with Qur'an printed on the cover?

>> "... It is a historical fact that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them.

>> "Those six states would have never signed the Constitution otherwise."

And by extrapolation, the inference is that the individuals who signed the constitution were also protecting their own individual rights... including burning their own books... even a book with words that are used to incite hate and violence against all who will not "submit" to the crescent moon deity Allah and his self-appointed prophet, Muhammad.

Art
STOP! Islamization Of America

Ralph Novy| 9.12.10 @ 10:25AM

"It is a historical fact that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them."

Bald-faced, stupid lie.

Or else you're stupidly gullible and have been convinced of that.

Which is it?

Arimathean| 9.12.10 @ 2:02PM

As a matter of history, Mr. Neumayr is certainly correct about the intended meaning of the First Amendment. But it's not clear that interpretation applied to states other than the original thirteen. The Northwest Ordinance (which dates to 1789, the same year as the Constitution) required that each new state formed from the old Northwest Territory (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin) have in its own constitution an amendment protecting individual religious freedom and prohibiting establishment of any religion by the state. Later ordinances regarding the admission of states further west were sometimes even more extreme in prohibiting state support or regulation of religion. I think that such provisions are unfortunate and are probably in conflict with the First Amendment. But by now they are well established in US law, for better or worse. This is why First Amendment jurisprudence is such a mess - it is based on legal contradictions that go back to the 18th century.

shipley130| 9.12.10 @ 7:01PM

I'm glad the Quran burning came about. It forced the Imam to reveal the "Americans better watch their back" concept. It seems we have not learned our lessons from 9/11 because we remain so tolerant towards an avowed enemy. Peaceful Muslims, my a**. Recall those peaceful grannies and grandpas in the middle east celebrating when they heard about the 9/11 attacks. Come one people, think about it.

Don Cope| 9.12.10 @ 10:15PM

Cant we all just get along?

chatman| 9.12.10 @ 10:48PM

This commentary is bogus, and a good example of why ideologically based journalism is a failure. Neumayr's legal analysis is inept, and his suggestion that States SHOULD be allowed to restrain speech or establish religion should strike fear into the heart of any Conservative.

The truth is, the First Amendment is not relevant to either the Q'ran burnings or construction of a mosque on private property. The First Amendment protects speakers and worshippers from State action. If I own a book, I can burn it. If I own land, I can build a house of worship on it, provided I am not a danger to the community and follow applicable zoning laws.

The First Amendment might come up if Obama coerced the pastor into canceling his book burning, or if the state determined that a "muslim community center" located close to the 9/11 site posed a palpable threat to the area (more so than the countless other mosques in NYC). Neither has occurred, so the First Amendment doesn't matter.

Furthermore, Neumayr's predictable resort to Constitutional originalism ignores the AMENDMENT process, which the founding fathers themselves implemented. Realizing that they didn't know everything, they allows subsequent generations to incorporate the lessons they've learned into the Constitution. After the Civil War, in which many states attempted to secede, Congress and the People added Amendments 13-15. The 14th allows for the limitations inherent in the Bill of Rights to also constrain the States. The First Amendment has been so incorporated, and thus bind the States (hence keeping them from establishing state churches).

Lela| 9.13.10 @ 1:01AM

You guys must be lawyers. Well, I'll try not to hold that against you.
Keep on blah, blah, blahing about the first, 14th, umpteenth amendments. Meanwhile, Rome is burning and we just stand around arguing over fine points in the Constitution?
Unless we DO something about our immigration laws and the hate being preached and hotheads being recruited within various mosques, not to mention possibly hundreds of terrorists slithering over our borders, we'll soon find ourselves in the same position as the Danes, who are trying to close the barn door after too many vermin and snakes have entered and are reproducing like flies in the dark cracks and corners. Sometimes the only solution is to burn the barn down! Let's not let it get to that point!
And while I'm at it, there are already mosques in Manhattan, but none that were built where the landing gear fell from one of the hijacked planes being flown by Moslems from the Middle East, murdering three thousand innocent people while screaming Allauackbar, or however it's spelled. And the silence from the "moderate muslims" is deafening.

chatman| 9.13.10 @ 1:36AM

The response was the Neumayr's inane commentary, not to your alarmist screed. But since you commented, I ask you; do you really think that "Rome" is so weak that a cadre of Islamist nutjobs praising their lord and crashing planes is going to bring us down? You must take a pretty dim view of this country if you think this is the next existential crisis in American civilization. This alarmism accompanies every ideological threat we've faced, but forces like Nazism and communism actually HAD the military power to severely damage or even annihilate us.

The Islamist threat, such as it is, is mostly their ability to strike fear into everyday living (through terrorism or threats thereof). They also have the potential to outbreed us, but as you've already mentioned, this is less of an issue if you prevent Muslims from getting through the immigration door. Perhaps that makes sense; the Europeans were foolish enough to (a) let Muslims in and (b) discriminate against them once they arrived. This forum has mastered (b). Perhaps if we implemented (a), the discriminatory behavior on display here would not have any Constitutional consequences for immigrant Muslim, since they would never get in in the first place. Not a bad plan really, since INS and Customs are Constitutionally permitted to be quite discriminatory.

Insofar as illegal immigration, how many illegals are Muslims? How many apprehended terrorists were illegals? I actually don't know the answers to these questions.

Finally, your comment on the construction of the Mosque is incoherent, legally and politically speaking. Where a in lower Manhattan a mosque is built has no bearing on the danger it poses to the community. So why should I care if it's built near the WTC site?

If your objection is a moral/ethical one, I understand, but you can't legally enjoin the project on PRIVATELY OWNED LAND just because you don't like it. Private property rights are near and dear to the Conservative heart. If you don't want to see government interference in the way you use your property, you'd better that neither the government nor angry mobs stop the Mosque. Such a blockage might gel well with the discriminatory views asserted by many posters here, but it wouldn't set a good precedent for the freedom of property owners.

Chatman| 9.13.10 @ 1:40AM

FYI, the 14th Amendment is not a "fine point;" it is one of the most important amendments. It ensures that most of the Bill of Rights is honored by State governments, and also ensures that you are not deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It is probably the fundamental pillar of the Civil War amendments (the 13th, which abolished slavery, was also pretty important, and hardly a "fine point.")

The Constitution is the framework upon which all legitimate government action is justified. You can't ignore it just because you think Rome is burning. If you aren't happy with, it try to amend it. But every American should know it before they talk about what it does or does not permit.

chris haynes| 9.13.10 @ 10:30AM

The point of this article is this: Our understanding of the first ammendment is nonsense put out by jusdges.

The first ammendment says congress shall pass no law respecting establishment of religion.

Those plain english words mean this" They can neither disestablish religion or establish religion.

You and your judges say the 14th ammendment "extends the bill of rights to the states". If you are correct, it means the states cannot do what congress cannot do. Iin regards to the first ammendment, states cannot disetablish religion.

So if a state had a mandatory school prayer as of 1866, neither local nor federal govenemt can change or eliminate it. You'll say that's crazy. I agree. This 14th ammendment extending the bill of rights to teh states is an inanity.

Rob Roser| 9.13.10 @ 2:56PM

Are you retarded?

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 3:02PM

Jefferson was explaining why he did not issue a Thanksgiving declaration, IIRC. Since every other president has, his words are not too relevant. (Interestingly, Washington made no specifically Christian references in his declaration.)

The idea of separation was first mentioned in thw Supreme Court by a Justice who was an anti-Catholic bigot and a formet KKK member. So if you believe in the KKK and religious bigotry, by all means support the concept.

gocart mozart| 9.13.10 @ 3:53PM

Ahem. The first Ammendment was incorporated by the states via the 14th Ammendment (along with most of the rest of the Bill of Rights) by that Marxist SCOTUS in 1878.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

'Prof.' Neumayr's real beef is with the radical REPUBLICANS and their fellow travelers who outlawed slavery and other things.

Note: This also is true for the sacred 2nd and evil 4th, 5th and 6th Am etc. In other words, if any state had wanted to ban any gun from any person, that would not have been unconstitutional because it would not have been a federal law, mkay.

Note: This also is true for the sacred 2nd and evil 4th, 5th and 6th Am etc.

[In other words, if any state had wanted to ban any gun from any person, that would not have been unconstitutional because it would not have been a federal law.]

Next time read past page two of your copy of Con Law for Dummies mkay.

gocart mozart| 9.13.10 @ 4:00PM

[fixed version. Please delete previous post]

Ahem. The first Ammendment was incorporated by the states via the 14th Ammendment (along with most of the rest of the Bill of Rights) by that Marxist SCOTUS in 1878.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

'Prof.' Neumayr's real beef is with the radical REPUBLICANS and their fellow travelers who outlawed slavery and other things.

Note: This also is true for the sacred 2nd and evil 4th, 5th and 6th Am etc. In other words, if any state had wanted to ban any gun from any person, that would not have been unconstitutional because it would not have been a federal law.

Next time read past page two of your copy of Con Law for Dummies.

mzk1| 9.13.10 @ 6:41PM

I repeat, not all of it was incorporated. We do not require States to allow jury trails for the dollar amount given in the Bill or rights. I can agree that freedom of religion is incorporated; it is a right, a privilege. I do not see how disestablishment fits in.

Some amendments mention Congress, like the first. Others, like the second and (not looking it up at the moment) one of the judicial ones do not. I was suggesting that it would then not require incorporation.

Tired| 9.13.10 @ 7:31PM

How many of you are aware that it appears that there has been a mosque FOUR, count them FOUR blocks away from ground zero all the time this controversy has been going on. (Forty years to be exact.) So, whether or not Rauf builds the mosque or not, there's another one two blocks further out where he can do everything that he wants, preach sharia, trash talk all of it. The owners of the current mosque can probably tear it down, get a new building permit, and put up a 20 story "community" center on the site of the current mosque which would probably be visible from ground zero.

Given all this, deference to the families aside, most of this has been all for nothing. But Sean who lives in NYC ranted and raved when he should have known full well about the existing mosque. Known that the difference between two blocks and four blocks was meaningless and not worth the air time devoted to it.

(And while we're at it, can we light up some of the people REALLY responsible for this? Mostly republican heroes who did NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to properly define the boundaries of the ground zero historic area and then take action to protect it like maybe buying historic easements on all the property in whatever zone people cared about? Like what did the Bush adminstration do to prevent this? What did Albany do? What did NYC do? Put the blame where it really belongs.)

All of this controversy turned a relatively obscure iman, Rauf, into a rock star. Imagine what would have happened if when the community center had been proposed, knowing full well about the other mosque, TWO, just TWO blocks further out, we had just said, go ahead build it, there's already a mosque in the immediate area, what's one more especially since there's multiple churches around too, now can we talk about the way the economy is going to hell? How China is thinking about switching to the euro and out of the dollar, arguably more important? How the BLS labor numbers continue to show the jobs being created are virtually all in the service sectors, not in hi tech or manufacturing meaning we're becoming a third world country? All more important than a community center being built two blocks away with a mosque already FOUR blocks away? If we had done that, no one would know who Rauf is. But instead WE ALL know who he is now. The ENTIRE country knows him. We've heard his voice, seen his quotes. Talk about George Wallace in the school house door! Sean and the rest by playing and replaying his interviews really made a star out of the man. He coudn't have asked for a better publicist.

I'm really tired, aren't the rest of you all too? Give it a rest already. Build it don't build it. It really doesn't matter. Four blocks folks. All this controversy did was show a lot of people either didn't do their homework or let Rauf play them. People who really should have known better like Newt (NO NEW MOSQUES IN THIS COUNTRY . . . ) showed they need to retire quietly. The conservative movement in this country really needs some new voices who really do understand the Constitution and the people who wrote it. And also conservative commentators who actually do their homework? Who really know what Cordorba really was?

Give it rest folks. From the beginning, this was over hyped, and didn't deserve all the attention directed at it.

Byron| 9.14.10 @ 8:57AM

So a theocracy is acceptable as long as it has the sanction of an individual state? So the true colors of conservatives come shining through. As long as the state and not the federal government is oppressing people it is acceptable. Use individual states for oppression and conservatives are on board 100%. And to think I voted republican, the people cannot win with either party, one wants our money the other wants our souls. Who will set us free?

chris haynes| 9.14.10 @ 1:53PM

Clarence Thomas recently wrote an opinion on an abortion case. It was very short. He said "none of the jurisprudence of this court, on the subject of abortion, has any founding in the US Constitution". The same could be said about its jurisprudence on the subject of religious establishment.

This article is about the perversion of our written laws. It shows that the 1stt ammendment does not prevent a state's establishing religion, and that the idea that the 14th ammendment somehow does is inane.

Chatman| 9.14.10 @ 2:35PM

Chris, your objections are not well stated or necessarily well founded in the law.

The idea of Courts interpreting, refining, and recasting statutory law is very old one, dating back to the Magna Carta. In the end, all judges are trying to figure our whether a specific law was meant to apply to specific circumstance. Sometimes that's easy, but sometimes it isn't. A good result for an individual getting screwed by an inflexible law often makes bad precedent from a policy perspective. That's why bad cases often make good law, and vice versa.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, however, Originalists are as activist as any liberal appointee to the court. Thomas and Scalia hold the peculiar view that the Founding Fathers anticipated everything, and left the answers in the Constitution. This is why you see so many appellate lawyers trawling libraries for proof of what was happening in 1789, rather than focusing on the factual merits of a particular case they have at hand.

Yet, in spite of this modern doctrinal purity, many of the Founding Fathers (including Madison himself) believed that the Constitution would have to be replaced every few years, just to keep up with the growth and development of this nation. That's why the founders created an amendment process, which is where we got the 14th Amendment (whose application you boldly proclaim is an inanity).

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]"

§ 1 of the 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Supreme Court determines which "laws" trigger the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The idea that States cannot establish churches or suppress speech has been both popular and well founded within the text of the Constitution. I really don't see what Neumayr is getting at with his ridiculous screed, aside from making contrarian waves.

Louis Vttion handbags| 12.9.10 @ 1:43AM

Hmm communism another delicate issue that causes dispute even between people that share the same opinion.
Loved the article and do agree with George's interpretation of it.
I come from a communist country so I guess my opinion is a bit blurred, but to be honest I believe that every social system has problems whereby the people suffer

Steven Montalvo| 1.10.11 @ 1:08PM

I totally agree with this website and it's beliefs.