[risk]

A little more substance please.

Most well-meaning people here think they can defend the Republic by reinterpreting the original intent to separate church from state. In time, the more scrupulous ones will realize that it's a trap. Those of us who know it already must watch the train wreck in slow motion.

This small but significant example supports my argument: apparently no one has the courage to say that mosques have no business receiving our tax dollars to spend on the death cult. Later, we'll decide that Wiccans and Muslims can't have money. Then there will be a bitter argument over Catholics and Protestants.

And so it will go. Luckily, I think we can handle each one of these arguments as they arise. But in the meantime, Islamic activists are getting my tax dollars and yours so that we can demonstrate our desire to show faith.

In any case, the Republicans and their well-meaning "ministries" are far preferable to the Democrats and the America-firsters. Meanwhile, who has the courage to demand an end to federal mosque support?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Once you cross over the line, and justify your ability to define someone else's religion, you have destroyed the intent of the First Amendment.

No one ever attempted to claim that there is safety in freedom, quite the contrary actually, freedom is a dangerous, frightening thing.

But what is even more frightening, are the attempts at limiting those freedoms in the name of safety.

As far as Islam being a "death cult", that's just you showing an irrational fear of that which you do not understand, or you defining the peaceful manner of worship of nearly a billion people, by the actions of a small minority of extremists.

I don't define Christianity by the actions of Christian Identity, or the World Church of The Creator, nor do I define Islam by the actions of Wahabbi extremists.