[Blind Eye Jones]

You're right that there are religions that have horrific practices by our standards, demiurges or a god that is bad, death cults, etc. Even Christianity had a warring God of wrath, who played favorites, wiped out whole tribes and demanded blood sacrifices. But we don't emphasis these questionable "godlike" aspects in our daily practice of Christianity. I think it is up to the people to emphasis what they want in a holy text. If Mohammad was a rapist, thief, murdered, etc. then he was perhaps not that far away from the character of God in the old testament.

The question of church and state is tricky subject and so far there haven't been any religious wars in N. America as there had been throughout European's endless bloody history. I think that religion in the US had been sufficiently watered down here by a republican form of government that doesn't need a religious leader or Pope to legitimize it. Mind you, some political philosophers of the right (Leo Strauss and his disciples) have made the argument that we need a state sponsored religion in order to keep European nihilism ("if God doesn't exist, all is permitted") at bay. They believe that a healthy society has to pull together through a firm belief in the highest common values (state religion) and through foreign wars which also unify people at home. They also believe that the moral relativity of democracy will eventually lead to tyranny, as was seen in the Wiemar Republic before Hitler. These neocon philosophers are largely influenced by Plato who also had a dim view of democracy. That is why the Christian vote is important to them in unifying America and, perhaps, why foreign wars with the Islamic fundamentalists are needed. Paul Wolfewitiz (sp?) studied under Allan Bloom and/or Strauss and many liberals where questioning his other Straussians who received plumb governmental positions to influence policy. So maybe we aren't as secular as we think... but, you are right, about the Islamic mindset, even though Saddam was a secularist, he had problems too.

[justanotherfreeper]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. The reason I don't want a state sponsored religion is it ultimately corrupts the religion. I'm a devout Roman Catholic, and we've been there, done that and got the t-shirt -- state power and religion is worse for the religion than for the state. Bad, amoral people will join a religion if thats the only way they can hold power. I would strongly argue religious tolerance has been good for religion -- certainly America is one of the most religious of all nations, with India probably close behind (and India is also another religously tolerant nation.)

I don't trust straight democracy either, as it can turn into mob rule. And our founding fathers felt the same way, which is why we have a republic. But the neocons are wrong if they think a state-sponsored religion does anything but make people cynical about both the religion and the state (there is a whole strain of Muslim humor sort of like blonde jokes that present Imams as corrupt freeloaders.)

This country used to have, for want of a better word, a common "secular" culture or "civic religion" as I think Kristol put it, that agreed on "Amercian" values (hard work, fair play, tolerance in the un-PC sense, neighbors helping neighbors, etc.) In that sense, Americans did have shared values, compatible with an amazingly wide range of religions and cultures, that bound us together. If an immigrant came here and agreed to abide by these values, he "became an American" -- a cool way to put it, we have always thought being an American was like joining a club, not an accident of birth. Unfortunately, these "American values" have been systematically undermined by the PC crowd, knocking hard work if somebody on welfare is offended, fair play if somebody wants affirmative action, and on and on. I think this is the biggest red/blue divide: what does it mean to be an American, and is it important? But that's a little off topic, just note that Americans specifically believe in freedom of conscience and religion, and for the majority of the religions we've had in this country it's worked for us.

But because it this "civic religion" has been so successful, I think Americans have fallen into a trap that all religions are compatible with being an American. And that's a fallacy, somebody wanting to restore Aztec human sacrifice would come to the attention of the local district attorney pretty quick (except maybe in San Francisco!)

So is being a Muslim compatible with being an American? Me personally, I don't think so. The simple historical fact is that Islam has always spread through conquest, which Christianity by and large has always spread through conversion. I've read the Koran and some of the Sura -- it doesn't seem like there's anything in them to hang seperation of church and state on. Can the Muslims have a "reformation" and define which texts matter and in which ways? I don't know -- I don't see an "opposition" Muslim movement speaking out aggressively against the Wahhabbists and other radicals. There seem to be either apologists for the terrorists or Muslim groups in the west that maybe put out a press release geared towards non-Muslim consumption. If there is going to be a "protestant" Muslim movement, it has to be start inside Islam, be "on fire" that they are right and speak to fellow believers. I'd be thrilled to see it, but I'm not betting the rent money.