"Do you see that a sword cuts both ways?"
I can't speak for "RebelTex," but I will say that our greatest strength as a society, as far as our own citizens is concerned, is being exploited by an enemy from outside and inside. This exploitation is cynical enough to imply study of our external weaknesses, and deliberate, long range planning as to how to take advantage of them. To me, the enemy is anyone who would destroy me, those who I love and my state and nation. That there is a religious component to this "enemy" does throw us into disarray, and this is not accidental, in my opinion. It seems to me that a group of easily-manipulated, hot-headed, sexually deprived men with little hope of marriage, have been steadily radicalized over decades. I do not attribute this radicalization entirely to the imams. These fanatics are like puppets on a string, and their actions can and do serve more than one master.
Do you recognize that our most cherished ideals as a nation are being cynically manipulated from without, and if so, how would you propose to respond? I suppose your answer would depend upon what you presumed the intent of these attacks to be. Is it an attempt to subsume or destroy infidel nations, or is it an attempt to get us to abandon liberal society as it is understood in the western hemisphere? Could it not be both?
"You have no respect for religious freedom, ..."
Wrong - I have a high regard for religious freedom, but the freedom to worship and participate in any religion does not include a freedom to rape and pillage, commit mayhem and murder, or perform beheadings and incest.
"...your idea that Islam would be OK with the government only if they drop parts of their religion is directly contradicted by the vision of religious liberty established by our founders."
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."--Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Miller, 1808
Wrong again - there is nothing in the quote you provided which indicates tolerance of rape, mayhem, murder, beheadings, or incest. Find a quote from our founding fathers which explicitly states that any or all of those acts are protected when done in the name of any religion and then I will consider your argument. (hint: you won't find such a quote because it is beyond all reason and logical thought [except, of course, in Islam].)
Such barbaric behavior can not be tolerated here, even if enshrined in a religion. For example, in the Torah and the Old Testament of the Bible, the punishment for prostitution was for the prostitute to be stoned to death. This has been rejected by both Jews and Christians as well as our government. Do you maintain that Islam should have more freedom and rights than Judaism or Christianity?
"Your a bigot..."
Name-calling is the hallmark of a weak argument. (BTW, the contraction for you are is you're, not the possessive pronoun your.) Why do you call me a bigot? I have not pre-judged you, but you have obviously pre-judged me.
"...with no respect for the Constitution as evident by your views..."
Wrong again - You know nothing about my views of the Constitution and you provide no quotes or examples which show a lack of respect. I strongly support and defend our Constitution.
"...and your self-affiliation with those who wished to break from our Constitutional form of government. The only thing sadder and sicker than a violent rebel in a Democracy is a FAILED rebel. Maybe the Government should round up all those who fly the flag of the failed rebellion as untrustworthy and unfaithful to our Republic? Why not, if they can round up Muslims for being untrustworthy and unfaithful, why not those who idealize rebels?
Your obvious reference to my screen name is an indication of your own prejudice and bigotry, as well as your disparaging remarks about the CSA. Apparently, your education about the Civil War is woefully inadequate. You have no clue as to why I chose my screen name or what it might mean to me. Your misdirection and ad hominem personal attacks are more common tactics of a weak and failing argument. I have tried to have a civil discussion with you, but you seem more interested in making disparaging remarks, than in reason and logic. From your own words in a post on another thread (To 26):
"Yes, I was an educator... ...I wrote up on the board "No disparaging language is allowed"; then I had to define 'disparaging' as language that attempts to make someone feel bad about themselves, and said that the people who try to make people feel bad about themselves usually don't feel too good about themselves."
Your arguments do not make any distinction between a religion and a fanatical cult that actively endorses and participates in that which we consider to be barbaric behavior. IMHO, this is your error. That such barbaric behavior is condoned, sponsored and encouraged in other countries is not reason enough for us to accept it here.
Do you see that a sword cuts both ways?
Only a double-edged sword - the Islamic sword is depicted as a single edged sword and only cuts one way, against unbelievers and apostates.
The point which I and others have tried to make and which you have yet to grasp, is that one of the major basic tenets of Islam is to subjugate and/or kill all non-believers and apostates everywhere throughout the whole world, i.e. a one world government theocracy.
The same amendment which provides for freedom of religion also provides for freedom of speech, yet it is illegal to falsely shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater because of the panic and probable injuries and death which would most likely result.
If Islam goes through a reformation (as many religions have) which rejects all such barbaric behavior, then it should enjoy the same protections under our Constitution as any other religion.
Which brings us back to the main question - How likely is that?