[snarkpup]

The US has for centuries banned numerous religious practices, e.g. virgin sacrifice. No court has reversed or, in my opinion, would DREAM of of reversing such bans.

The Tenth Amendment has been pretty much reversed by the courts. The Tenth Amendment does not mention the Democrat Party or Socialists by name; but it would ban all of their practices (at least at the federal level) if it were enforced.

There's probably enough in The Constitution already to ban the aspects of Islam that are incompatible with civilization as we know it. The Mohammedan government of Turkey was actually mentioned by The Founders (in the Federalist Papers, as I recall) as an example of the kind of thing The Constitution was trying to protect us from. As with the Tenth Amendment, the trick is to get the courts to obey it.

I agree though, that banning practices rather than named entities is the only way that makes sense. If we outlaw "Islam", they'll just change the name. (If the Tenth Amendment outlawed "socialism", the socialists would change their name to something else--like "progressives".)

[mnehring]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson