[SauronOfMordor]

So then, do we destroy our Constitution, and subsequently our way of life, to "save ourselves" from radical Muslims? In other words, do we throw in the towel and engage in the antithesis of the principles that have guided this nation through so many years, acknowledge that ours in fact, is NOT the best system of governance known to man, and instead practice religious intolerance, becoming nothing more than a carbon copy of that which we fight?

The Constitution's First Amendment says that the GOVERNMENT may not take sides for or against any religion. What started this thread was a discussion of what PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS may do to express their displeasure with the advancement of an ideology they dislike, using non-violent means like complainig and boycotting

[Luis Gonzalez]

Wherever this thread may have begun, I entered the debate at a point where the issue of censoring Islam was starting to take hold.

I do however appreciate the synopsis.

There are a number of individuals on the thread advocating that the practice of Islam not be allowed in the US, and that its status as a religion be somehow removed, and that is clearly wrong ay many levels.

But even if your interpretation of individual rights includes the ability to personally persecute people for exercising their individual, constitutionally protected freedoms, then you are arguing that their way, and thus their religious teachings are correct, and ours are wrong.

The moment we sanction any religion, or set in place the idea that it is our right to define the personal religious beliefs of some by refusing to recognize their religion, we begin emulating their religious intolerance, and we try to enter into the realm of religious fanaticism ourselves.

The moment we do that, we have effectively surrendered the West to their way of life.