If the U.S. has no separation of church and state, what is the state religion?

[Sunshine]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

What is the state religion? Why MONEY, of course!

And the term 'separation of church and state' is NOT used in the Constitution.

The clauses referred to are knows as the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause.

Nowhere does the Constitution bar things like a prayer before Congress convenes, or the use of 'in God we trust' on our money. I don't think a government can completely 'separate' itself from religion simply because religion is a part of the culture any government serves. I believe it was James Madison who supported the country having many sects to insure balance.

Now before you condemn out of hand what I have written, please explain Obama's 'reaching out' to the muslim of the world in May of 2009. It would seem that, under the 'separation' argument the prezbo, as a representative of the US and her foreign policy, and as an elected official of the United States, perpetrated a severe constitutional violation when he did that.

Obama reaches out to Muslims - Washington Times

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

-I'm not a leftist by any means (for the record I think Obama is one of the worst presidents in history), but I'm a strong believer in civil rights/liberties.

-I'll address your post part by part (of where I disagree):

"Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something"

You CAN have the freedom from a negative. You CAN have the freedom NOT to do something. See the 5th Amendment.

"Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well."

As a practicing Catholic-I assure you that I worship-don't assume, we both know what makes you. I also don't support others being forced not to worship either. For example I think that people should be able to:

-Pray in schools (as long as the students aren't required to participate, and tax dollars aren't paying for it).

My own issue is forcing individuals to support religious views that they don't necessarily believe in. If you have tax dollars going towards supporting these religious views (for example having religious symbols on public private)-than those individuals are being forced to pay for that religious symbol, and thus being forced to support (financially) those religious beliefs.

Why don't you clearly state what you THINK my position is?

I'm not arrogant enough to presume I know anybody's position(s). But if I had to guess I'd say you think that individuals don't have the right "from religion".

I actually agree with you in the sense that individuals have the right to their religious beliefs on public private, establish their political views based on their religion, preach their religion, etc. I'm 100% ok with that. I'm also ok with "god" being in the Pledge (a little off-topic I know), as it doesn't support any specific deity.

The point where I think individuals have "freedom from religion" is when they're forced to financially support a religious belief/cause/institution/etc. that they do not believe in.

For example I don't believe that tax dollars should go towards a cross to be on displayed on public property, because Jews, Atheists, etc. will be forced to pay for such. However if individuals want to do so on their private land-they have the right to do so-erect the biggest cross you can find-doesn't bother me.

 

[Antares]

Yes it was and the question has been answered in this very thread. I think that Jake even posted a link to it earlier so the poster stating that Jake is unaware of its origin is not really on the ball there.


IOW, Antares, just cut to the chase. The baiting is just leaving the rest of us on the edge of our seats waiting for the actual point here

The chase is this, the left lifted the phrase out of context and has used it to beat their opponents into submission.

They took it and turned it 180 degrees out of phase to prove THEIR side of the argument. ...and in succeeding generations this lie has come to be accepted.

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result.

Agreed, you see they have taken that "wall" and made it to mean not that it SEPARATES the two, but that it encircles religion in order to keep it OUT of public visibility thus prohibiting the right to PRACTICE it freely.

 

[Antares]

-I'm not a leftist by any means (for the record I think Obama is one of the worst presidents in history), but I'm a strong believer in civil rights/liberties.

-I'll address your post part by part (of where I disagree):

"Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something"

You CAN have the freedom from a negative. You CAN have the freedom NOT to do something. See the 5th Amendment.

"Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well."

As a practicing Catholic-I assure you that I worship-don't assume, we both know what makes you. I also don't support others being forced not to worship either. For example I think that people should be able to:

-Pray in schools (as long as the students aren't required to participate, and tax dollars aren't paying for it).

My own issue is forcing individuals to support religious views that they don't necessarily believe in. If you have tax dollars going towards supporting these religious views (for example having religious symbols on public private)-than those individuals are being forced to pay for that religious symbol, and thus being forced to support (financially) those religious beliefs.

Why don't you clearly state what you THINK my position is?

I'm not arrogant enough to presume I know anybody's position(s). But if I had to guess I'd say you think that individuals don't have the right "from religion".

I actually agree with you in the sense that individuals have the right to their religious beliefs on public private, establish their political views based on their religion, preach their religion, etc. I'm 100% ok with that. I'm also ok with "god" being in the Pledge (kind of/sort of off-topic I know), as it doesn't support any specific deity.

The point where I think individuals have "freedom from religion" is when they're forced to financially support a religious belief/cause/institution/etc. that they do not believe in.

For example I don't believe that tax dollars should go towards a cross to be on displayed on public property, because Jews, Atheists, etc. will be forced to pay for for a such. However if individuals want to do so on their private land-they have the right to do so-erect the biggest cross you can find-doesn't bother me.

I'd say you think that individuals don't have the right "from religion".

Not at all, but the right "from" religion in no way precludes another's right to PRACTICE religion.

 

[Antares]

-I'm not a leftist by any means (for the record I think Obama is one of the worst presidents in history), but I'm a strong believer in civil rights/liberties.

-I'll address your post part by part (of where I disagree):

"Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something"

You CAN have the freedom from a negative. You CAN have the freedom NOT to do something. See the 5th Amendment.

"Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well."

As a practicing Catholic-I assure you that I worship-don't assume, we both know what makes you. I also don't support others being forced not to worship either. For example I think that people should be able to:

-Pray in schools (as long as the students aren't required to participate, and tax dollars aren't paying for it).

My own issue is forcing individuals to support religious views that they don't necessarily believe in. If you have tax dollars going towards supporting these religious views (for example having religious symbols on public private)-than those individuals are being forced to pay for that religious symbol, and thus being forced to support (financially) those religious beliefs.

Why don't you clearly state what you THINK my position is?

I'm not arrogant enough to presume I know anybody's position(s). But if I had to guess I'd say you think that individuals don't have the right "from religion".

I actually agree with you in the sense that individuals have the right to their religious beliefs on public private, establish their political views based on their religion, preach their religion, etc. I'm 100% ok with that. I'm also ok with "god" being in the Pledge (a little off-topic I know), as it doesn't support any specific deity.

The point where I think individuals have "freedom from religion" is when they're forced to financially support a religious belief/cause/institution/etc. that they do not believe in.

For example I don't believe that tax dollars should go towards a cross to be on displayed on public property, because Jews, Atheists, etc. will be forced to pay for such. However if individuals want to do so on their private land-they have the right to do so-erect the biggest cross you can find-doesn't bother me.

By the way, I was in no way inviting or accusing you of arrogance.
I was beginning to sense we were arguing the same thing from different directions.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

-The root of America is fleeing a country due to freedom of religion. The government (monarchy) imposed it's religious beliefs on the nation-and that is one of the main roots of our nation. Why would a country founded upon the notion that the government doesn't have the right to impose religion on its citizens, set up a Constitution without protecting that very notion? It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

Too funny, they came here because they weren't ALLOWED to worship as they pleased BECAUSE their "GOV" MADE them worship the way it decreed.

The 1st amendment was written to pr0tect them from that EVER happening again.

It was written to ENSURE that "right" not someone else's "right" NOT worship, I don't care how you stand it on it's head you are arguing it backwards.

Period.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Sorry....

For the 3rd time:

Once again I ask you point out where in the Constitution that the Federal Government has the authority to restrict anybody's freedom from religion.

For the FIRST time have you ever even read the First Amendment?

Hamilton....

Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

I'm well aware of the 1st, and what it means. But by suggesting that it doesn't mean "from religion" is like suggesting that the 2nd doesn't mean "from arms". So let's compare:

We can both agree (obviously) that we have the right to religion and arms. We can also agree that we have the right not to purchase arms, and the right not to believe in religion.

But with your logic, are you suggesting that individuals don't have the right "from arms"?

Do you honestly believe that individuals should have to pay for another individual's gun? Of course not-that's ridiculous. And it's just as ridiculous as being forced to pay for an individual's religious expression.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Why don't you clearly state what you THINK my position is?

I'm not arrogant enough to presume I know anybody's position(s). But if I had to guess I'd say you think that individuals don't have the right "from religion".

I actually agree with you in the sense that individuals have the right to their religious beliefs on public private, establish their political views based on their religion, preach their religion, etc. I'm 100% ok with that. I'm also ok with "god" being in the Pledge (kind of/sort of off-topic I know), as it doesn't support any specific deity.

The point where I think individuals have "freedom from religion" is when they're forced to financially support a religious belief/cause/institution/etc. that they do not believe in.

For example I don't believe that tax dollars should go towards a cross to be on displayed on public property, because Jews, Atheists, etc. will be forced to pay for for a such. However if individuals want to do so on their private land-they have the right to do so-erect the biggest cross you can find-doesn't bother me.

I'd say you think that individuals don't have the right "from religion".

Not at all, but the right "from" religion in no way precludes another's right to PRACTICE religion.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Antares]

You see they have taken that "wall" and made it to mean not that it SEPARATES the two, but that it encircles religion in order to keep it OUT of public visibility thus prohibiting the right to PRACTICE it freely.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

You see they have taken that "wall" and made it to mean not that it SEPARATES the two, but that it encircles religion in order to keep it OUT of public visibility thus prohibiting the right to PRACTICE it freely.

I agree that there are certainly people who feel like they have freedom from religion in the sense that they don't have to be around it at all in public-and they don't have that. And they take it WAT overboard (over Thanksgiving I got into a big thing with atheists essentially telling me to keep my religious beliefs to myself-while they pushed atheism on me, I get it). But in my opinion saying that somebody doesn't have any "freedom of religion" is a stretch, and I think that's what got lost in translation-from my part at least.

 

[FA_Q2]

The chase is this, the left lifted the phrase out of context and has used it to beat their opponents into submission.

They took it and turned it 180 degrees out of phase to prove THEIR side of the argument. ...and in succeeding generations this lie has come to be accepted.

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

-I'm not a leftist by any means (for the record I think Obama is one of the worst presidents in history), but I'm a strong believer in civil rights/liberties.

-I'll address your post part by part (of where I disagree):

"Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something"

You CAN have the freedom from a negative. You CAN have the freedom NOT to do something. See the 5th Amendment.

"Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well."

As a practicing Catholic-I assure you that I worship-don't assume, we both know what makes you. I also don't support others being forced not to worship either. For example I think that people should be able to:

-Pray in schools (as long as the students aren't required to participate, and tax dollars aren't paying for it).

My own issue is forcing individuals to support religious views that they don't necessarily believe in. If you have tax dollars going towards supporting these religious views (for example having religious symbols on public private)-than those individuals are being forced to pay for that religious symbol, and thus being forced to support (financially) those religious beliefs.

Then we would agree.

I find this rather hilarious because I think that the three of us (Antares, you and I) all believe almost the exact same thing but are debating it from 2 entirely different angles. Now that I re-read your post to Antares, I don’t see anywhere you actually disagree with his statements in all honesty. I don’t think anyone here is stating that the government should finance (through taxpayers) religious symbolism but the vast majority of the cases and instances argued against here is when the private citizen is denied because of a public location or publically owned assets. I find this as wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result.

That’s a very strange statement considering the fact that liberals have been at the forefront of protecting the freedom and civil liberties of Americans for decades – from fighting for the civil rights of African-American with regard to segregation and the civil rights of Hispanic Americans with regard to discrimination in the 1950’s, to fighting for the civil rights of gays, same-sex couples, and transgender Americans today, it’s obvious that liberals have a clear and accurate understanding of the concept of freedom.

 

[Antares]

I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result.

That’s a very strange statement considering the fact that liberals have been at the forefront of protecting the freedom and civil liberties of Americans for decades – from fighting for the civil rights of African-American with regard to segregation and the civil rights of Hispanic Americans with regard to discrimination in the 1950’s, to fighting for the civil rights of gays, same-sex couples, and transgender Americans today, it’s obvious that liberals have a clear and accurate understanding of the concept of freedom.

(smile) Unless you are a white Christian.

Right boy?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

-I'm not a leftist by any means (for the record I think Obama is one of the worst presidents in history), but I'm a strong believer in civil rights/liberties.

-I'll address your post part by part (of where I disagree):

"Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something"

You CAN have the freedom from a negative. You CAN have the freedom NOT to do something. See the 5th Amendment.

"Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well."

As a practicing Catholic-I assure you that I worship-don't assume, we both know what makes you. I also don't support others being forced not to worship either. For example I think that people should be able to:

-Pray in schools (as long as the students aren't required to participate, and tax dollars aren't paying for it).

My own issue is forcing individuals to support religious views that they don't necessarily believe in. If you have tax dollars going towards supporting these religious views (for example having religious symbols on public private)-than those individuals are being forced to pay for that religious symbol, and thus being forced to support (financially) those religious beliefs.

Then we would agree.

I find this rather hilarious because I think that the three of us (Antares, you and I) all believe almost the exact same thing but are debating it from 2 entirely different angles. Now that I re-read your post to Antares, I don’t see anywhere you actually disagree with his statements in all honesty. I don’t think anyone here is stating that the government should finance (through taxpayers) religious symbolism but the vast majority of the cases and instances argued against here is when the private citizen is denied because of a public location or publically owned assets. I find this as wrong.

That would depend upon the specifics of a given situation.

As the Court has observed over the decades, it was not the intent of the Framers to remove all religion from government, as there are times when religious expression through government is appropriate and times when it is not.

As a very general rule, religious expression through government passes Constitutional muster when such expressions are motivated primarily by a secular interest, when government seeks to neither advance nor discourage religious expression, and when there is no excessive government entanglement with religion and its expression.

“In god we trust’ on currency would be an example of allowed religious expression by government, a public school teacher leading students a Christian prayer is an example of what would not be allowed.

Moreover, the private citizen is not ‘denied’ because a public location or publicly owned asset is found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause, as the citizen retains his full ability to engage in religious expression, nor is the state interfering with the citizen’s right to engage in his right to comprehensive religious expression.

For example, there is no tenet of Christian doctrine or dogma requiring a nativity scene be placed at a town’s city hall, and to disallow such a display in accordance with Establishment Clause jurisprudence manifests no ‘violation’ of religious expression for that reason.

It’s therefore incumbent upon citizens to understand the case law in this regard, as there are situations where nativity displays on government property are allowed – it is simply a matter of understanding how to configure such a display that comports with the Constitution.

 

[Pogo]

Our state religion? is that the question?

The worship of money and power. The founders would be very unhappy.

Yes we do have a state religion and it is the religion of money. Redfish nails it.

Think about it - any rejection of Lord God All-Money is treated as heresy. Greed is go(o)d. Corporations are absolved from sins and even given voices if not saint status.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

There is no state religion and the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state".

So what are you confused about?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result.

That’s a very strange statement considering the fact that liberals have been at the forefront of protecting the freedom and civil liberties of Americans for decades – from fighting for the civil rights of African-American with regard to segregation and the civil rights of Hispanic Americans with regard to discrimination in the 1950’s, to fighting for the civil rights of gays, same-sex couples, and transgender Americans today, it’s obvious that liberals have a clear and accurate understanding of the concept of freedom.

(smile) Unless you are a white Christian.

Right boy?

Given the hatred of Islam you and many others on the right exhibit, liberals will now need to defend the civil liberties of Muslim Americans from unwarranted attacks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The chase is this, the left lifted the phrase out of context and has used it to beat their opponents into submission.

They took it and turned it 180 degrees out of phase to prove THEIR side of the argument. ...and in succeeding generations this lie has come to be accepted.

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result.

Agreed, you see they have taken that "wall" and made it to mean not that it SEPARATES the two, but that it encircles religion in order to keep it OUT of public visibility thus prohibiting the right to PRACTICE it freely.

No sensible American believes that at all.

Religion has every right to be publicly visible, just not endorsed or supported by government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Run your church's float in the city's 4th of day parade. No problem.

Authority-endorsed prayer over the public school intercom: big problem.

Praying in tongues in the middle of English class at the public middle school: big problem.

Praying without coercing one's neighbor or disrupting the public educational process: no problem.

 

[Antares]

I agree with the end but I would disagree with the idea that they are taking that statement out of context or are misstating that the constitution creates that wall. There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result. By arguing about the ‘wall’ rather than what actual freedom or religion means, the left wins because they have changed the focus away from where the real point of contention should be.

I actually think that James highlights this VERY well when he claims that the federal government does not have the right to restrict someone’s right ‘from religion.’ Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom in the first place. He is trying to argue for a freedom of a negative – the freedom to not do something – when no one was infringing on that in the first place. Instead, he was perfectly fine not worshipping at all but the left seems to believe that extends to forcing you to not worship as well. The logic there is VERY convoluted.

There IS a wall between church and state. I believe that very firmly. Instead, I think that the liberals here (and all over the place) fundamentally misunderstand the concept of freedom and what that separation would mean as a result.

Agreed, you see they have taken that "wall" and made it to mean not that it SEPARATES the two, but that it encircles religion in order to keep it OUT of public visibility thus prohibiting the right to PRACTICE it freely.

No sensible American believes that at all.

Religion has every right to be publicly visible, just not endorsed or supported by government.

There is NOTHING sensible about you pop....and nobody care what you believe.

 

[Antares]

That’s a very strange statement considering the fact that liberals have been at the forefront of protecting the freedom and civil liberties of Americans for decades – from fighting for the civil rights of African-American with regard to segregation and the civil rights of Hispanic Americans with regard to discrimination in the 1950’s, to fighting for the civil rights of gays, same-sex couples, and transgender Americans today, it’s obvious that liberals have a clear and accurate understanding of the concept of freedom.

(smile) Unless you are a white Christian.

Right boy?

Given the hatred of Islam you and many others on the right exhibit, liberals will now need to defend the civil liberties of Muslim Americans from unwarranted attacks.

Shut up kid.

You miss it entirely, I don't hate Islam, I hate Radical Islam, I also don't think much of your racist ass.