Db,

Typo..

I could go on but I won't.

Db,

In other words, we're done.

Db,

To be honest, I think you're just a little bit over confident.

I could go but I won't.

Db,

"Why the outrage, if the call to worship is what gets under your skin?"

That's not an actual question.

There is nothing to say to that.

I may not respond to you for awhile.

Dinner time...done

Db,

"To whom should North Koreans show fealty, if anyone?"

Kim Jong Un....not kidding.

Db,

"To whom should Americans show fealty, if anyone?"

The IRS....just kidding.

Dan,

"Christmas is a national holiday. Name a belief other than Christianity whose most sacred day is a National Holiday."

Christmas is a federal holiday, but that does not make Christianity the state religion or require anyone to worship. Christmas has also become a cultural holiday celebrated by many people who are not practicing Christians. Christians themselves are not required to attend church, put up a tree or exchange presents.

Likewise, Muslims are free to worship in America. My objection is more specific. When a religious message is amplified into surrounding homes and neighborhoods, it must obey the same noise laws governing everyone else. Hearing the call to prayer does not make someone a participant, but people should not be forced to hear amplified religious broadcasts that violate local ordinances.

Should a Christian church be permitted to broadcast its Sunday morning sermon over outdoor loudspeakers into surrounding homes? Of course not. The same standard should apply to a mosque.

"So you believe a woman should decide whether she gets an abortion?"

I have answered this before. Yes. I thought reversing Roe v Wade was a mistake. I believe abortion is morally wrong, but from a secular legal standpoint, the government should leave that decision to the woman rather than impose my moral beliefs upon her. She must make that decision and live with its consequences.

"Can you show us a single current instance of Muslims getting MORE constitutional rights than you? Please be specific."

Did you listen to the video attached to this thread?

No group possesses more rights than provided by the Constitution. The concern is officials who sometimes protect or enforce those rights unequally.

The current Dearborn video contains allegations of unequal treatment and an attempt to impose Sharia Law .

One documented Dearborn example is Bible Believers v Wayne County. At Dearborn's 2012 Arab International Festival, a hostile crowd threw objects at Christian speakers. Law enforcement responded by ordering the speakers to leave under threat, instead of protecting their constitutional right to free speech. The Sixth Circuit ruled that officials had violated the Christians First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by permitting a hostile crowd to silence them.

That is not an allegation from a video. It is an actual finding by a federal court.

"Treating minorities like crap is never a good idea."

Have I suggested that Muslims should be treated like crap?

Muslims do not need to abandon their faith or private traditions. Like every other religious group, however, they may need to modify public traditions that conflict with existing laws or the rights of their neighbors.

Living in a free country without an established religion means that every faith receives the same protection, no faith receives governmental preference, or the right to impose its religious practices upon the surrounding community.

Dan,

"And there are radical Christian movements who believe husbands should be able to strike their wives, and every household should have only ONE vote: the man's. Frankly, neither will get any traction."

There are radical Christian groups that hold those beliefs and I oppose them. If Christians demanded that husbands be legally permitted to strike their wives or that women lose their individual voting rights, I would fight those demands just as vigorously. At present, however, it is highly unlikely that they will be petitioning the courts to have either belief legally recognized.

We don't protect constitutional rights by waiting until a movement has enough power to take them away. We proactively protect those rights by confronting unconstitutional demands while they are still developing and applying the same laws to every religion.

Pointing to Christian extremism does not answer concerns about Islamic extremism.

It confirms why every religious movement seeking power over other people must be opposed .

Db,

"A complete no-brainer that any Christian would want to answer most willingly"

That's what concerns me.

It's the "no-brainer" part I worry about since that is what I see coming from you.

Not really thinking.

Db,

"because like you, they also appear very angry about something"

Again...you have now decided I am angry.

If you read these threads, you'll see it the liberals who are the most angry.

I'm not usually angry.

Right now I'm not angry.

When I am angry it's more obvious.