First, let's not lose track of the original topic of this thread, which is "Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?" That's not attacking Islam. That's attacking all Muslim, which is an important distinction. You are free to complain about elements of Islam you don't like, as far as I'm concerned. There are elements of Islam I don't like, either. Just don't take liberties with the truth when you are doing so, as some have done in this and other threads, or you will be doing the same thing you complain they do. Do I think Christianity is a better religion than Islam? Sure. Do I think all Muslims are evil terrorists just waiting to murder me? Of course not.
Second, I see evidence that not all sects of Islam nor all Muslims interpret the passages used to make these claims about Islam in the same way. For those that do, however, your criticism is certainly warranted. Though I think the passage about lying doesn't say anything that many people, Muslim or otherwise, do in practice out of expedience, I agree that a religion should set the bar higher on lying.
Finally, early Judaism, from which Christianity comes, justified all sorts of things including genocide, racism, and murder. It managed to change and evolve over time so it's no longer the religion it was in the Bronze Age. My point about Islam changing is that I think it's possible, but by no means certain, that Islam could change into a religion that's more 21st Century friendly.
Now the followers of either can be as good as, or as bad as, what they believe. But the DEFINITION of 'good' for Islam is the very thing Christianity deems evil. To lie and kill infidels makes you a GOOD Muslim. To lie and kill others makes you a BAD Christian.
I think that a persons sense of Good and Evil transcends religion, which is why atheists can understand themselves to be good or evil and why similar concepts of good and evil are found across many religions. Further, recent research into how the brain makes moral decisions suggests that at least some of our sense of right and wrong is hardcoded into our brains. Regardless of what Islam or Christianity says, people will also listen to that internal compass. That's why many Christians intuitively reject the Christian doctrine idea that otherwise good people will still go to Hell simply because they don't believe in Jesus, even if they never had a chance to hear about Him. It just doesn't seem fair, regardless of what the Bible says to support that theological position.
Oh- and the training camps aren't about religion,eh? I suppose the promise of martyrdom and 72 virgins isn't why they want to die? They're promised cars and Reeboks or something? Please!
The ideology could be swapped out with any number of other ideologies. Do you think there were no terrorists before Islam and no terrorists who aren't Muslim? There are plenty of Christians who have managed to twist Christianity to the same end. Now you could argue that Islam requires a lot less twisting than Christianity to be used that way, but that's not the same thing as saying that all Muslims are bad.
And your last question was so inane I'm gaping here! Distrust every potential BTK killer? WHY NOT? What's it cost compared to the lives it would save to be suspicious instead of trusting?
Ah, you finally get to the heart of the matter. Yes, it's not a simple matter of automatically trusting or not trusting but a matter of risk and cost assessment. You need to look at the cost and benefit of what you suggest. I see little benefit in trampling the Constitution and deporting even the friendliest and kindest Muslim simply to reduce the risk of another terrorist attack because Able Danger has shown that we can detect the bad guys and distinguish them from the good guys. The cost for condemning all Muslims, in my opinion, goes beyond any benefit we'd get from it and the safety we'd get is not absolute. If they can bring drugs into the US illegally, they could get terrorists into the United States illegally. And deporting or even monitoring all Muslims would simply create resentment among the good Muslims and a false sense of security for everyone else.
For someone whose moniker is ' Question Assumptions', isn't it ironic that you choose to assume everyone is good until proven otherwise? Shouldn't you question THAT assumption?
I seem to remember that "innocent until proven guilty" was the foundation of our legal system. I'm not asking you to leave your front door unlocked, take the police off the streets, or leave the borders unguarded. I am saying that one should have at least some reason to believe a person is guilty before treating them like a murderer.