[AustinBill]

Debating the religious status of Islam or any other faith is counterproductive. The Constitution does not recognize "thought crime". What is subject to law is behavior, not belief. You may well believe it to be your religious duty to engage in human sacrifice but you'll be arrested and prosecuted if you do so, not because of your belief, but for your actions.

This is an important distinction and the basis for the Rule of Law. It is the reason why attacking Islam has no legal basis while Sharia is wide open to such controls by civil authorities. The failure to make this distinction is why the West is in such a muddle over Islam.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

You ignore my comments about the “actions” and “violent practice” of the Thugee, Mayans, and Islam, which “operate” as if they were etc, etc. If they were just a religion of ideas there would be no issue, but they are not.

I think it is legitimate to question whether a religion that operates (acts, not thinks) like a criminal enterprise can claim a religious status and special protections provided by the Constitution for religions. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I doubt the framers would have a problem with denying Islam religious protections since Islam would deny to others the religious and legal protections it would claim for itself.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

You ignore my comments about the “actions” and “violent practice” of the Thugee, Mayans, and Islam, which “operate” as if they were etc, etc. If they were just a religion of ideas there would be no issue, but they are not.

I think it is legitimate to question whether a religion that operates (acts, not thinks) like a criminal enterprise can claim a religious status and special protections provided by the Constitution for religions. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I doubt the framers would have a problem with denying Islam religious protections since Islam would deny to others the religious and legal protections it would claim for itself.