Faith in the Park51 Muslim Community Center

Who called whom an "useful idiot?"

They were also working to promote moderate Islam

I want only to express my opinion in Christian love. The location of the Mosque is insulting to me...not that they don't have a Constitional right to have their mosque in an appropriate location, but that the message it gives to the general public is that as a minority community, they demand their rights, regardless of what the hurting Amerian community thinks is appropriate...or not appropriate in these days.

Tom...

[

Ankaboot wrote: "How did the government get the power to require a 'marriage license' before a pastor can make God a party to a marriage contract"

Marriage should be outside of the province of government. Churches, synagogues, mosques, other religious institutions should be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies -- or not perform marriage ceremonies in whatever ways conform to their particular theologies or belief systems. I would only say that the marriage partners must be consenting adults; a child cannot go into something as important as a marriage contract because a child is too young and immature to have the proper judgement about marriage and choosing a partner (children under the age of 18 are usually forbidden from signing any sort of contract).

Ankaboot wrote: [WT wrote] 'What they cannot do is participate in political campaigns and have tax exemption. That is because tax payers shouldn't have to subsidize political campaigns that they don't wish to. This isn't part of any anti-religious plot by anyone, "Deniers" or not. It's a simple principle of not forcing tax payers to subsidize those campaigns that they don't want to subsidize.'

"[Ankaboot] That's utter nonsense, WaveTossed."

Peace, my friend. It might be an argument that you find mistaken. But "utter nonsense" is a bit strong.

"See The New First Amendment for the history of excluding the churches from their historical participation in political campaigns."

I've read "The New First Amendment." I'm also quite familiar with the original First Amendment to the US Constitution. Which to my knowledge has neither been repealed nor is it subject to any campaign of repeal.

"The IRS restrictions on church participation in political campaigns are part and parcel of this reduction of the political influence of the faithful. It effectively says that 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances' does not exist when the 'assembly' is a religious congregation."

That is not true. The original First Amendment specifically bars government from interfering with the practice of any religion. So any person or any institution of any religion is free to engage in political campaigning. Anyone who might tell any person of any religion that they do not have this right is mistaken (or deliberately lying) because the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the exercise of religion, which includes participating in electional campaigns.

The IRS restrictions on tax exemptions do not bar any religious institution from engaging in political campaigning. All that these restrictions state is that no entity, religious or otherwise, may enjoy a tax-exempt status while engaging in partisan campaigning. This is because of the exemption from taxes, which is subsidized by other taxpayers, who don't get similar exemptions from taxes. If a religious (or other entity that has enjoyed the tax-exempt status) wishes to engage in partisan political campaigning, then they must pay the taxes that the rest of us pay.

So if any religious institution (or political or personal institution) wishes to engage in partisan political campaigning, then they cannot be tax-exempt. Because tax-exemption means neutrality. When they pay taxes, then they can participate in partisan political activities.

Saying that people or institutions -- whether religious or not -- that they should have the privilege of maintaining a tax-exempt status while engaging in partisan politics whereas the rest of us have to go on paying taxes -- is unfair.

The selective enforcement of tax-exemption codes has been an issue for all sorts of political and religious institutions throughout American history; this issue has affected people of all sorts of religious and political persuasions -- what gets said is that Institution X who wishes to support Candidate A, is being unfairly discriminated against because Institution X will lose its tax-exempt status. And then someone from Institution Y will say that the IRS is "cheating" because it selectively enforces the tax-exemption codes. This is a valid issue to raise.

Churches, synagogues, mosques, other religious institutions should be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies -- or not perform marriage ceremonies in whatever ways conform to their particular theologies or belief systems.

"Oh Messenger of God, they do not worship them."

"They most certainly do. They make lawful what God has made unlawful, and the make unlawful what God has made lawful, and they follow them in it. And by following them in it they worship them."

Who "licensed" the marriage of Adam and Eve? God did. Who in the Hell lets anyone stand in place of God and give "permission" for two people to marry? Well, everyone in hell does. It's almost a Sign of the Times we live in.

But does God ordain individuals to act as His agent in making God a Party to the marriage contract? Yes, He does. And there is nothing to prevent anyone from pretending to be His agent, including Caesar.

Do you want Caesar to be a party to your marriage contract? Or do you want Caesar to be bound by his own laws to honor that contract without being a party to it?

And by what authority does Caesar impose prior restraint on religious acts? He certainly can't impose prior restraints on the free press or free speech, even when the "free speech" is adding nude dancers to a tavern's entertainments, or when the "free press" publishes classified government documents such as the Pentagon Papers.

So where does the government get off requiring people to get a "license" giving them permission to marry?

I would only say that the marriage partners must be consenting adults; a child cannot go into something as important as a marriage contract because a child is too young and immature to have the proper judgment about marriage and choosing a partner (children under the age of 18 are usually forbidden from signing any sort of contract).

Well, in some States it's fourteen.

But in Islam, it's the age at which the girl involved is able to understand the nature of a binding contract sufficiently to be able to explain the nature of an obligation and demonstrate an understanding of its terms. We call this understanding " 'aqeedah." But then in Islam, the wife has the same rights as the husband, and when she agrees to allow the man to be responsible for her and any children she conceives during the term of the contract, she gains the right to repudiate the contract for any reason or no reason at all (divorce), and her legal guardian (every woman has one on Islam, usually a father or brother or uncle or son) is obligated to enforce her rights as necessary.

'A'isha, the one wife of the prophet who had not been married previously, agreed to his offer (to be responsible for her) when she was sixteen, contrary to the popular myth that she was six. She had previously embraced Islam when she was nine, which she also could not do until she was able to understand the nature of a contract and contractual obligations. That contract was made when he gave her her dowry and announced it publicly, and was consummated when she was nineteen. They had no children.

People reach " 'aqeedah" when God gives them the necessary understanding. This occurs at differing ages, and in some cases never at all.

The next higher level of human understanding is called "aql" ~ from the same Arabic root as "fetter" ~ in which the individual with 'aqeedah contracts to conform his thinking and judgment to God's Law and to dismiss and reject whatever thinking is not in conformity with what God has ordained. This is the contract in Abraham that opens the fiery gates of the Garden and leads to a welcome into paradise.

And who is a more trustworthy and reliable party to a contract than God? Nothing can prevent Him from fulfilling His Promises.

Because women do not have the absolute, irrevocable right to be supported -- materially and politically -- by men.

Onbviously, I disagree.

Women have the right to support themselves materially and politically. So therefore, they should have the opportunity to do so. That's what the US Constitution states.

And the Qur'an makes that clear, too. So of course I agree.

However, there are more women standing up to testify against their abusers than there were before in history.

Good for them. And where there's a documented track record, juries acquit them of manslaughter when they have to kill these animals.

That's because of the patriarchy. Women are held up to a higher standard than men are. Men get away with privileges that women do not get away with; they would be fired or laid off whereas men are able to keep their jobs.

That is the present situation, but it's not "patriarchy," it's "good old boys."

In a libertarian society, the issues of whether or not women or men rule or determine directions of common enterprise would depend upon the individuals involved -- whether male or female.

In every society that is the case. Including America, where the boys are more like bonobo chimpanzees than they are like men, and men are so scarce that it appears you've never known one.

That's utter nonsense, WaveTossed."

Peace, my friend. It might be an argument that you find mistaken. But "utter nonsense" is a bit strong.

Man was given dominion by God, and since the time of Noah, we have known that. In the time of Solomon, the rulers of the world recognized and acknowledged that God, and not they, ruled the Children of Israel, and made a bargain with the sons of Levi and Judah that if the Children of Israel would help them rule the rest of the world, by supporting their sovereignty with a Scriptural mandate and anointing their kings, they would never force their rule on people of faith who are ruled by God. That contract is still in force today and includes taxation. America's "kings" ~ the Justices of the US Supreme Court ~ are "anointed" by the Senate before they take their oaths of office on the Scripture they regard as binding on their oaths, and then take their seats on the bench. The kings of the earth then lay a tax burden on those they rule, and do not lay any burden on those ruled by God. When people of faith choose to be ruled by the kings of the earth, rather than by God, they become taxable.

That ancient covenant between the kings of the earth and Israel is not "superseded" by the Constitution, it is affirmed by the Constitution, and the States, not the citizens of the States, are the contractual parties to the Constitution. The citizens are not, until they choose to be ruled by the kings of the earth rather than by God, and then their contractual participation is to vote. When someone is elected to public office under the Constitution of the United States or of any State, their contractual obligation is to administer the laws and rule according to the Constitution, not to be ruled by it themselves or otherwise, but only in the performance of their specific Constitutional functions.

For people of faith ruled by God, this is simply an agreement to assist in the political administration of the secular authorities with integrity and fidelity to the Constitutional mandate they serve. It is a good work and a mercy to those ruled by the kings of the earth, who have no obligation other than to rule, and maintain the power to rule, over those not ruled by God, and no obligation to be merciful in doing so other than according to a Constitutional mandate (e.g., prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishments.")

See The New First Amendment for the history of excluding the churches from their historical participation in political campaigns.

I've read "The New First Amendment." I'm also quite familiar with the original First Amendment to the US Constitution. Which to my knowledge has neither been repealed nor is it subject to any campaign of repeal.

The Bill of Rights has been gutted by the Supreme Court. See A Political Process for Muslim America for that discussion. "Free Exercise" has been defined by the Supreme Court as "Freedom of opinion" and not as "exercise" at all. The only "Free Exercise" Americans have is the freedom to form their own opinion about religion ~ not to act on it in any way that may be prohibited by law, such as giving wine to minors during church communion ritual practices, which is illegal and can be prosecuted as "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor."

There's more about how your liberties have been infringed or taken away entirely by the Supreme Court at that link.

I've been practicing law in America for forty years. What people don't know can hurt them. Ask John Lindh, who was fighting the opium barons and warlords in Afghanistan and threw down his rifle and surrendered when America invaded Afghanistan ~ he didn't know it was against federal law to receive basic boy scout and rifle range training from the Taliban, and now he's serving a life term in a federal penitentiary in California, starting at an age of about 20.

You have no idea what Caesar is doing these days.

"However, there are more women standing up to testify against their abusers than there were before in history."

Good for them. And where there's a documented track record, juries acquit them of manslaughter when they have to kill these animals.

Which is why more women don't step forward. The abusers are either acquitted or convicted of manslaughter and given light sentences. Then they go after the women they abused earlier. Women have sometimes been murdered in these circumstances.

The women are acquitted when the juries are shown the record of the abuse they've suffered. The idea that women must "suffer in silence" has long been put to rest.

I've always seen the "good old boys" network as being a part and parcel of American patriarchy. This is what causes the "glass ceiling" where women only get promoted so far in business.

Well, when we start talking about "American patriarchy," that illuminates the semantic difference. It's certainly not "patriarchy" of any description that I have ever understood. It's nothing more than boys taking advantage of the softnesses of their mothers, extended to taking advantage of the weaknesses of all women. This is not to say that women are "weak," they are not ~ women are proportionately stronger than men in all respects, you need to be because boys are savage animals and fools who are made weak toward their mothers and all women and resent it rather than appreciating it. But women are weak toward men in a similar fashion, and boys take advantage of that while men ~ knowing the strength of woman ~ appreciate it.

So the essence of this conversation has been that what you call "patriarchy" is a far cry from the patriarchy that is not "either-or" with matriarchy, but locked in tandem with matriarchy, supportive, strengthening, and protective of women from their sons who have no common sense when it comes to taking advantage of their mothers' love for them, and learn that as their habitual relation with women.

Libertarians, such as myself, don't think so much in broad strokes of "men" or "women," but in terms of individuals and their individual choices and actions and consequences for such actions.

Libertarians such as myself think in terms of individual differences in desires and capacities and seek to insure that others have the means by which to realize the benefits of their dreams, goals, and ambitions. Boys are by nature more self-centered than women, and less considerate of others. Men have incorporated woman's natural concern for others into the "goals and interests" matrix that determines their social interactions. Boys continue to fight their mothers for that last piece of pie.

What you call "American patriarchy" I call beastiality. It's inhuman. We're better than that, and women deserve better than that. I turn from today's "American society" toward God, and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ~ hellfire. I live in "the Republic for which it stands" of the Pledge of Allegiance ~ which certainly isn't where most Americans are living today.

And the primary reason I turn is the way boys are allowed to treat women in the absence of men to restrain them. It's disgraceful and it is absolutely not "patriarchal."

And Islam explicitly condemns it.

Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions ARE free to perform or not perform marriage ceremonies. That right is protected under the Constitution.

It is not protected by the Constitution when permission must be obtained in advance of joining God with two people contracting their marriage. That's called "prior restraint" which violates the Constitution in the case of free speech ("expression") or freedom of the press, according to the Supreme Court. It violates the Constitution in free exercise of religion, as well, and any law that requires such permission violates the Constitutional prohibition against making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Marriage is explicitly an establishment of religion.

property rights, children's rights (some churches sanction under-age girls being forced to marry older men - the law forbids that practice), parental visitation rights, and other rights that can only be pursued and protected through civil law

Religious laws address all of those concerns, and it is the responsibility of the leaders of a congregation to see that the religious Law is applied to each such concern in all cases. Islam established property rights for individuals ~ men, women, and children ~ shielded from the eminent domain that was derived from the Torah. Women may not be coerced into a marriage to which they do not consent: a forced marriage is void in the Law and she is free to flee to sanctuary wherever she can find it. To avoid being raped, she may kill her "husband." That's the Law, and whoever attempts to change or abrogate the Law is guilty of a capital offense, in both Judaism and Islam. No parent may deprive the other parent of the company of their children absent a clear and present threat of bodily harm or abduction. That's the Law. There are no civil rights that are not addressed by the Law, including the right of people to adopt a life style or behavior that is clearly violative of the Laws applicable to the people of faith.

Read Revelation 22:11. That is the Law of Islam applicable to all mankind.

I think the government has a legitimate (though limited) role in marriage contracts.

I sympathize with your concern, but disagree with your conclusion. Every religious community ~ every local congregation ~ has the liberty that God gave them to administer their own affairs according to their understanding of their religious precepts. It is absolutely a violation of every element of freedom and liberty (two distinctly different concepts) to impose another sovereignty on them, be it secular or some more "central authority" of their denominational Church. Those who violate their own religious precepts are accountable to God. We (muslims) are charged to fight those who rule in the Name of God and by falsifying the Law that God has given them, work such tyranny on their people that they cry out to us for relief.

There is no coercion in religion. That is fundamental and absolute. Where there is coercion, the religious Law ~ whatever it is ~ has been falsified. This is just as true in Islam as it is in any other religion, including Judaism ~ which has some draconian physical punishments in its religious Law, as well as God's Promise of pure holy hell in this life should they abandon God's Law. And some did, ages ago, condemning an entire "generation" of Israel (they and their descendants and followers) to an eternity of hell, inescapable except by following Jesus.

No government has any right to interfere with God's Judgment on anyone. Should an oppressed person escape their tyrants who falsify God's Law, we (muslims) are charged to give them unconditional sanctuary. Should those they left behind ask us for relief, God's Law requires us to provide it when we can ~ without any condition that infringes on their religious liberty.

But people who tolerate tyranny and oppression have the rulers they deserve. In America, we choose from among those offered as rulers. And how has that worked out?

Do you really want those who have no fidelity to the law when it suits them, to have some part to play in "protecting" the rights that the Supreme Court has "interpreted" into almost no rights at all, which since 9/11 have been virtually thrown out the window in the name of "protecting" you from the terror that they themselves created, fostered, nurtured, protected, and assisted all the way to the Towers?

Think it over. God is your only Protector. No amount of military might, no measure of watchfulness into your private affairs, and no shelter can protect you from what God allows to befall you that proceeds from what you yourself have sent forth.

A Republic is a beast that can only be restrained by God, or by its people who do not make other men "rulers" over themselves, but rule what those other men do with an iron hand. But we in America have let it go far beyond that, overlooking their criminality and mass murders, until now they are locking us down in a police state that makes the Gestapo look like nursemaids.

Rome was ruled by a Senate that appointed a President to tyrannize the peasantry they entertained with bread and circuses. And when it was desirable, they appointed a Caesar with independent war powers, who became the law of Rome for the duration. What did Congress do with the War Powers Act, giving the President war powers independently of any declaration of war by Congress, but make him America's Caesar? And did not Bush and Ashcroft make themselves the law, overriding any Constitution limitation on the powers delegated to the federal government?

Remember Waco. Remember Kent State and Vietnam. America has become a beast that eats its own children. Remember the suicide rate among veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And ask God for protection from Caesar.

That's the only hope for your children's children's children.

I want only to express my opinion in Christian love. The location of the Mosque is insulting to me...not that they don't have a Constitional right to have their mosque in an appropriate location, but that the message it gives to the general public is that as a minority community, they demand their rights, regardless of what the hurting Amerian community thinks is appropriate...or not appropriate in these days.

Patricia wrote: "Churches, synogogues, mosques, and other religious institutions ARE free to perform or not perform marriage ceremonies. That right is protected under the Constitution.

"But, the government is involved in marriage contracts because property rights, children's rights (some churches sanction under-age girls being forced to marry older men - the law forbids that practice), parental visitation rights, and other rights that can only be pursued and protected through civil law are involved in marriage contracts (and in the divorces that occur in the wake of half of contracted marriages). I think the government has a legitimate (though limited) role in marriage contracts."

The issues of divorce, child custody, property division, household expenses, and other issues can be covered in a private marriage contract that is enforced by contract law. In most states, under contract law, no contract can be signed or enforced if a signer is under the age of 18.

I feel very strongly that very few children under the age of 18 are able to have the judgment to enter into such life-changing partnership that marriage entails. Any child under 18 who wishes to marry and cannot wait until age 18 can go to a judge and have themselves declared as Emancipated Minors, with all of the rights and responsibities of adults. The protection of minor children is a legitimate function of government. This would include protecting minor children from abusive actions within a marriage.

Other than protecting children, the partnership of consenting adults is not a function of government, other than enforcing contract provisions under contract law. If a breech of a marriage contract is committed, a lawsuit under contract law can be brought up in civil court for a judge to decide.

All Social Security and IRS laws that involve married couples should be repealed.

Religious institutions are absolutely allowed to be involved in the marriage of partners. They are allowed to define marriage and perform marriage ceremonies, or not perform marriage ceremonies according to their particular beliefs. When government gets involved in defining marriage, then some religious beliefs get trampled upon in favor of others.

Patriarchy/Matriarchy/American boys

Police Car Auctions...

This design is spectacular! You certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Great job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how y...

Churches, synagogues, mosques, other religious institutions should be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies -- or not perform marriage ceremonies in whatever ways conform to their particular theologies or belief systems.

"Oh Messenger of God, they do not worship them."

"They most certainly do. They make lawful what God has made unlawful, and the make unlawful what God has made lawful, and they follow them in it. And by following them in it they worship them."

Who "licensed" the marriage of Adam and Eve? God did. Who in the Hell lets anyone stand in place of God and give "permission" for two people to marry? Well, everyone in hell does. It's almost a Sign of the Times we live in.

But does God ordain individuals to act as His agent in making God a Party to the marriage contract? Yes, He does. And there is nothing to prevent anyone from pretending to be His agent, including Caesar.

Do you want Caesar to be a party to your marriage contract? Or do you want Caesar to be bound by his own laws to honor that contract without being a party to it?

And by what authority does Caesar impose prior restraint on religious acts? He certainly can't impose prior restraints on the free press or free speech, even when the "free speech" is adding nude dancers to a tavern's entertainments, or when the "free press" publishes classified government documents such as the Pentagon Papers.

So where does the government get off requiring people to get a "license" giving them permission to marry?

I would only say that the marriage partners must be consenting adults; a child cannot go into something as important as a marriage contract because a child is too young and immature to have the proper judgment about marriage and choosing a partner (children under the age of 18 are usually forbidden from signing any sort of contract).

Well, in some States it's fourteen.

But in Islam, it's the age at which the girl involved is able to understand the nature of a binding contract sufficiently to be able to explain the nature of an obligation and demonstrate an understanding of its terms. We call this understanding " 'aqeedah." But then in Islam, the wife has the same rights as the husband, and when she agrees to allow the man to be responsible for her and any children she conceives during the term of the contract, she gains the right to repudiate the contract for any reason or no reason at all (divorce), and her legal guardian (every woman has one on Islam, usually a father or brother or uncle or son) is obligated to enforce her rights as necessary.

'A'isha, the one wife of the prophet who had not been married previously, agreed to his offer (to be responsible for her) when she was sixteen, contrary to the popular myth that she was six. She had previously embraced Islam when she was nine, which she also could not do until she was able to understand the nature of a contract and contractual obligations. That contract was made when he gave her her dowry and announced it publicly, and was consummated when she was nineteen. They had no children.

People reach " 'aqeedah" when God gives them the necessary understanding. This occurs at differing ages, and in some cases never at all.

The next higher level of human understanding is called "aql" ~ from the same Arabic root as "fetter" ~ in which the individual with 'aqeedah contracts to conform his thinking and judgment to God's Law and to dismiss and reject whatever thinking is not in conformity with what God has ordained. This is the contract in Abraham that opens the fiery gates of the Garden and leads to a welcome into paradise.

And who is a more trustworthy and reliable party to a contract than God? Nothing can prevent Him from fulfilling His Promises.

Thanks, Ankaboot, but my objection was to the qualifier added to the Constitutional quote.

How is your opinion Christian love? Or did you mean you're expressing an unloving opinion, or maybe just a fear-based opinion, with Christian love? Either way, I don't get it -- but it's okay. All the people against the project are against a fiction. Almost all Christians and almost all Americans, are in favor of good people doing good things ... and that's all that's going on here, with the Park51 project. If people are willing to Google around a bit for the fact, and/or take articles like the article above to heart -- there can't be too many people against it. I literally have seen one person remain against the project once they know, and are willing to accept, the facts.

Here's a letter from a victim's mother that I think we all might benefit by reading:

http://thehamdanipost.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

Private property issue. End of story. Can't stop wondering about all the fist pumping on this issue.

"And, for what it's worth, I believe the majority of Americans support the community center/mosque."

Umm..nope.

http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1493

And that message given is exactly the message our Constitution and our laws give - the very foundation of our democracy. So when some citizens are given over to emotion and irrational fear, or ignorance, or prejudice, other citizens are protected and still guaranteed the free exercise of those rights, which belong to ALL of us - not just the majority, however the majority is being defined.

And, for what it's worth, I believe the majority of Americans support the community center/mosque.

There is no such thing as an American Muslim community is there?

Only nineteen million of us today, living in Muslim America, for eight

generations and over a century.

Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions ARE free to perform or not perform marriage ceremonies. That right is protected under the Constitution.

It is not protected by the Constitution when permission must be obtained in advance of joining God with two people contracting their marriage. That's called "prior restraint" which violates the Constitution in the case of free speech ("expression") or freedom of the press, according to the Supreme Court. It violates the Constitution in free exercise of religion, as well, and any law that requires such permission violates the Constitutional prohibition against making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Marriage is explicitly an establishment of religion.

property rights, children's rights (some churches sanction under-age girls being forced to marry older men - the law forbids that practice), parental visitation rights, and other rights that can only be pursued and protected through civil law

Religious laws address all of those concerns, and it is the responsibility of the leaders of a congregation to see that the religious Law is applied to each such concern in all cases. Islam established property rights for individuals ~ men, women, and children ~ shielded from the eminent domain that was derived from the Torah. Women may not be coerced into a marriage to which they do not consent: a forced marriage is void in the Law and she is free to flee to sanctuary wherever she can find it. To avoid being raped, she may kill her "husband." That's the Law, and whoever attempts to change or abrogate the Law is guilty of a capital offense, in both Judaism and Islam. No parent may deprive the other parent of the company of their children absent a clear and present threat of bodily harm or abduction. That's the Law. There are no civil rights that are not addressed by the Law, including the right of people to adopt a life style or behavior that is clearly violative of the Laws applicable to the people of faith.

Read Revelation 22:11. That is the Law of Islam applicable to all mankind.

I think the government has a legitimate (though limited) role in marriage contracts.

I sympathize with your concern, but disagree with your conclusion. Every religious community ~ every local congregation ~ has the liberty that God gave them to administer their own affairs according to their understanding of their religious precepts. It is absolutely a violation of every element of freedom and liberty (two distinctly different concepts) to impose another sovereignty on them, be it secular or some more "central authority" of their denominational Church. Those who violate their own religious precepts are accountable to God. We (muslims) are charged to fight those who rule in the Name of God and by falsifying the Law that God has given them, work such tyranny on their people that they cry out to us for relief.

There is no coercion in religion. That is fundamental and absolute. Where there is coercion, the religious Law ~ whatever it is ~ has been falsified. This is just as true in Islam as it is in any other religion, including Judaism ~ which has some draconian physical punishments in its religious Law, as well as God's Promise of pure holy hell in this life should they abandon God's Law. And some did, ages ago, condemning an entire "generation" of Israel (they and their descendants and followers) to an eternity of hell, inescapable except by following Jesus.

No government has any right to interfere with God's Judgment on anyone. Should an oppressed person escape their tyrants who falsify God's Law, we (muslims) are charged to give them unconditional sanctuary. Should those they left behind ask us for relief, God's Law requires us to provide it when we can ~ without any condition that infringes on their religious liberty.

But people who tolerate tyranny and oppression have the rulers they deserve. In America, we choose from among those offered as rulers. And how has that worked out?

Do you really want those who have no fidelity to the law when it suits them, to have some part to play in "protecting" the rights that the Supreme Court has "interpreted" into almost no rights at all, which since 9/11 have been virtually thrown out the window in the name of "protecting" you from the terror that they themselves created, fostered, nurtured, protected, and assisted all the way to the Towers?

Think it over. God is your only Protector. No amount of military might, no measure of watchfulness into your private affairs, and no shelter can protect you from what God allows to befall you that proceeds from what you yourself have sent forth.

A Republic is a beast that can only be restrained by God, or by its people who do not make other men "rulers" over themselves, but rule what those other men do with an iron hand. But we in America have let it go far beyond that, overlooking their criminality and mass murders, until now they are locking us down in a police state that makes the Gestapo look like nursemaids.

Rome was ruled by a Senate that appointed a President to tyrannize the peasantry they entertained with bread and circuses. And when it was desirable, they appointed a Caesar with independent war powers, who became the law of Rome for the duration. What did Congress do with the War Powers Act, giving the President war powers independently of any declaration of war by Congress, but make him America's Caesar? And did not Bush and Ashcroft make themselves the law, overriding any Constitution limitation on the powers delegated to the federal government?

Remember Waco. Remember Kent State and Vietnam. America has become a beast that eats its own children. Remember the suicide rate among veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And ask God for protection from Caesar.

That's the only hope for your children's children's children.

Patricia wrote: "Churches, synogogues, mosques, and other religious institutions ARE free to perform or not perform marriage ceremonies. That right is protected under the Constitution.

"But, the government is involved in marriage contracts because property rights, children's rights (some churches sanction under-age girls being forced to marry older men - the law forbids that practice), parental visitation rights, and other rights that can only be pursued and protected through civil law are involved in marriage contracts (and in the divorces that occur in the wake of half of contracted marriages). I think the government has a legitimate (though limited) role in marriage contracts."

The issues of divorce, child custody, property division, household expenses, and other issues can be covered in a private marriage contract that is enforced by contract law. In most states, under contract law, no contract can be signed or enforced if a signer is under the age of 18.

I feel very strongly that very few children under the age of 18 are able to have the judgment to enter into such life-changing partnership that marriage entails. Any child under 18 who wishes to marry and cannot wait until age 18 can go to a judge and have themselves declared as Emancipated Minors, with all of the rights and responsibities of adults. The protection of minor children is a legitimate function of government. This would include protecting minor children from abusive actions within a marriage.

Other than protecting children, the partnership of consenting adults is not a function of government, other than enforcing contract provisions under contract law. If a breech of a marriage contract is committed, a lawsuit under contract law can be brought up in civil court for a judge to decide.

All Social Security and IRS laws that involve married couples should be repealed.

Religious institutions are absolutely allowed to be involved in the marriage of partners. They are allowed to define marriage and perform marriage ceremonies, or not perform marriage ceremonies according to their particular beliefs. When government gets involved in defining marriage, then some religious beliefs get trampled upon in favor of others.