“Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.” –Alma 43: 46

We need to return the right and ability of self-defense to the populace, to begin with, and then prosecute and punish those who have already committed crimes. We should not be “hunting down” anyone. That’s not in the American mandate. That’s in the fascist dictator’s mandate. The American Way has always been “Come and get us!” because you are not justified any other way.

Also, polygamy is not now, nor has it ever been shown to be, harmful. The comment about it being “timely” is merely a stab at LDS belief in prophecy; nevertheless, the comments made by the prophet who received that revelation did state the following:

“The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. ”

So tell me, whose freedoms were being threatened? The Mormons, who had not threatened anyone’s life or property, nor committed any crime.

Whose actions were in violation of the EXISTING Constitution? The government, who proceeded to confiscate the property of a law-abiding people, and criminalize a facet of their religion that was until that time NOT illegal. In fact, many people were jailed and otherwise persecuted by the government for the practice of their religion.

Mormons have always been patriotic and loyal. They have never called for open violence, or sedition. They have fought in every war America has been involved in.

I’m sorry… what was your comparison to Islam again…???

I’ll take that as an apology.

The more I've studied Islam the less likely this seems to be a winning strategy. The Koran is not like the Bible where it's a broad collection of documents that are translated, merely "inspired" by God, and open to vast debate. It's literally from the mouth of God and remains largely read in the language in which it was delivered. There's far less wiggle room.

To say that anything in it is "wrong" or should be discarded in the Koran is to rip the heart out of the central tenet of Islam — that the Koran is a perfect book that has been with Allah for all eternity.

In other words, you cannot really separate Islam from Sharia.

Just because your "religion" (and Islam shouldn't be treated with the respect of a religion) says you can do something doesn't mean the government should automatically tolerate it.

I agree with this, actually, which is why of course the most vile of Islamic practices should not be allowed.

Now, I know the "if they don't force people to submit, they're not really Muslims" argument will likely come up again. To that I would point out that not strictly following the rules of a religious text doesn't mean you're not really a member of that religion. The reformation taught us that. In this case, there are many other practices that Muslims follow that are non-violent but are uniquely Muslim.

I'd rather "eradicate" those bad practices and leave the good ones. Which, as Calvin says, will require reaching out to those moderates, but more broadly will require a significant modernization and democratization of the Middle East.

Now, does this mistrust mean we should treat Muslims badly? Absolutely not!But it means we should be weary about trusting what a Muslim says about Islam, or trusting them with high level so authority in government, unless they forsake the violent aspects of Islam (and even then I suppose there is the chance of them lying, and if they did they would in esccence cease being Muslims.)