Ground Infinity

by Eric Martin

I'm pretty sure that opposition to this community center is out of sensitivity to the non-Mulism victims of 9/11:

My God is better than your God.

That's the dispute at the heart of recent hearings in a lawsuit aimed at derailing the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. What started as a zoning issue has turned into a fight over theology and the role of government in recognizing religion.

Mosque opponents say that Islam is not a real religion. They argued in a Rutherford County courthouse last week that the world's second-largest faith, with its 1.6 billion followers, is actually a political movement.

Opponents say local Muslims want to replace the Constitution with an Islamic legal code called Shariah law.

Joe Brandon Jr., a Smyrna,, Tenn., lawyer representing a group of mosque opponents, argued that the proposed mosque is not a house of worship. He said the Rutherford County Planning Commission erred when it approved the mosque.

Brandon wants an injunction stopping the mosque.

"Shariah law is pure sedition," said Brandon in his opening statement Monday.

Local officials said that of course Islam is a religion. They say the proposed mosque is like any other house of worship. Constitutional scholars say it isn't the government's business to decide which faiths are legitimate and which are not.

The demonization of Islam, and the rank demagoguery from GOP leaders like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, is bearing a vile and noxious fruit. 

UPDATE: See, also, Brooklyn. 

UPDATE II: See, also, West Virginia.

Comments

[paul lukasiak]

Does Tennessee have a "frivolous lawsuit" statute? Because it seems to me that this would definitely fall within its boundaries....

[cleek]

...is bearing a vile and noxious fruit.

nonsense.

have you seen the poll numbers lately ? the fruit is luscious, juicy and ripe. it's the most plump and the most flavorful fruit that any professional politician could hope for.

tastes like victory.

[kgus]

As with many other culture war issues, the christianists' fears are a projection of their own desires onto their enemy of the moment.

[Slartibartfast]

"Shariah law is pure sedition,"

I can't figure out what this means beyond Notice me! NOTICE ME!!!

[Der BlindSchtiller]

Don't worry, in 60 years Congress will pass a resolution apologizing for whatever horrible act against Muslim comes as a result of this recent bigotry and everything will be just fine.

[Countme?]

Tennessee Republicans already have the infrastructure in place in the event that arson takes place at the mosque once it is built.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/county-firefighters-subscription/

[Sebastian]

"Don't worry, in 60 years Congress will pass a resolution apologizing for whatever horrible act against Muslim comes as a result of this recent bigotry and everything will be just fine."

Maybe. I sometimes envision a horrible world where we get a Supreme Court ruling that Islam doesn't count as a religion under the 1st Amendment.

[Sasha]

Opponents say local Muslims want to replace the Constitution with an Islamic legal code called Shariah law.

Of course, replacing the Constitution with Biblical law is just patriotic.

[Oyster Tea]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR2008090702460.html

The Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona is attempting to overturn the 54 year old rule on not allowing political endorsements by non profit organizations. They have recruited 100 conservative pastors to make the political endorsements and then plan to sue the IRS for enforcing the ban.

Sharia Law indeed...

[Jay C]

BOLD TAG ALERT!

[efgoldman]

I can't believe any competent lawyer who evenj read the canons of legal ethics or passed a ConLaw class would take and argue the case.

q.e.fncking.d.

[chamblee54]

There was a choice quote near the end of that article. It was from a rather ironic source.
"Mosque opponents should be careful what they ask for, said Mat Staver, chairman of the First Amendment advocacy group Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Va.
If a court or other government official could ban a mosque, it could also ban churches, he said.
"There will be losers in this, and one of them could be you," he said."

[Gary Farber]

No comment necessary:

[...] Few of Sunday’s speeches mentioned the concerns heard earlier about parking and home values. John Kenneth Press of the Brooklyn Tea Party said in his speech that “Islam has been fighting the West for 1400 years. Do they believe in freedom in the Middle East?”

People shouted “Hell No!”

“Do we believe in it here?” asked Press

“Yes!” screamed his supporters.

I also made Oyster Tea's comment, and all succeeding ones, more timid.

[Gary Farber]

"I can't figure out what this means beyond Notice me! NOTICE ME!!"

That's simple, Slart: these people have a Theory, which is that Islam's number one purpose, and that of more or less all Muslims, is to Take Over The World and make everyone live under Sharia Law. And every Muslim who says otherwise is using Taqiyya to lie.

So nothing any Muslim says to deny that imposing Sharia -- meaning, incidentally, not merely religious law such as that followed by Conservative or Orthodox Jews, but STONING WOMEN FOR SHOWING HAIR AND CUTTING PEOPLE'S HANDS OFF!!!! -- proves other than just how insidious Taqiyya and Muslims are.

See, this isn't religious bigotry, because in the sole and unique case of Islam, they're different from other religions, in that they're out to conquer us all. And our claims about how evil they are are true.

So it's not religious bigotry at all. It's just truth, and if you're too blind to see it, well, you've been hanging around with those liberals, and not enough true Americans, for too long.

[Jacob Davies]

To be fair, this is what pretty much all religious movements do when they get the chance - stomp on the competition, tell believers in other religions that they're going to hell and are completely evil, convert them if you can, kill them if you can't.

That's the operating DNA of every successful religious movement. (The core ethical principles of religions tend to be quite different from their operational effects, even for "nice" religions.) That's how you get to BE a successful religious movement.

That natural tendency is the reason why the First Amendment exists. Because letting religions fight it out for market share tends to end up getting a lot of people killed, when they could be doing more useful things like clearing land and building houses and engaging in agriculture and industry. The effectiveness of that is demonstrated in the history of the United States, and in the imitation of secularism around the world in an attempt to emulate the success of the US.

[Eric Martin]

Agree completely JD. But that's yet another reason why the GOP's deliberate stoking of this was so reckless and malevolant.

[russell]

stomp on the competition, tell believers in other religions that they're going to hell and are completely evil, convert them if you can, kill them if you can't.

That's the operating DNA of every successful religious movement.

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the dreaded Unitarian Jihad!

[Hogan]

"Do they believe in freedom in the Middle East?”

People shouted “Hell No!”

“Do we believe in it here?” asked Press

“Yes!” screamed his supporters.

Well, they definitely got the second one wrong.

[AreaMan]

Islam does not recognize any barrier between mosque and state, so there is a real issue here.

But there are other religious organizations in the US that are politically active. Most notably the black churches. In order to maintain their tax-free status they must not engage in certain activities. The Muslims likewise.

The usual method is to establish a separate organization that is political.

The rest is electioneering, which is always over-the-top, and should not be a source of genuine outrage. I'm sure it isn't.

Islam firmly believes in the use of force and deception to convert the rest of the world (The House of War) to Islam. So there is reason to be cautious. But that is not what is happening, yet.

[Rob in CT]

Woah.

I recently had a somewhat angry email exchange with a family member, who approvingly forwarded an email which, over the course of several pages of ranting, basically argued that Islam isn't a religion but rather a political & economic ideology (and, of course, it's a nasty one!) and the endgame is Sharia law here.

When I went ape in response (admittedly, my response was a tad emotional and unfocused, but I basically countered with a number of historical arguments, the core of which is: what holy book says != what believers do), I found out that the email had been written by a friend of my family member (apparently an atheist Democrat) and that my family member helped research/write it. I was told they had "extensively researched" the Koran and Hadith.

My family member was, until recently, in the Air Force. She's now a "civilian contractor" of some kind, in Afganistan.

Awesome. Just effing great.

[Hogan]

Islam does not recognize

Islam firmly believes

Category error. People recognize and believe things. Abstractions don't.

[Rob in CT]

This way lies madness.

Is our faith in our system so weak as to require that it be abandoned at the slightest sign of trouble?

[cleek]

Is our faith in our system so weak as to require that it be abandoned at the slightest sign of trouble?

clearly.

[Jacob Davies]

AreaMan: Islam does not recognize any barrier between mosque and state, so there is a real issue here.

O RLY?

That's funny, because there's a mosque on my street and yet they haven't launched a bid to take over the government of the city. And I mean, it's a small city. It wouldn't take much. In fact they seem pretty well adjusted to the idea that they are one religion among many and to be pretty happy with getting to quietly practice theirs in the way they feel is appropriate without a lot of state involvement.

I mean maybe they are plotting the takeover of the state in there, but I kinda doubt it.

[Eric Martin]

But there are other religious organizations in the US that are politically active. Most notably the black churches.

Yeah, there aren't any big Protestant churches, let's call them "mega" churches for short, that are politically active at all. Evnagelicals, by definition, tend to be circumspect and reticent about involving themselves in politics or attempting to convert others.

Amirite?

Islam firmly believes in the use of force and deception to convert the rest of the world (The House of War) to Islam.

Oh, Islam believes that does he? And firmly at that? Have you spoken to him in detail?

And what does Christian believe? Maybe we should ask him too.

[Slartibartfast]

Ground Infinity

First, measure out one-quarter cup of infinity. Place in a burr grinder at the smallest possible setting, and process until done (no matter how long that takes).

[Eric Martin]

Yeah, but Slarti, you have to start with good, fresh infinity, or it will lack the proper zing

[Slartibartfast]

...and of course it has to be properly dried, or it will just mush into a paste.

Drying time is really long, though...

[Gary Farber]

"Islam does not recognize any barrier between mosque and state, so there is a real issue here."

Neither do many Christians. Me, I've had endless experience with Christians attempted to and advocating control of government to make their symbols and rituals officiall part of our government and state.

And, to be sure, endless experience with Christians who have little or no interest in making sure crosses remain part of government symbols, or that government endorse particular religious beliefs or symbols.

I've had plenty of Muslim neighbors and friends, and none have engaged in such activities, but I grant that such endeavors are largely best tried by majorities, not minorities.

"Islam firmly believes in the use of force and deception to convert the rest of the world (The House of War) to Islam."

Abstractions that come in innumerable forms don't haave agency. You're engaging in a severe category error.

And I will bet two shiney nickels you don't have two practicing Moslem friends, and are speaking from pure ignorance of the experience of ever having any practicing Moslem friends to observe. Please tell me I'm wrong.

[Hogan]

Make sure you harvest your infinity in the morning, when the essential oils are at their peak. And whatever you do, don't freeze it. There's nothing worse than frozen infinity, as any inhabitant of Dante's ninth circle of Hell can tell you.

[Rob in CT]

Cleek, I find our lack of faith disturbing.

[wj]

Well, it's a start. Once we have established that Islam is "not a religion" (and probably Buddhism, and Hinduism, while we're at it), then we can get down to serious business.

But there will be some hard questions: who do we define out next?
- probably the Catholics, but the Mormons could get the nod.
- then the Jews, of course.

Then we start on the other Protestant sects:
- first, all the non-evangelical ones
- then all the evangelical ones other than the one correct one
- then everybody outside our congregation
- then everyone in our congregation who disagrees with me on anything.

Which means that, as a matter of law, I get to make all the decisions about everything. And then everything will be right with the world at last!

[sarcasm button off]

If only I didn't believe that this isn't the goal, whether conscious yet or not.

[Hogan]

From Emo Phillips, this was once voted best religious joke of all time:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

[Countme?]

American Muslims, like their fellow citizens, have ready access to the Second Amendment remedies that will secure their Constitutional rights.

http://www.superpages.com/yellowpages/C-Guns+%26+Ammunition+Dealers/S-TN/T-Murfreesboro/

[cleek]

AreaMan's post is awesome.

+5.

[cleek]

“Islam does not recognize any barrier between mosque and state, so there is a real issue here.”

AreaMan, meet Jim DeMint:

“People are beginning to see that there's no way we can pay the interest on our debt and every week, we're borrowing money to pay the debt we have and are creating new programs that are costing more money,” he said. “Hopefully in 2012, we'll make headway to repeal some of the things we've done, because politics only works when we're realigned with our Savior.”

Jim DeMint doesn't even see a barrier between church and economics.

[Hartmut]

I need some help here. Is it Muslims against the Jews and Freemasons or Jews and Muslims against the Freemasons? Or is it communist Jews against Islamofasicts against godless Freemasons*? Or are they all in league?
---
I could quote some Christian leaders arguing** that it is allowed (or even mandatory) to lie to heretics/infidels/pagans and that treaties with them are non-binding for your own side. It has been a rather recent progress to consider non-Christians as even human. Not to forget occasional tendencies to treat converts as only second class Christians.
While we are at it, there are many Palestinian Christians but they are not treated differently from their Muslim brethren because that would destroy the monolithic THEM!
Did someone mention The Lord's Resistance Army yet?...

*contradictio in adjecto. Atheists are the only people explicitly banned from joining.
**more accurately: stating as obvious without need of arguing

[liberal japonicus]

cleek, is +5 related to the Balloon Juice scale?

[Countme?]

If I'm boarding an airplane and spot Jim DeMint sitting in first class and plotting the murder of Americans with preexisting medical conditions, should I alert the plane attendants and Homeland Security that the passengers and crew, and perhaps civilians on the ground, are in mortal danger from terrorist vermin?

[Rob in CT]

"Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says that even though "no one" came to his defense in 2004 after he said that gay people and unwed mothers should be banned from teaching, "everyone" quietly told him that he shouldn't back down from his position.

He also implied that not banning gay people and women who have sex with before marriage from teaching would be an attack on Christians, and defended his position on banning gay teachers because he holds the same position on women who have sex outside of marriage.

"[When I said those things,] no one came to my defense," he said, the Spartanberg Herald-Journal reported. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."

[the link is messy. I happened to find this over at Talking Points Memo, but I'm sure you can find it all over]

But remember, kids, it's the scary Moslems who want to make Americans submit to the dictates of their [non]religion!

I hadn't really noted Mr. DeMint before. I was happier then...

[cleek]

cleek, is +5 related to the Balloon Juice scale?

i was working from the Slashdot scale, for that.

:)

[Countme?]

Rob in CT:

Regarding Demint's anti-American remarks, this from Andrew Sullivan:

'Freedom to religion" [sic] means firing gay high school teachers. Fiscal conservatism is to "realign with our Savior." On gay high school teachers, it's worth remembering that Ronald Reagan as long ago as 1978 aligned with Harvey Milk in opposing discrimination in the Brigg's Initiative. His op-ed before the initiative was regarded as a turning point against the anti-gay teacher crusade:

The timing is significant because he was then preparing to run for president, a race in which he would need the support of conservatives and moderates very uncomfortable with homosexual teachers. As Cannon puts it, Reagan was "well aware that there were those who wanted him to duck the issue" but nevertheless "chose to state his convictions."

Reagan penned an op-ed against the so-called Briggs Initiative in which he wrote, "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." This was a remarkably progressive thing for a politician, especially a conservative one about to run for president, to say in 1978. The Briggs Initiative was overwhelmingly defeated. Its sponsors blamed Reagan for the defeat.
Please don't tell me these people have moved past Christianism'

[Rob in CT]

My favorite HS teacher was gay. He wasn't "out" then... I only found out in the wake of his suicide, many years after I'd graduated. He had been married w/kids. I don't know exactly what happened, but apparently he came out, followed shortly thereafter by his death.

He was an excellent teacher and, from what little I know, just a good guy. Other than perhaps being the one teacher in the entire school with a shred of fashion sense, it's unclear to me that his homosexuality (repressed at the time, I guess) had any impact on his job. Crazy thought, I know.

[Rob in CT]

Countme?,

It's difficult to imagine a contemporary Conservative citing "prevailing scientific opinion" as backup for an idea. The rest pretty much follows from there.

[Tony P.]

Hogan, I also like the story about the fellow who was walking through Belfast one night some years ago, and was suddenly accosted by a gang of hooded, armed men.
"Are you Protestant or Catholic?" they demanded.
Thinking quickly, the man replied, "I'm an atheist."
"Protestant atheist or Catholic atheist?"

The saving grace (if you'll pardon the expression) for us atheists is that we don't go around building temples. Maybe we should, though. It might be the one thing sincere Christians and devout Muslims could make common cause against.

--TP

[Gary Farber]

There's another variant of that joke, Tony P.

[Carleton Wu]

Islam does not recognize any barrier between mosque and state, so there is a real issue here.

Google "Dominionist", and then tell me- do you advocate watchful waiting of the Evangelical menace, or shall we act now since they're much further along in implementing their agenda?

[Carleton Wu]

On a broader note, Ive long thought that there is a fault line in the Constitution along those lines: "religion" isn't defined, and the best we've come up with since then is "I know it when I see it". So Native Americans might be able to have peyote with their religious ceremonies, but Tim Leary's Church of Acid never had a chance.

I just don't see why any particular belief system should be given weight on the Constitutional scale just on the grounds of antiquity or common acceptance. Although the possible solutions to the problem are tricky too.

[Gary Farber]

"I just don't see why any particular belief system should be given weight on the Constitutional scale just on the grounds of antiquity or common acceptance."

The proven alternative of killing each other seems unpreferable.

[kate]

True Northern Ireland story. During the 1990 census, a friend's father was filling out the form. "St***, what religion are you?" The young man, with decidely liberal for NI leanings replied, "I am a secular deist." His father looked up for a second and then returned to filling out the form. "No you aren't. You're a catholic."(as was the enitre family--so no one things that theologically speaking this family was regarding Catholics and Secular Deists as the same thing."

[Carleton Wu]

"The proven alternative of killing each other seems unpreferable."

I don't think I phrased that well- Im asking why not investigate Constitutional interpretations that don't offer a right to anything that's claimed as a religious belief. Im not advocating for discriminating against specific religious beliefs by deciding what is a religion and what isn't.
[Of course, restrictions on governmental establishment of religion or explicit discrimination against religions would be prohibited]

The thing that strikes me as odd is that our current regime inevitably puts the state in the role of deciding what is a legitimate religious feeling and what isn't- which is exactly the problem in Tennessee.

[wj]

Rob in CT: It's difficult to imagine a contemporary Conservative citing "prevailing scientific opinion" as backup for an idea.

Actually, it's difficult to imagine a contemporary conservative endorsing Ronald Reagan. Or, specifically, any politician with Reagan's record, but not the name. RINO is the very least that he'd get called today. (After all, the man had been a union leader, raised taxes, actually believed in and spoke up for gay rights and freedom of religion! Horrid!)

[Gary Farber]

"Im asking why not investigate Constitutional interpretations that don't offer a right to anything that's claimed as a religious belief. Im not advocating for discriminating against specific religious beliefs by deciding what is a religion and what isn't."

How would that jibe with freedom to choose one's religion?

"The thing that strikes me as odd is that our current regime inevitably puts the state in the role of deciding what is a legitimate religious feeling and what isn't- which is exactly the problem in Tennessee."

I have a problem with it, too.

But I do see the argument as to why "particular belief system should be given weight on the Constitutional scale just on the grounds of antiquity or common acceptance."

Practicality often best trumps theory.

My own beliefs are that people believe tons of nonsense. But I don't don't any reasonable way to get everyone else to agree with me in the short term.

WJ, RR was much worse than that: he said we should could work with Gorbachev, generally trust him, and that we should agree to abolish nuclear weapons.

This drove most of his foreign policy conservative appointees nuts.

[wj]

A complete list of things Reagan said and did which would be totally unacceptable to today's conservatives would fill pages. Lots of pages. In fact, I think a case could be made that Obama, as President, resembles Reagan more than any of the Presidents in between them do. (A concept which, I understand, will cause brain melt-down in conservative commenters. But true nonetheless.)

[Carleton Wu]

I have a problem with it, too.

But I do see the argument as to why "particular belief system should be given weight on the Constitutional scale just on the grounds of antiquity or common acceptance."

Practicality often best trumps theory.

True- Im not sure there's a practical way to get government out of the business of eg deciding that members of the Native American Church can use peyote for religious purposes but others cannot use peyote (or other entheogens) for similar purposes.

What I had in mind is something like this: if there is no overriding governmental need to regulate the behavior (so that some people can use peyote), then there is perhaps no governmental need to regulate the behavior at all, and therefore no need for the government to decide between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" religious impulse. If a Sikh can wear a head covering in a courtroom, then maybe there shouldn't be a rule about it at all.
In some cases we've done something like this- eg [via wikipedia]:
Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."
Although this does explicitly divorce CO status from religious belief, it still places the government in the position of judging motives and legitimacy of belief, and that seems pretty problematic to me- I don't see why an individual has an obligation to demonstrate their beliefs to the government or meet some standard of proof before being able to exercise them.

Upside to not having a special status for religious exemptions is no more Tennessee mosque controversy- if there's no special right to be granted, then there's no issue about whether Islam deserves that right.

[Countme?]

Regarding Ronald Reagan, gays, and measles, it turns out he thought they transmitted mumps instead.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/05/jack_kemp_fbi_gay_rumors/index.html

Read the entire article to see Reagan's treatment of his gay staff in California

[DaveC]

Data:

A defiant Shahzad said "Allahu Akbar" -- Arabic for "God is great" -- after the judge sentenced him to the mandatory life imprisonment.

"Brace yourself because the war with the Muslims has only just begun," he told the judge before he was sentenced during the 30-minute hearing. "The defeat of the US is imminent and will happen in the near future."

Shahzad, 31, a married father of two and naturalized American citizen who lived in Bridgeport, Conn., had pleaded guilty on June 21 in Manhattan federal court to 10 felonies, including international terrorism and trying to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Not that common, but clearly a more dangerous attitude than exists within the "christianist" community.

[Gary Farber]

Have a nice amnesty, DaveC. Try to behave this time.

[Countme?]

Welcome back, Dave.

[Doctor Science]

DaveC:
clearly a more dangerous attitude than exists within the "christianist" community.

I disagree -- his pronouncements were both vague and toothless. In contrast, there are relatively mainstream Christianists who (a) believe it is their duty to control the Armed Forces, and have been working with some success to that end; (b) believe that some citizens should be harrassed, disenfranchised, or even killed for their consensual sexual behavior; (c) believe that the US should be under "Biblical Law" -- which is a lot like Shariah Law, except far more likely to be imposed here.

Dominionism is a movement with power and the potential to actually change American society. Shazhad and his ilk are nothing.

[jrudkis]

Shazhad claimed to be a soldier of islam. I hope they are all as incompetent. I really wish the judge had told him at sentencing "you are not a terrorist, you are a failure."

[Rob in CT]

I have no doubt that people like Shazhad are sprinkled around here and there. They have ZERO political power.

Could one of them blow something up and kill people? Yes. I hope law enforcement is doing their jobs, but ultimately one can never be totally safe. However, blowing something up isn't going to result in Sharia law in the USA.

I find it ironic that the people who seem most fired up about the awfulness of Sharia tend to be the same folks who are either hardcore Christians who question the separation of Church & State or people who are happy to make political alliances with said hardcore Christians (Christianists?). The doublethink is pretty amazing.

[russell]

Not that common, but clearly a more dangerous attitude than exists within the "christianist" community.

Actually, it's not. There is a non-trivial number of folks within the Christianist / Dominionist movement who have been involved in planning or executing acts of violence.

When you get into the overlap of Dominionist and White Supremacist / nativist BS, planning or executing acts of violence is sort of somewhere between serious hobby and raison d'etre.

Ain't just brown people with the bombs.

[Eric Martin]

Yeah, the Real IRA just set off a bomb yesterday.

Muslims they?

[Carleton Wu]

Not that common, but clearly a more dangerous attitude than exists within the "christianist" community.

I think that this opinion comes from treating folks like the Hutaree as either deranged or merely not representative of the Christian Patriot movement.
Or maybe not- can you explain why the Hutaree's attitude is not as dangerous as the Times Square bomber?