"the fact of Islam’s war against us is incontrovertible. "
No its not. Its not even defensible. Using Hamas leaders and Osama quotes and by implication making them speak for Islam is exactly like saying Jim Jones & David Koresh were Christian leaders that spoke for "Christianity". This is the same tactic people use for bigotry of any stripe, That is to conflate the specific to the general: Jew1=Jew2=Jew3. Therefore all Jews are the same and can be dealt with en mass. This absurd tactic putts words of a couple nuts into the mouths of literally millions of people. The article gives no indication of how popular those view are.

In fact there have been related polls that show little or no acceptance of violence means used by radicals that directly refute the assertion of being at war:

# Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than thirty-five predominantly Muslim countries between 2001 and 2007. It found that – contrary to the prevailing perception in the west that the actions of al-Qaida enjoy wide support in the Muslim world – more than 90% of respondents condemned the killing of non-combatants on religious and humanitarian grounds
# A 2005 Pew Research study that involved 17,000 people in 17 countries showed support for terrorism was declining in the Muslim world along with a growing belief that Islamic extremism represents a threat to those countries.A Daily Telegraph survey showed that 88% of Muslims said the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground were unjustified, while 6% disagreed.
# In Pakistan, despite the recent rise in the Taliban's influence, a poll conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow in Pakistan in January 2008 tested support for al-Qaida, the Taliban, other militant Islamist groups and Osama bin Laden himself, and found a recent drop by half. In August 2007, 33% of Pakistanis expressed support for al-Qaida; 38% supported the Taliban. By January 2008, al-Qaida's support had dropped to 18%, the Taliban's to 19%. When asked if they would vote for al-Qaida, just 1% of Pakistanis polled answered in the affirmative. The Taliban had the support of 3% of those polled.

There is no need, and more accurately, any facts, to base the assertion that the worlds second largest religion and 20-25% of the worlds population is at war with you.

And saying that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the lunatic fringe. There are Islamic extremists who employ violence to achieve their ends. The state department lists some 2 dozen in as many countries.

I think most people understood this was the distinction the president was making.

Jeez.

Um...he did release it, it appears you are not looking very hard or perhaps just in wrong places? http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_t...

Looked quickly at some census data for year available. The 5 conservative states are perfect if you are uneducated, poor, want federal assistance or like violence. ; )

Col1 US Rank PERSONS 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER WITH A BACHELOR'S DEGREE OR MORE, 2008
Col2 US Rank Personal Income Per Capita in Current Dollars, 2008
Col3 US Rank Federal Aid to State and Local Governments Per Capita, 2007
Col4 US Rank VIOLENT CRIMES 1 PER 100,000 POPULATION -- 2007

Column 1| 2| 3| 4|
Alaska 21| 8| 2| 8|
Arizona 31| 41| 28| 18|
Nebraska 22| 22| 34| 30|
OK 43| 34| 17| 16|
Texas 30| 26| 43| 14|
Top 20 0 | 1| 2| 4|

*Cal 14| 9| 26| 13
*Illinois 13| 14| 37| 11
*NY 9| 4| 6| 24
*WA 11| 13| 38| 28
*Wisconsin28| 27| 42| 34
Top 20 4| 4| 1| 2

..

Thanks for the reply. Understand the time constraint. I look forward to any future comments or columns on this topic. Certainly agree that the founding documents assume corruption of people in power. We disagree on the source. Religion may be one source but many of the Founders would have had a classical education (again the ones I mentioned did for sure). The available history of the Greeks, Romans, Catholicism, and England provided ample examples of corruption and the need to avoid consolidation of power.
On final note: looking at Ben Franklin's writings it is clear he believes morality is judged in good works. In letters and pamphlets he suggests numerous times that faith does not make one moral. And that non believers and people of other faiths can have higher morality through good works (usually he cites decency, kindness, and charity). He uses the Good Samaritan and other parables of the Bible to show that Jesus's main message was kindness not faith. Doubtless other men of the Enlightenment shared this view. There is little to disagree with and would pave the way for a new country that needed to unify a multitude of view points. In this view Jesus message is admirable even if he is not divine. That we should all demonstrate kindness regardless of faith is the highest morality from such a a view and less likely to cause division.

Agreed my comment was hastily and poorly written. I did redefine the Founding Fathers for purposes of argument, otherwise that term remains nebulous and nothing meaningful can be attributed to it other than to say it was group of guys at a certain time in American history.

Anyway, in what way did religion provide a "fertile foundation for the founding of this country"? I am not sure what you mean by that: is it that Christianity was the dominant religion of the time (agreed), that the crafting of the government framework has anything to do with it (disagree) but if the latter is what you meant then I would be interested in how that manifests, for example in the constitution?

I think my point about superstition got lost. I was trying to explain the Deist point of view. Deists largely considered the orthodox views on miracles, divinity of Christ or inerrancy of the Bible as superstitious and medieval (or at least pre Enlightenment, which amount to the same thing.). Such a view point does not have supernatural authority as its basis for morality. So it is unlikely those founding fathers of a deist persuasion would have insisted on a "the moral imperative of aligning oneself with [God]". I make no claim I share that point of view, but rather simply saying that several of the "Founding Fathers" did.

Depends on which founder if you say "replete". As I said most of the founders were deists. And by founders I will say those that wrote the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson), the constitution (Largely framed by Madison) and the first 4 presidents (Washington, Adams, Jefferson & Madison) and Ben Franklin as starters. The revisionist "historian" Barton aside. Barton seems neither to understand or deliberately ignore the fact that deists can use God or the moral principles of Jesus in positive way with out agreeing to the divinity of of Christ or the Bible. His site is not replete with quotations of the founders (as listed above) acknowledging the divinity and resurrection etc. The closest is Adams quote on the Holy Spirit which is deliberately taken out of context (for full qoute see: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/no_mr_beck_john_adams_did_not.php). Also reason, in the age of enlightenment would have meant observation and experiment. Deism grows out of this by assuming by the observation of the world is too perfect to not have a creation agent, so Jesus can be a great moral example, there can be an unknown creator removed from creation and undoubtedly shades in between. But there is no reasoning to the supernatural world of miracles and divinity. That is rightly called superstition, it is medieval and has been abandoned by many in the west for 300+ years. Luckily in America you can believe what you like.

"It is a well-established fact that the United States is a center-right nation". It would be helpful to back the assertion up with how that was measured and when. A 2 minute search for political party affiliation turned up the following from Gallup in 2009:

"The political landscape of the United States has clearly shifted in the Democratic direction, and in most states, a greater proportion of state residents identified as Democrats or said they leaned to the Democratic Party in 2008 than identified as Republicans or leaned Republican.

As recently as 2002, a majority of states were Republican in orientation. By 2005, movement in the Democratic direction was becoming apparent, and this continued in 2006. That dramatic turnaround is clearly an outgrowth of Americans' dissatisfaction with the way the Republicans (in particular, President George W. Bush) governed the country.

With Democratic support at the national level the highest in more than two decades and growing each of the last five years, Republican prospects for significant gains in power in the near term do not appear great. But the recent data do show that party support can change rather dramatically in a relatively short period of time."
(Excerpt from : http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state-states-political-party-affiliation.aspx)

It would appear to be more accurate America is centrists with enough room to swing to either side as any party power moves to far in one direction. Ironically this article seems to be using the same technique it is railing against. Its a political trick both sides use and where the only losers are the gullible.

"One is not interested in killing anyone."
Not so sure about that: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_which_demand_the_death_penalty_in_the_Old_Testament

No, the founding fathers did not see the need to align ourselves with God. MOst were Deists, men of the Enligtenement who believed in a higher pwoer called God, Natures God, or Providence. But would have stopped short of miracles and divinity of the bible. I would check out Jeffersons New Testament where he left in the "the more clearer headed" saying of Jesus and left out reference to Divinity and Miracles. His establishment of the University Of Virginia he made sure to keep the religious instructors off campus and though allowing for the liberty of the students to attend seminary and such as needed showing a strong preference for secular education. And he drafted the Vriginia Act of Freedom Of Religion with this excellent bit:
"That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. " Amen. But hey, I could be wrong.

SO lets look at this:
"But whatever I wrote about the war in support of the democracy agenda, inside I was never a 100% believer in the idea that democracy could be so easily implanted in so hostile a soil."
And on March 19th 2009 Horowitz wrote:
"The surge that Bush launched and Democrats opposed has been successful and, as a result, Iraq has become a Middle Eastern democracy, an anti-terrorist regime, and an American ally."

According to the Democracy Index Iraq scored the minimum score not be labeled a totalitarian regime (4.00 out of 10. Afghanistan failed to make even that.) Also both countries show up in the top 10 list of failed states. Horowitz seems to be indicating he will write things in to the degree that he does that are not very accurate predictions.
So I guess to the degree he backed the war for democratic futures he was wrong in his predication and to the degree he know says he never believed it he is confessing to lying. Not sure why his opinion would be valuable going forward as it is likely to be either wrong if he is honest or he may later say he didn't really believe it.
Or did I miss something?

Thats fair and thanks for the link I would agree that regardless if allowed or not the treatment should be equal.