sist,
1) I heard Cain on Hannity- He pointed to "them" (Perry's family, I think--?) and then "his/him" meaning Perry, originally. I am not convinced he is straight-shooting here. Unfortunate.
2) My "beloved dictionary"? No. I used a number of dictionaries. The definition for religion has been quite consistent throughout history on beliefs about deity/deities, worship, moral code claimed to be divine, etc.
You are doing what the PC crowd does- redefine to fit your definition of religion part, then polytheists like Mormonism can redefine monotheism, polytheism, to fir their PR campaign & mental gymnastics, the PC can redefine what they want to.
The 'go kill infidels'/etc comes from their religious book, the Koran. It comes OUT OF the religious beliefs about their claimed god, Allah, 'his' will for people and the world, and hence Islamists act from that 'source'.
3) If you do not separate Islam from Islamism/Sharia Law political Islam, then it isn't me being 'PC', but you are being incorrect. You have no evidence of Islam not being a religion, while you gut the word of its meaning and definition.
It is quite PC Leftist to strain to say 'Islamists are abusing the Muslim religion, and it isn't a religion'. You are using a version of that and saying all of Islam is not a religion, but only political ideology.
It can be, and is, a mix of both.
There are moderate Muslims. It is a smear job to not recognize that.
The PC crowd's problem (among the 1,000s) is that they are soft on the hard truth about the origins of Islam, Muhammad's crusades & evangelizing by the sword, its true roots in the Koran, etc.
Either extreme is not the full truth.

sist,
I thought your first sentence was a slam, or something. I re-read & maybe it wasn't that at all. If so, I apologize for the first sentence. I am not a definite Perry or Cain supporter. I have my top choices so far, but Cain blew it on some areas that he needs to be wise in to be in the general election cycle, beat Obama and govern wisely and know when to hold the tongue, call Perry and get his side before assuming the liberal media smear story, etc.
He ended up very possibly bearing false witness & spreading agenda-driven gossip by the Washington Post (I heard they're scouring for dirt to fling at Perry).

CORRECTED VERSION:
sist,
You sound like a blind Cain supporter with the mindset of a Ron Paul devotee- RonBot.
You avoid most of my specifics and only semi-kinda-addressed a bit of it, while avoiding the rest.
I would vote for Romney, Cain, Perry, etc., over Obama.
YOUR zeal led you to a weak attempt to counter MY use of the word "zeal". It is empty.
YOUR zeal invented a tailored definition of religion.
It isn't up to you or I to redefine words. Let liberals do that, and then we can expose them for their language manipulation.
RELIGION DEFINED:
* A belief and/or worship of claimed deity or deities.
* "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance"
* "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices "
* "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
- Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

* "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
- Dictionary.com
OTHERS:
"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods"
"A particular system of faith and worship"
"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality""

Islam fulfills ALL of the above.
Islam itself is a religion. Simple and obvious.
You make a mere assertion (a few, actually) and assertion does not equal evidence. I am not misapplying the First Amendment, but countering HIS "false premise" & showing his lack of understanding on the First Amendment, even with his own words.
You cherry-picked the side of Islam that goes for Sharia Law for countries and terrorism/Jihad as their goal and/or means is selective, incomplete, and does not pass the test of logic or evidence.
True moderate Muslims exist. They should not be forbidden to build a place of worship & Darogr is wrong in twisting the Constitution the way he did. No excuse.
Since he wanted to use it as applied to local gov'ts and communities in local mosques, I then quoted the Constitution's First Amendment "NOR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof." That happens to be freedom OF religion. If he wants to use it like a liberal on local gov't decisions, then I asked him basically to explain the part I quoted by his line of thought.
Islamist, terrorist/Sharia-advocating mosques should NOT be approved. They are traitorous radical, Jihad-loving, and plan against our country. I think they are treasonous, at least from my layman's understanding.
You also invented a definition, a redefinition, of the word "gaffe" to be the opposite of what it means.
You: "It's when a politician inadvertently blurts out the truth."
GAFFE DEFINED: "a social or diplomatic blunder", "a noticeable mistake" (Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Synonym: FAUX PAS. Defined as: "French, literally, false step""a social blunder" (ibid).
Just making a cutsy quip, while ignoring the specifics of what I wrote evades all, answers nothing, and adds what isn't there.
Dodging discussion of substance isn't fruitful.
It adds more heat than light. Smokescreen, really.
Cain GAFFED, goofed up, smeared Perry about something that isn't confirmed by evidence, but only by assertion.
It is part of the "Sideline Media" you referred to, like the Washington Post, in their zealous mission to slime the GOP candidates for their dishonest, Leftist ends.
Cain helped them by giving them 'red meat' to throw at Perry & smear the GOP field with.
CAIN does not understand the First Amendment. Truth! Checking it out shows this is so.
How he misused it sounds more liberal than conservative.
It's revealing that you ignored that and deflected to me, while avoiding most of the points I made.
Of course, you ignored that, pseudo-defended Cain by inventing, redefining, mere assertions, dodging, and avoiding.

Real moderate Muslims should not be placed in the same category as the Jihadist Islamists. Period.
I replied to Darogr. I should have specified, but it was not after your post, but Stephen Brady's, anyway, and in Darogr's thread. Seems like you thought I was responding to you- "I don't tailor my words".
Actually, you DO tailor your words- twice. Religion & gaffe.
We definitely agree on Bloomberg!

sist,
You sound like a blind Cain supporter with the mindset of a Ron Paul devotee- RonBot.
You avoid most of my specifics and only semi-kinda-addressed a bit of it, while avoiding the rest.
I would vote for Romney, Cain, Perry, etc., over Obama.
YOUR zeal led you to a weak attempt to counter MY use of the word "zeal". It is empty.
YOUR zeal invented a tailored definition of religion.
It isn't up to you or I to redefine words. Let liberals do that, and then we can expose them for their language manipulation.
RELIGION DEFINED:
* A belief and/or worship of claimed deity or deities.
* "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance"
* "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices "
* "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
- Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

* "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
- Dictionary.com
OTHERS:
"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods"
"A particular system of faith and worship"
"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality""

Islam fulfills ALL of the above.
Islam itself is a religion. Simple and obvious.
You make a mere assertion (a few, actually) and assertion does nit equal evidence. I am not misapplying the First Amendment, but countering HIS "false premise" & showing his lack of understanding on the First Amendment, even with his own words.
You cherry-picking the side of Islam that goes for Sharia Law for countries and terrorism/Jihad as their goal and/or means is selective, incomplete, and does not pass the test of logic or evidence.
True moderate Muslims exist. They should not be forbidden to build a place of worship & Darogr is wrong in twisting the Constitution the way he did. No excuse.
Since he wanted to use it as applied to local gov'ts and communities in local mosques, I then quoted the Constitution's First Amendment "NOR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof." That happens to be freedom OF religion. If he wants to use it like a liberal on local gov't decisions, then I asked him basically to explain the part I quoted by his line of thought.
Islamist, terrorist/Sharia-advocating mosques should NOT be approved. They are traitorous radical, Jihad-loving, and plans against our country. I think they are treasonous, at least from my layman's understanding.
You also invented a definition, a redefinition, of the word "gaffe" to be the opposite of what it means.
You: "It's when a politician inadvertently blurts out the truth."
GAFFE DEFINED: "a social or diplomatic blunder", "a noticeable mistake" (Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Synonym: FAUX PAS. Defined as: "French, literally, false step""a social blunder" (ibid).
Just making a cutsy quip, while ignoring the specifics of what I wrote evades all, answers nothing, and adds what isn't there.
Dodging discussion of substance isn't fruitful.
It adds more heat than light. Smokescreen, really.
Cain GAFFED, goofed up, smeared Perry about something that isn;'t confirmed by evidence, not just assertion.
It is part of the "Sideline Media" you referred to, like the Washington Post, in their zealous mission to slime the GOP candidates for their dishonest, Leftist ends.
Cain helped them by giving them 'red meat' to throw at Perry & smear the GOP field with.
CAIN does not understand the First Amendment. Truth! Checking it out shows this is so.
How he misused it sounds more liberal than conservative.
Revealing you ignored that and deflected to me, while savoiding most of the points I made.
Of course, you ignored that, pseudo-defended Cain bu inventing, redefining, dodging, and avoiding.

Real moderate Muslims should not be placed in the same category as the Jihadist Islamists. Period.
I replied to Darogr. I should have specified, but it was not after your post, but Stephen Brady's, anyway, and in Darogr's thread. Seems like you thought I was responding to you- "I don't tailor my words".
Actually, you DO tailor your words- twice. Religion & gaffe.
We definitely agree on Bloomberg!

Your Illuminati stuff is a delusion. However, it's now 2011 & it's clear for the clear-minded that Obama is a screw-up & FAR from the best we've had. Strict Liberal I know said ObamaCare & the past financial aid bill were good for corporations, not the people. Besides all of the other problems with them.
I could make a long list of Obama's failures, spinelessness, etc.

BlackSun - Pathetic. I said there are those who LEAVE living homosexually who are happy. Why so childish about it? How dare YOU & the other whiner miss the mark & dare think you can assume you know how all should live who have same-sex attractions.
I think YOU are the one who dares tell people they CANNOT be happy not acting on their sexual/romantic urges & attractions. I wasn't saying all GBLTs are unhappy.
Maybe that's what YOU are saying.
Oh, and there are plenty of GBLTs who DARE top deny all the option of being happy outside of living according to their same-sex attractions.
I am not so narrow.
I beleive GBLTs can be happy as they are and those who leave living as active GBLTs can also be happy.
Are YOU saying only one side can be happy?
Seems like you evaded my point and invented your own, put it in my mouth, then complained about your misrepresentation of what I supposedly said.
YOU are the purveyor of BS & you love to censor my words if you don't agree.
liberal paradise.
Ya gotta love it.
The New Tolerance.
Not that tolerant of non-conformists, is it, dear?

He spoke truth & error. Too much error.
Cain needed wisdom and self-control, which- since he professes to be a Christian- are part of the fruits of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5.
Islam has moderates. Not to know this is inexcusable. Islamists & the Koran have nasty stuff in them. The Koran doesn't give context & leaves it open for the Islamists to use for their Jihad terrorism brigade.
Cain needed to be specific.
He twisted the First Amendment like liberals do.
What he said violated the actual First Amendment.
Saying flat out wouldn't appoint a Muslim is unwise.
NOW, he shoots off his mouth about ALLEGATIONS with no solid evidence that the liberal, GOP-hating Washington Post scraped up to smear Perry.
Some are even backing off of their initial, gullible, sucking up of this claim in the media!
We do not need a loose canon in the White house.
Zeal without knowledge and zeal without wisdom are both bad mixes.
On the moque in TN- He COULD have said the citizens have concern because they think it is, or could be, a mosque plan by Islamists/Radical Islam & have the right to their viewpoints and concern & the city has the responsibility to make sure this is not the terrorist, or terrorist-sympathizing type, etc. He chose not to do so.
He warped the First Amendment. A BASIC idea all conservatives should know.
He wasn't telling like it is. Sorry. Your zeal precedes your dedication for careful and accurate thinking and speaking.
Common sense logic would contradict him- it IS religious discrimination to flat out forbid a religious house of worship JUST because it's Muslim. Maybe YOU need to use logic & find out what the First Amendment means and doesn't mean.
What he did now with siding with the Sideline Media's mission to destroy GOP candidates and sound and look like a Black Leftist using race as a tactic of attack by inventing, or repeating, race-baiting slime is inexcusable & plays into the dirty hands of the Left, the Democrat Party.
No thanks.
I am sad to say this, too. I really liked Cain in a number of ways.
Really think someone with his gaffs should be the nominee in the general election? Oy vey.
You also make a false dichotomy. By DEFINITION, a "cult" IS a religious, if it is a religiously-based cult. Secular mind control/thought reform experts don;'t call Islam ITSELF a "cult". Islamism/Political Islam, I think they would.
Christian counter-cult experts do not call Islam ITSELF a "cult", but a false religion.
You seem to tailor the word to your liking.
You also show you don't want to REALLY apply the First Amendment, it seems. Religious groups should be able to build as freely as any other. Whether to have it in an area not zoned as residential may be an issue. Your definition of a cult is not a constitutional reason to ban all mosques, and certainly does not follow freedom of religion & "NOR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof."
When a sect, religion, or sect of a religion wants to plan for insurrection, 'Sharia-fying' America, etc- THAT faction is to be fought against, not coddled.
Like Liberals and the Ground Zero mosque controversy.
Bloomberg is a moron.
The Lamestream Media wants Cain to smear Perry with their dubious ammo.
He did.

No. Cain needed wisdom and self-control, which- since he professes to be a Christian- are part of the fruits of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5.
Islam has moderates. Not to know this is inexcusable. Islamists & the Koran have nasty stuff in them. The Koran doesn't give context & leaves it open for the Islamists to use for their Jihad terrorism brigade.
Cain needed to be specific.
He twisted the First Amendment like liberals do.
What he said violated the actual First Amendment.
Saying flat out wouldn't appoint a Muslim is unwise.
NOW, he shoots off his mouth about ALLEGATIONS with no solid evidence that the liberal, GOP-hating Washington Post scraped up to smear Perry.
Some are even backing off of their initial, gullible, sucking up of this claim in the media!
We do not need a loose canon in the White house.
Zeal without knowledge and zeal without wisdom are both bad mixes.
On the moque in TN- He COULD have said the citizens have concern because they think it is, or could be, a mosque plan by Islamists/Radical Islam & have the right to their viewpoints and concern & the city has the responsibility to make sure this is not the terrorist, or terrorist-sympathizing type, etc. He chose not to do so.
He warped the First Amendment. A BASIC idea all conservatives should know.
He wasn't telling like it is. Sorry. Your zeal precedes your dedication for careful and accurate thinking and speaking.
Common sense logic would contradict him- it IS religious discrimination to flat out forbid a religious house of worship JUST because it's Muslim. Maybe YOU need to use logic & find out what the First Amendment means and doesn't mean.
What he did now with siding with the Sideline Media's mission to destroy GOP candidates and sound and look like a Black Leftist using race as a tactic of attack by inventing, or repeating, race-baiting slime is inexcusable & plays into the dirty hands of the Left, the Democrat Party.
No thanks.
I am sad to say this, too. I really liked Cain in a number of ways.
Really think someone with his gaffs should be the nominee in the general election? Oy vey.
You also make a false dichotomy. By DEFINITION, a "cult" IS a religious, if it is a religiously-based cult. Secular mind control/thought reform experts don;'t call Islam ITSELF a "cult". Islamism/Political Islam, I think they would.
Christian counter-cult experts do not call Islam ITSELF a "cult", but a false religion.
You seem to tailor the word to your liking.
You also show you don't want to REALLY apply the First Amendment, it seems. Religious groups should be able to build as freely as any other. Whether to have it in an area not zoned as residential may be an issue. Your definition of a cult is not a constitutional reason to ban all mosques, and certainly does not follow freedom of religion & "NOR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof."
When a sect, religion, or sect of a religion wants to plan for insurrection, 'Sharia-fying' America, etc- THAT faction is to be fought against, not coddled.
Like Liberals and the Ground Zero mosque controversy.
Bloomberg is a moron.
Any religion that obeys civil law, and is not like the ISLAMIST/terrorist-version of Islam should be allowed in every city/town.

The school is dead wrong. The 'teacher' pushed his propaganda in class.
The student was right in expressing his views to a fellow student & the 'teacher's' spaz-attack shows maybe he should get another job where he can cloister himself from opposing viewpoints he doesn't like.
Immature whiner.
However, the student says he said that he told the other student "being a homosexual is wrong."
Actually, being active in same-gender sex is biblically a sin. BEING a 'homosexual' is having Same-Sex Attractions is not wrong. It's part of the biblically-defined 'sin nature' (natural inclination to sin, etc).
The Greek in 1 Cor 6:9 speaks of the actions, not just having attractions, or 'temptations'.
The NASB is right in the area, but should have translated it as "practicing homosexualITY", or it's equal, NOT as "homosexuals". That's a modern word, anyway.
The ESV and some others get it right.
1 Cor 6:10 says "but such WERE some of you, but you were washed..[etc]".
That doesn't mean temptations or attractions always automatically disappear.
It means you left acting on them.

Liberals want us to use their word "progressive". Too many conservatives and other non-Leftists are adopting this. I do not.
They used to be called 'progressives' earlier in the 1900s, then it became unpopular so they changed to liberal. Then that became a term thought of as more negative than positive, so they switched back to 'progressive'.
It is the Leftist war-of-words: controlling discussion thru language manipulation.
The opposite of 'progressive' is digressive.
Do you beleive non-liberalism is in and of itself digressive?
I went to a website where a Leftist listed politicians who were in lockstep with his liberalism, so they were in the 'Progressive" category.
All others were in the "DIGRESSIVE" category.
They know their propaganda.
Please reconsider using this deceptive, dishonest and agenda-driven buzzword of the Left.
Kindly encourage others to keep using liberal/Leftist, etc., instead.
Lawrence O'Donnell was actually right about something when he said to 2 Liberals:
"LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Glenn, unlike you, I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals, okay? However, I know this about my country. Liberals are 20 percent of the electorate. Conservatives are 41 percent of the electorate, okay? So I don't pretend that my views, which would ban all guns in America, make Medicare available to all in America, have any chance of happening in the federal government, okay? You can sit there and pretend that liberals should run more liberal in conservative districts. You love the loss of the Blue Dogs. The only way, the only way you have a chairman Barney Frank, there's only one way, that's by electing Blue Dogs. It's the only way. That's the only way you have a Speaker Pelosi."
- "Lawrence O'Donnell: 'I Am A Socialist. I Live To The Extreme Left Of Mere Liberals'", By Noel Sheppard. Nov. 5, 2010 (Article & video) http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/1...