The real problem is, they want to be uncivilized with tanks, jet aircraft, artillery, automatic rifles, and nuclear weapons.

This cannot be accepted, even if it is a matter of serious overkill of them to accomplish it. The real problem lies in the cowardice of the “moderate Muslim”, in not facing up to the fact that their religious creed is teetering on going out of control, much as National Socialism did, with similarly genocidal results.

There was at least one Jew, and another who was, I believe, a Mahometan, who were prominent in the general process of the creation of this country, its laws, and the overall basis for its structure. They may or may not have actually signed the Declaration or been outspoken and notable members of the early Congress.

There’s a moderate amount of fuzziness around the term “Founding Father”, as it can readily not just include the official representatives of the people but the people themselves alive and of fighting and voting age at the time.

=======================
BTW, anyone wanting to look into the subject may well find this book of interest:
The Faiths of Our Fathers: What America’s Founders Really Believed

The founders were themselves largely Christian in basis (though there were a few Jews and “Mahometans” among them at the time). They were, however, very abhorrent of “organized religion” of any sort. And I can cite quotes from any number of them on this point. As a result it’s fairly clear that, while the extreme of disconnect between Government and Religion often argued in favor of by modern libtards is wrongheaded and foolish, there is still at issue just about any law based on religious argument alone — you personally may support a law for that reason, but, at its heart, in order for it to be legitimate, it must have non-religious justifications for its existence as Law.

The problem is rather blatantly clear — if we allow ANY religion to Rule, then we open the door for suppression of other religions. We also open the door for a specific religion to tell others what to do. There’s a common form of this floating around — it’s called Sharia, perhaps you’ve heard of it?

And I’ll cite for you the Treaty of Tripoli, submitted to the Senate, passed, and signed into law by John Adams, **one of the Founders**… perhaps you’ve heard of him? Emphasis mine:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,–and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Clearly, a large percentage of the Founding Fathers agreed more with what I’d argue is my own interpretation and not the one you’re placing onto it.

This is not an argument against Christianity, only that Christianity is an adequately reason-based faith that pretty much any worthwhile precept from it can generally be argued in favor of by secular arguments as well. As such, you don’t need to open the door to religion in government and Law in order to encourage most of its serious principles. The “fuzzy” ones, the ones subject to interpretation or which have internal contradictions in the Bible, are the main ones which are likely to find no purchase in the basis for Law.

And this is as it should be. The Law should not be based on something as fuzzy as religious interpretation. That’s one of the places where civil and international wars come from throughout history.

A: de Tocqueville himself argued that Christianity spread civil society.
I’d also add, it does not come through in this quote that he probably agreed with the American view he is describing (which does come through when you read his book).
B: I responded to your statements about that, not foxmarks’ statements.
C: I’m not a Christian but it seems the argument has merit that areas Christianity was strong in became stable with a strong civil society…in the modern era (before that, not so much).

Insightful responses. Nothing much for me to add. I caution you both, however, as you proffer reasonable responses to Foxmarks’ defense of Ron Paul. I said earlier his/her heels seem dug in and this most recent exchange would seem to evince exactly that. As I said above, s/he seems to take criitcism of Ron Paul’s policies very personally, and more and more, s/he is sounding like the leftist defenses of Obama and the leftists attack on conservatives that I read on several other blogs, (although obviously, with a different goal) as s/he descends into personal attacks.

To the extent that you think this is true, your responses are an exercise in futility.

A swarm needs to go as fast as a warship, which is probably around thirty knots, plus or minus. A big ship, destroyer on up, throws up such a wake and bow wave at high speed that a light boat would have trouble actually making contact.
So that means a lot of swarm boats shooting something. The bigger the something, the bigger the boat, which is to say, more obvious, less manuverable, and less likely to be able to be disguised as an innocent fishing boat. The bigger they are, the fewer they are. The bigger the something or other they shoot, the greater the distance from which they have to shoot, since they won’t be allowed in close, which means lots of time to kill them.
Loose ROE will solve the problem, which, given the palpitations amongst our perfumed princes at DOD means the sailors are screwed. Even if Obama loses the election.