Sharia in Dearborn: Police stop Christians from handing out material outside Arab Festival

"The behavior of the police in this case is clearly unconstitutional."

I would not be so sure! It depends who you ask:

John Adams claimed that Christianity has murdered more people in the name of their God and wiped out entire cultures than probably any other group in history. He got the inspiration from Voltaire who said that Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.

On the other hand president George W. Bush said:”I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace", and Obama agreed and elaborated on this point: ”we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better - including my own country."

It does not matter what is the truth. What matters is what people believe to be the truth.

So the police are just trying to protect the people from infection by bloody ridiculous Christians and helping the peace loving Muslims shape the country for the better.

What could possibly be wrong with that? ;-)

Allah Snackbar -- there have been others, and it was the bit about "bloody ridiculous Christians" that had me foreseeing this thread getting being yet another to get derailed.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not aware of the other comments he has made, but as for the above "bloody ridiculous Christians" comment, it seems very tongue-in-cheek, as evidenced by the "peace loving Muslims" comment in the same sentence. Again, it seems like he is referring more to how Christians and Muslims are seen by the uninformed — not giving his own opinions. But I could be wrong.

One way or another, I'd rather avoid this thread blowing up like some others have along those lines. But I'm shortening my original response a bit.

John Adams and Voltaire were very impressive human beings, but they hardly knew Islam, otherwise they wouldn't have excluded it from a pejorative comment about religions. Frederick the Great was also an extremely talented and adorit human being, but he foolishly conveyed to others he would willingly have Muslims come into his Prussian kingdom and build their mosques, this said because of his hostility to Christianity.

By the way, Adams' son, Quincy Adams, and America's sixth President, knew Islam quite well, as he knew so many things, and he got it down pat. Look to his comments about Islam rather than any critical comments by some of the Founding Fathers respecting Christianity (and don't forget that some of these great men, like James Madison, were conventional Christians). Further on this matter, you should know that while many of the Founding Fathers did not think Jesus divine, they were virtually universal in praise of Jesus' ethical teachings (neither were a single one an atheist). Thomas Jefferson said that Jesus was the greatest ethical teacher of all time, though he vigorously opposed the idea that Jesus was God personally present on earth. That's why he composed the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson also observed that the Koran is "demonic."

Look, in this fight against Islamic supremacism, the world needs to concentrate all its forces against this supreme evil which is Islam. Denouncing other religions than Islam is counter-productive. You know this or should know it. I agree with several of your assessments but your antipathy to religion in general is not germane to the fight we are presently in. Reconsider, if you are able, which I think you are if you search down deep enough into what constitutes the better angels of your nature.

That's a damn good idea, Hesperado. My compliments.

Foolster41, the link from Volokh is legit. It's an injunction filed on 6-17-10 allowing for leafleting on June 18, 19 and 20, the duration of the festival. The injunction expires when the fest is over. This injunction was sought on the basis of the 2009 fest, and was granted at the eleventh hour for 2010. It looks like the ruling wasn't made public till the 21st, after the festival. It looks like the cops blew it big time. I hope the group that was detained and arrested sues for enough to bankrupt Dearbornistan, and wins.

Waste93's comment isn't trollish, and Volokh is a straight shooter when it comes to Constitutional liberties. Now, let's all shake hands and be friends. We're all in this together.

A feeble faith indeed, Paul. For me, that's why Muslims protest way, way too much whenever their creed is put under a metaphorical microscope. I think this pathetic weakness goes back to Mohammed, who knew way down inside, when he allowed himself to temporarily know himself (this would not have been very often because he was a sociopath), that the best way to cover his fraud was to be over the top respecting the veracity of what he said.

Sadly, very gullible (or easily intimidated) contemporaries of Mohammed allowed this fraud to get away with things and thus mankind had paid dearly for going on a millennium and a half now because Mohammed, like Lenin and Hitler, wasn't confronted by anyone with the guts and savvy enough to take him out early on. Ah, what the world would have been spared had this occurred.

Thank´s for demonstrating that you understood the underlying intention and sarcasm in my somewhat provocative text.

I use sarcasm and provocation from time to time in order to make people think. When I do I always add this smiley ;-)

The answer to my rhetorical question at the end is of course that everything is wrong with the way the police handled the situation. That is if you know the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the law.

The subject discussed here is why the police in Dearborn protected a Muslim rally against peaceful Christians using their constitutional rights - freedom of religion and to asamble peacefully - to proselytize nearby by arresting some of the Christians.

What first comes to mind is of course fear of a violent clash between the two groups in opposition to each other, and in order to prevent violence the police decided that the easiest way to achieve this goal was to take the smaller group - the Christians - out of the equation.

In Europe this is almost standard operation procedure. In Denmark it is almost impossible to hold peaceful demonstrations of any kind in areas densely populated by Muslims (Ghettos). In the UK some places are called no-go areas. You could claim that such areas has de facto been taken over by Muslims and sharia and that this is quietly accepted by the authorities.

The universal mantra used by Western police forces as an excuse not to guarantee peoples constitutional rights goes along the lines of lack of resources and inability to secure peace and order by other relevant measures than prevention. Justified as being the least radical intervention to secure peace and order.

The interesting question is who gave the orders to the police to arrest the Christians and thereby making the Constitution a joke? How high in the system does this thing go? Was it the major as was the case in Brussels in 2007 when a SIOE demo was banned? :

"Every year the authorities in Brussels, the capital of Belgium and of the European Union (EU), receive between 500 and 600 applications for permission to demonstrate or hold protest marches. With very few exceptions permission is always granted. In the past five years only six applications were turned down – an average of one a year. Among these was one for a demonstration by the DHKP/C, a Kurdish terrorist organization. Last week another request was turned down. Freddy Thielemans, the Mayor of Brussels, prohibited a demonstration against the Islamization of Europe, planned to be held next September 11 in front of the European Parliament buildings. Mayor Thielemans is worried that the demonstration will upset the large immigrant population of Brussels. Over half the inhabitants of the Brussels region are of foreign origin, many of them from Morocco. According to the mayor there is a real danger of violence between demonstrators and Muslims living in the neighbourhood. The latter might not tolerate native Europeans protesting against their continent becoming Eurabia. (Quoted from an article in The Brussels Journal by Paul Belien).

The accusation that I "show hostility toward Christianity" is absurd and wrong. As an agnostic I am critical of any organised religion but I am not against religiosity as such. Religious emotions are part of human nature.

I have high regard for the core ethics of Christianity and in my opinion democracy would not have been able to grow from within had it not been for the dogma demanding seperation of religion and politics.

The thinkers of the Enlightenment owes a lot to Christianity but they were unable to realize or admit it because Christianity at that time rightly was seen as part of the established powers of political oppression.

Voltaire, John Adams and other children of the Enlightenment used a fantasy picture of Islam as a peaceful religion as a weapon in the fight against Christianity but they later came to reason. But this positive picture of Islam and negative picture of Christianity got stuck in the heads of many people for generations, especially among liberals on the radical left who find it useful in their political fight.

My position on these matters is evident from a comment I wrote here on JW on June 15, 2010 10:50 AM:

"Interesting that Pankaj Mishra tries to use Voltaire against Ayann Hirshi Ali:

"In denouncing Islam unreservedly, she has claimed a precedent in Voltaire - though the eighteenth-century scourge of the Catholic Church might have been perplexed by her proposal that Muslims embrace the "Christianity of love and tolerance." In another respect, however, the invocation of Voltaire is more apt than Hirsi Ali seems to realize.

Voltaire despised the faith and identity of Europe's religious minority: the Jews, who, he declared, "are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts," who had "surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct and in barbarism," and who "deserve to be punished."

Voltaire despised all organized religions and religious fanatism, but unfortunately shared the prevailing but unfounded belief of his time about the dreadful fanatical Judaism and Jews.

However, for a time Voltaire saw Islam as a rather rational religion without priests and miracles. He, and Gibbon, got this faulty impression of Islam from Pierre Bayle (dead 1706) who formulated the myth about Islamic tolerance in such a fascinating way that it lives on to this day, in spite of the fact that Bayle practically knew nothing about Islam and its history.

Another influence was Henri de Boulanviellers who wrote a biography about Muhammad in 1730. Without any knowledge of the Arabic language and no access to primary sources he also portraited Islam as infused with reason and without mysteries, and Muhammad as a great statesman and legislator of a kind nobody in the classical Europe could be compared with. The book was a hidden attack on Christianity in general and specifically against the priesthood.

When Voltaire described Christianity as the most rediculous, absurd and blody religion the world had ever seen, and praised Islam he used the established tradition and poor knowledge about Islam as a mean to fight Christianity.

Later in life Voltarire realised that Islam was far from the ideal he imagined. His play "LE FANATISME, OU MAHOMET LE PROPHÈTE from 1741, which portrayed the founder of Islam as an intriguer and fanatic greedy for power, was denounced by Catholic clergymen. They had no doubts that the true target was Christian fanaticism. However, Pope Benedict XIV, whom Voltaire dedicated the work, replied by saying that he read it with great pleasure.

Voltaire did not support the dogmatic theology of institutional religions, his religiosity was anticlerical. With his brother Armand, who was a fundamentalist Catholic, Voltaire did not get on as well as with his sister. Atheism Voltaire considered not as baleful as fanaticism, but nearly always fatal to virtue. The doctrines about the Trinity or the Incarnation he dismissed as nonsense. As a humanist, Voltaire advocated religious and social tolerance, but not necessarily in a direct way.

Hirshi Ali is right to claim a precedent in Voltaire as far as the fight against religious intolerance and fanatism is conserned. Voltaire was not without faults and blind spots but we should honor his valueable contributions to Enlightentment and the efforts to create the foundation for a democratic secular state where religion and politics are seperated. The only type of state that can guarantee religious freedom. That can guarantee Hirshi Ali is free to denaunce Islam in good strong words - as long as it last!"

So please be tolerant and give me the benefit of doubt especially when when I add my symbol of sarcasm to the comment. ;-)

Hesp, what would be even more interesting would be to set up a booth called "Gays for Allah" or "Atheists for Political Islam" and see what kind of reaction you would get.
Could you imagine the confusion in their faces?
They wouldn't know whether to call the cops or praise them for their ballsiness.

"During the hours that the Festival is open to the public on June 18, 19, and 20, 2010, Saieg shall be permitted to distribute his religious literature in the streets contained within the area referred to as the “outer perimeter” or “buffer zone.” This order leaves undisturbed the ability of the defendants to prohibit Saieg from distributing his religious literature within the Festival itself. See Heffron."

I smell a lawsuit!

This religious prohibition of Christianity is totally against the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment Rights.

"The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions provide the United States' most distinctive answer to one of the world's most pressing questions in the late-twentieth century. They address the problem: How do we live with each other's deepest differences? How do religious convictions and political freedom complement rather than threaten each other on a small planet in a pluralistic age? In a world in which bigotry, fanaticism, terrorism and the state control of religion are all too common responses to these questions, sustaining the justice and liberty of the American arrangement is an urgent moral task."
(The Williamsburg Charter, 1988
A Reaffirmation of the First Amendment)

"Look, in this fight against Islamic supremacism, the world needs to concentrate all its forces against this supreme evil which is Islam. Denouncing other religions than Islam is counter-productive. You know this or should know it. ..."

We are in agreement almost all the way. As democrates we should know our true enemy, but we should also know ourselves and our history. I am not denouncing Christianity, but I quote some important political thinkers from the Enlightentment who were extremely critical of Christianity, and contemporate presidents who claim that Islam is a religion of peace. In both cases we should ask the question why? And is it true?

The answer to the first question is that there is a connection between the two concepts dating back to the struggle for political freedom and equality in the era of Enlightentment.

The answer to the second question is that Christianity achieved political power and was violent and repressive for many centuries in direct violation of its core teachings, but Islam has always been violent and repressive in complete accordance with its dogmas.

For further details about my position see my reply to Allah Snackbar | June 22, 2010 4:07 AM.

I hardly think that one statement by one believer of any totalitarian ideology constitutes reason enough for a person to be significantly informed about that ideology. Adams probably heard it, tucked it away in his memory for a while and then forgot about it. Let's face it, he had a hell of lot of other things to think about and naturally would have had far more knowledge of Christianity than Islam. Besides, eighteenth-century Western Civilization existed when the Muslim world was extra decrepit and, at worst, annoying at times (well, it's always been annoying). The Ottoman Empire was no longer the formidable power it had been and so Islam understandably could have been looked upon as peripheral by those outside the Muslim world. In short, a loser not worth paying much attention to.

As an aside, the First Amendment came to be adopted in 1791 as part of the Constitution and I have sometimes wondered if the Founding Fathers knew as much about Islam as Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald or you do, if they wouldn't have made a specific exception for this detestable religion. Probably not, but then they didn't live in an age where a PC/MC mentality dominated and thus would have relied upon ridicule and criticism to minimalize Islam in the United States, much as was done with Marxism and Nazism in America in the twentieth century. After all, if you can name the ideologies inimical to libety and equality under the law, no real need to fear them in a free society. Problem is, as you know too well, in this silly age in which we live we're not allowed to call out Islam for the enemy of freedom which it surely is.

"Look to his comments about Islam rather than any critical comments by some of the Founding Fathers respecting Christianity (and don't forget that some of these great men, like James Madison, were conventional Christians)."

The Founding Fathers and early generations of US lawmakers can hardly be described as "conventionel Christians".

Some quotes and references will underline my view:

"Wilson: Early Presidents Not Religious

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....

"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

(The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831.)

"The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States 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 Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....

"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

(Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams).

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

(John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88).

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

(John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816).

About the importance of the Treaty of Tripoli to Church/State Separation:

" ... When I first read the words "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." I was, as I said, skeptical. Why would such a thing be in a treaty? Why would some have claimed, as I later learned, that George Washington wrote them? (Apparently only because the words were written during Washington's second term.)

Was there controversy in the Senate when the treaty was ratified, or did the language even appear in the version ratified? Or was it buried deep within a long, complicated treaty where perhaps it wasn't even noticed? Did the public even know the treaty was passed or what it contained, and what was the reaction? Was it possible for the public to know who voted for it, and what price did those supporting it pay?

Fortunately for me, my son (and only child), Michael, lived for several years in Washington, DC, only two blocks from the Library of Congress, and my wife and I visited him frequently. When we did, I spent time at the L of C, much of it reading up on the treaty. I found some answers in the official Journal of the Senate. The President (by then John Adams) sent the treaty to the Senate in late May 1797. It was, according to the official record, read aloud (the whole treaty was only a page or two long), including the famous words, on the floor of the senate and copies were printed for every Senator. (It should be noted that the controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.)

A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three Senators voted to ratify: Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford, Brown, Cocke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine (no, not Thomas Paine), Read, Rutherfurd, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy. We should ask ourselves whether we should not consider these 23 (and President Adams) great freethought heroes.

In a very public way, they voted to say that "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, . . ." the Muslims of Tripoli therefore need not fear a religious war from the U.S. The vote was recorded only because at least a fifth of the Senators present voted to require a recorded vote. This was the 339th time (I went through the Journal for the first five Congressional sessions and counted them myself) that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous! (The next time was to honor George Washington.)There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. ..."

(Quoted from speech given by Ed Buckner, Ph.D. to the Humanists of Georgia on June 22, 1997 and at the 1997 Lake Hypatia Independance Day Celebration).

Link to text:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

Not one of the Founding Fathers, Ipso Facto, was an atheist or denied that there was a higher power. Some, like Franklin, Adams, Washington and Jefferson were indeed not conventional Christians to be sure, i.e., they did not believe in the divinity of Jesus (though Franklin hedged a bit on this), but virtually all admired Jesus as a great ethical teacher. Jefferson thought him the greatest moralist of all time. BUT, other Founding Father were definitely conventional Christians. Here's a sampling: Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll (the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence), John Dickinson, Patrick Henry, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. James Madison, it appears, went from being a conventional Christian to a deist like Jefferson and then in his old age back to conventional Christianity. Revisionist historians would have folks believe that virtually none of the Foudning Fathers were Christian. This view is simply incorrect.

I thought I would add, Ipso Facto, that there lies ignorance on the other side of this issue. Some contemporary Christians, in their enthusiasm to demonstrate that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (which it was I would strongly argue), aver that virtually all of the Founding Fathers were conventional Christians. This view too is incorrect. The Founding Fathers were mixed on this issue except that none were atheistic or even, to my knowledge, agnostic (which is what I am). I'm sure you'll agree with me that a ruthless pursuit of the truth should always be the guiding principle in a study of the past. Hope you are well.

Thank you for the addition Wellington. It saved me some trouble. We are both agnostics and rationalists and this should give us an edge over radical atheists and fundamentalist Christians when discussing this matter. We seek the truth to the best of our abilities in all matters and learn from our mistakes - I hope.

Let me point out one of the main differences in our views. You say "America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (which it was I would strongly argue)". I would say that the foundation was inspired by some Judeo-Christian principles, primarily separation of state and church, equality under God, and the Golden Rule found both in both Judaism and Christianity, combined with Enlightenment ideas such as separation of power, rationalism and reason as the primary source for legitimacy and authority.

You are right that both sides tries to rewrite history to promote their own agenda. Here an example:

"Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of "The Declaration of Independence" were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? They all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention."

And here (part of) the refutation:

"15 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were known Freemasons, importantly Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. 28 of the 40 signers of the Constitution were Freemasons or were affiliated with the organization, including George Washington, James Madison and Ben Franklin".

History is the main battleground in any cultural conflict. George Orwell understood this perfectly well. In the novel "1984" it is expressed in the Party slogan: "He who controls the past, controls the future".

And thank you for asking about my well being. I am rather well but 10 years ago I felt much better, I think. I hope you are in fine shape - you seem to be based upon your excellent and reasoned comments here on the blog.

Thank you for your response, Ipso Facto. The more communications I have with you the more I realize we have not that many differences. And even those differences that remain are secondary ones (e.g., the efficacy and morality of the death penalty for certain offenses) compared to the great task at hand with which we are in accord, to wit, that Islamic supremacist designs are inimical to liberty and equality under the law.

Yes, it is very possible (I would argue likely) that all other major religions are not in accord with ultimate reality, but this is a secondary matter, one for polite discussion, preferably over several glasses of beer or wine. Meanwhile, Islam must be opposed as much as other totalitarian ideologies have been, and with an understanding that all who find Islam unacceptable in so many ways should bury their differences as far as possible. One fight at a time is the best approach, no?

Oh yeah, I too was in better shape 10 years ago (I've been a long-distance runner since I was thirteen), but, what the hell, you can't give up and just have to plow onwards. What else can we do? Take care, my friend.

Just a further note on John Quincy Adams, dda, which you may find interesting (so may Ipso Facto). I (and so many others over generations) had just assumed that Thomas Jefferson, one of the most remarkable human beings who ever lived I would argue, had the highest IQ of any President of the United States. Well, I recently read an article that maintained he actually had the second highest IQ. His was estimated (going to past centuries and estimating IQs is a kind of art form, but I think a valid one and, for the most part, as near as I have been able to tell, a relatively accurate endeavor) at 160+. But it appears that John Quincy Adams, a most extraordinary man to be sure, had an IQ of something like 175. Sure, this is a bit academic, but interesting, elucidating and fun I would maintain. BTW, Einstein's IQ was 205, as it seems Aristotle's and Da Vinci's were, but the highest IQ ever recorded is of an American woman, Marilyn Savant. Her IQ has been estimated at 239, though some controversy exists about the accuracy of this.

I use to teach the gifted at the high school level before I became a college teacher (in between I went to law school). The minimum to be considered gifted in Pennsylvania, where I taught, was an IQ of 130. So, having an IQ over 200 is just unreal. As I learned long ago, if one has an IQ over 125, that person can basically do anything they want in life if they have their act together----lawyer, surgeon, CEO of a big company, etc., though to be a theoretical physicist or something similar to this it seem that an IQ of 150 or so is the minimum. Anyone with an IQ over 150 is way, way, above the general population, constituting only about 1-2% of a given society.

Anyway, thought you wouldn't mind taking this all in. Of course, while I think IQ assessments important, I'm also conscious of the fact that IQ tests don't measure other very important types of intelligence like common sense and moral intelligence. As usual in life, understanding the full package is paramount. Hope you and yours are well down there in Australia.

Thank you Wellington for adding IQ to the discussion about the characteristics of The Founding Fathers. I do find a discussion about IQ very interesting for a number of reasons.

You conclude:

"Of course, while I think IQ assessments important, I'm also conscious of the fact that IQ tests don't measure other very important types of intelligence like common sense and moral intelligence. As usual in life, understanding the full package is paramount."

The importance of IQ assessment is in my view somewhat overrated. I agree with Marilyn Savants assessment that IQ tests measure a variety of mental abilities and involves so many factors "that attempts to measure it (intelligence) are useless."

Has moral anything to do with intelligence? That depends on how you define intelligence.

What we need is a basic theory defining general or "raw" intelligence. And that seems impossible. Some years ago I attempted to formulate a universal definition of intelligence. The problems involved are evident in my definition:

"Any characteristic which enables a living creature to chose between possible alternatives in a way more favorable than purely arbitrary choices - that is better than 50%. By this definition all lifeforms possess intelligence. Even a bacterium make choices that are better than fifty/fifty."

But what are the charateristics and how do we define "favourable"?

We may define "favourable" as equal to the concept of fitness in evolution theory. I will spare you the details but I soon realised that instead of a universal definition of intelligence I had described the fundamental difference between living and dead things, closely related to what is claimed in the science of biosemiotics:

"Molecules and information have long been considered the major conceptual players at the core of scientific biology. In the present book it is suggested that both these concepts fail to fully specify what life-processes are all about, namely semiosis – i.e., the sign processes by which living organisms must organize their internal and external relations. A sign is not the same thing as a piece of information. It is related to information but only becomes “information” through an act of interpretation. Only when an interpretant is formed (in a cell, in a tissue and, of course, in a brain) does “information” acquire biological meaning. Bio-molecules are always carriers of signs in this sense, and their function in the organism cannot be understood simply through an analysis of their chemistry. The Greek word for ‘sign’ is ‘semeion’ and biosemiotics literally means “the study of living systems from a semiotic (i.e., sign-theoretical) perspective.”

(Qouted from the Danish scientist Jesper Hoffmeyers phd. thesis: "Biosemiotics - An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs.", 2005).

I also soon realised that "favourable" is meaningless unless defined in relation to a spefific goal. Evolution has no specific goal that can be determined by rational analysis.

Just to illustrate some of the many problems involved and how I landed myself in a dead end.

You could also claim that animals don’t have the ability to make rational reflective choices but must mainly rely on their instincts plus a limited ability to learn from previous experiences. Animals are without free will and can not set their own goals independent of what their biology demands. Humans can formulate their own abstract goals even if those goals are in conflict with their instincts or previous rational experiences. Celibacy and altruistic suicide are relevant examples.

But we can also reject an abstract goal because logic combined with our "instinctive" sence of justice tells us that it can only be achieved by means we must consider morally unacceptable. Even if we believed that the goal of Islam would bring eternal peace and justice to all humanity - as claimed - we must reject Islam for the sole reason that the means allowed to achieve the goal (jihad, supremacy, terror, etc.) are morally unacceptable.

You could call this an example of moral intelligence I guess and reflectively formulate a general rule: Not all means justifies a goal.(No matter how attractive the goal is).

Therefore I agree with Marilyn Savant when she says:

"Even professionally administered IQ tests are primitive measures of intelligence. Intelligence tests are fine for practical purposes, but not for analytical ones. Too much unavoidable bias (not prejudice) is present: Any test-maker (not just IQ test-creators) must first develop standards upon which the test-takers will be judged. In other words, to test intelligence, the designer must formulate a definition of intelligence. Now, who could possibly do this?

Can Intelligence Be Defined?

In my opinion, defining intelligence is much like defining beauty, and I don’t mean that it’s in the eye of the beholder. To illustrate, let’s say that you are the only beholder, and your word is final. Would you be able to choose the 1000 most beautiful women in the country? And if that sounds impossible, consider this: Say you’re now looking at your picks. Could you compare them to each other and say which one is more beautiful? For example, who is more beautiful— Katie Holmes or Angelina Jolie? How about Angelina Jolie or Catherine Zeta-Jones? I think intelligence is like this. So many factors are involved that attempts to measure it are useless. Not that IQ tests are useless. Far from it. Good tests work: They measure a variety of mental abilities, and the best tests do it well. But they don’t measure intelligence itself."

We are off off topic here but is the ability to think outside the paradigm not one the characteristics of any truly intelligent person?

The Founding Fathers established a unique new paradigm as foundation for a nation, and in my opinion they would not have been able to do that if the vast majority of them were "conventional Christians" (your words). None of the Christian dogmas demands democracy but they do demand separation of religion and politics or Church and State. So Christianity gives an opening towards democracy but you have to think outside the Christian paradigm to arrive at the concept of a secular democratic state.

Democracy is a rational way to organize a society and most theists are not exceptionally rational (almost a tautology ;-) - otherwise democracy in the modern form could have been established in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas as a logical implication from the political concepts of Aristotele. Instead we had to wait for the rebel Martin Luther who thought way outside the chatholic paradigm and formulated the teaching of the two regiments before a clear and passable road towards secularism and democracy was opened up.

I have further comments to the specific points you make about the IQ of the Founding Fathers and early presidents, but would like first to have your comment to the basic problems of defining intelligence and the limitations to testing it.

My best wishes to you.

Ipso, you are stating opinion as if it's fact. It's neither. Religion does not kill men any more than empty guns sitting on a counter, or a knife in a drawer.

Men kill people and they do it for insane sick reasons.

And that, Ipso, is fact and not opinion.