George III v George W

The rant by Rep Virgil Goode concerning Rep-elect Keith Ellison's wanting to use a Koran for his private swearing-in ceremony today keeps garnering attention. It's seems that Mr. Elison has decided to use a copy of the Koran that was in Thomas Jefferson's private library.

James S. Robbins on NRO's the Corner hints that Thomas Jefferson could be considered a terrorist sympathizer because he owned a copy of the Koran. [Jefferson's Koran]

All well and goode. However, Thomas Jefferson was one of the architects of US independence and the construction of the new government. For his major role in the independence movement from George III's England, he cited a litany of grievances against the actions of the king that put individual freedoms at risk.

wiscmass over at DailyKos has an entry that compares George III's actions with the actions of George W. Here is the moneyquote from his post:

For the still ignorant trolls, this document is known as the "Declaration of Independence." It is a document in which the fledgling United States of America declared their independence, throwing off the oppressive rule of another King George and declared to the world for the very first time that certain rights apply to everyone, regardless of political ideology. We may take such rights for granted now, over 230 years later, and a great many Americans pay no more than lip service to them, but the idea that everyone deserves equal rights and equal protection under the law is the fundamental bedrock of our national values.

Among other things, that means that a president may not declare himself above the law. He may not obstruct justice by declaring that he is not subject to Congressional subpoena. He may not circumvent the will of the legistlature by attaching signing statements to every bill, indicating that the bill shall be interpreted to mean something completely different from its intent. He may not wage indefinite war against the will of the people. He may not absolve murderers, thieves, and traitors of responsibility for their crimes merely because they were acting to further his own cynical, private agenda. He may not decide that certain individuals may be denied the right to a fair trial. He may not order the rendition of anyone to foreign soil for the purpose of torture. He may not ignore the destruction of a major American city. He may not use the vast resources of our country to injure the vast majority of us for the benefit of his select circle of cronies.

More relevant in this particular case, it means that no one may be restricted from engaging in the public sphere because s/he is not a Christian (of a certain variety). A Muslim may serve in Congress without having to swear an oath on the sacred text of someone else's religion. He may swear upon a Koran at his ceremony -- his private ceremony -- and it's nobody's damn business but his own.
Thomas Jefferson as a terrorist sympathizer by wiscmass

There are many, many Jefferson quotes about the role of Christianity (and religion per se) in history and government. None more to the point than these:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever."
-Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
-letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
Our Founding Fathers Were Not Christians

how much more to the point can it be put?

i'd like to know...