“In their post, which is supposedly about the evil nature of the Koran, they compare those who don’t share the conservative ideology regarding the Constitution to terrorists.”

First of all, you wrote “evil nature of the Koran” which leads your readers to believe that I think all translated versions of the Koran are evil. This is far from the truth, as the point I was attempting to make was that there are politically motivated translations of the Koran that are being used to promote the political aims of those who have sympathy with the radical Islamic factions. I point out in the article that scholars of the Koran are concerned about the politicalization of the Koran which is far from the original teachings of Mohammed (who actually had good relationships with the Jews and Christians when he handed down his visions from Gabriel).

Secondly, the tie I make in the piece is not to terrorism or extremist thinking, but that of the misconception that the Koran and the Constitution were written as something more than rules of conduct set on paper. There was no visionary eye to the future by either documents creators to create a “living document” which was to change with the needs of the people. The rules were the rules as they were simply written down at the time. The “living document” terms used liberally in this era to describe either document is far from the intent and purpose of the originators of either document. The term “living document” henceforth is a modern means to justify a way to change the original contents of either document to become (for political reasons) something other than what it was originally intended. Justice Scalia addressed this in the piece I referred to in which he points out that the Constitution is not anything more than what it was when it was written (i.e. not a living document), that reading more into the document leads away from democracy with the judiciary branch changing laws through their interpretation of the existing rules, and that is not what the originators of the Constitution wanted – they wrote with the intent that the legislation would change the laws to reflect the needs of the people.

I hope this helps you understand that my reason for writing this was not to “further the cause of the radical right”, nor was it intended to be an “amazing political manuever”. It was written as a lament that both documents have been “politicized” to further agendas instead of the simple and honest rules that were originally intended to be.