And what they should "think" is that the United States should restrict the First Amendment based on what other countries do.
Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca."
Yeah, and no more Synagogues until a Lutheran gets to be Israeli Prime Minister, and no more Cathedrals until we have a Unitarian Pope! No more Presbyterians until the Queen of England becomes Baha'i! Or until the early 90s, "No White Person can run for office in the United States until South Africa ends Apartheid" -- same logic pretty much as "No black person should complain about civil rights in the United States because of Apartheid in South Africa" opposite sides of Newt's same stupid coin.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT! We're better than Saudi Arabia, so American Muslims should shut the fuck up when we emulate it in the smallest fashion. USA! USA! USA!
I guess it's a quid pro quo notion of your rights based upon what other countries do. I'm sure having the United States emulate in some fashion other countries was the whole point of the Bill of Rights...except, of course, it was exactly the opposite.
So, just to clarify, apparently the only Amendment that means anything is the second half of the Second Amendment.