I don't subscribe to the philosophy of categorizing someone as "good" or "bad" based on their religion, taste in food, where they live, the car they drive, etc etc etc. This isn't a bi-polar issue, and attempting to make it one is pure intellectual laziness. I'm no more anti-christian than I am anti-muslim. I think that some things that muslims, atheists, christians, floridians, do in the name of their beliefs are reprehensible. I don't however, lump all people that subscribe to a diversely interpreted doctrine into the same category. I'm just not a fan of perpetuating incredibly lazy ways of looking at complex social issues, and making it into a good guy/bad guy war. That's ridiculous, factually inaccurate, emotionally based, and solves nothing.
Does freedom of religion only apply to the religion of the majority? Is that the type of constitution we are trying to create? Should we have the right to bear arms so long as the majority agrees, or is that right un-revocable?
Honestly, the level of understanding of the rights as enumerated by the constitution that these people possess is less than that of your average third grade student. I'm sure they also believe that liberals are the only ones guilty of letting emotions and feelings cloud their interpretation of individual freedom. What a crock of shit. These people are acting purely on a primitive urge to eliminate what is foreign, as they perceive it as dangerous or weird. Complete .,...remedial.... imbeciles.
OK i'm back. 
i'm ready to watch the fight. 
go team USA .