I have been known to defend the John Birch Society in the past and once even stuck up for them, which inflamed a blog war.
However, when a writer at the John Birch Society writes something that I disagree with, and believe is wrong; I will call them on it.I happened to get an e-mail from Zionica, which is a Christian newsletter from a site that rounds up various posts on blogs, that would be of interest to people like me.
Usually, I agree with everything posted there; but this part got up my libertarian nose a bit.
I will quote a bit of what Bruce Walker over at the John Birch Society’s New American wrote: (H/T to Zionica)
Does that mean that the influence exerted by state religion is universally benign? No: What matters is not the principle of separation of religion and government but rather the nature of the religion connected with government. Christianity clearly demands tolerance and love for all mankind. Jesus’ parable of the “Good Samaritan,” for example, is a perfect example of how Christians are commanded by God to view non-Christians. So too are commandments such as “Love your enemy. Pray for them that curse you.” That sort of theological underpinning produces tolerance, which then infuses government with similar tolerance. So it is that, after the United States, the most tolerant nations — England, Denmark, Scotland, Costa Rica, and Norway — have always had state or national Christianity (Britain [Church of England], Denmark [Lutheranism], Scotland [Catholicism], and Church of Norway [also Lutheranism]).
While the separation of church and state has had no relationship to the practical liberties of people, religions such as Islam and Shinto — or metaphysical systems such as Buddhism and Hinduism — have historically not been tolerant. Nepal, which had Hinduism as its state religion until recently, has a history of violence and intolerance. Sri Lanka, which has Theravada Buddhism as its state religion, is in the last stages of a gruesome and long civil war in which Buddhists have murdered Hindus in horrific ways, and vice versa. Most people associate Buddhism and Hinduism with nonviolence (which is not, actually, part of the doctrine of either — although there are consequences for violence in the afterlife). Why anyone would expect that the metaphysical system of Hinduism —which, until Europeans introduced Christian values, practiced the suttee (burning alive of the widows of husbands who had died), Thugee (religious murder to appease the goddess Kali), and oppression of “untouchables” (as in India) — would be “peaceful” is a mystery.
Worst, though, are those nations which formally adopt a religion of violent oppression. Islam today bears a striking resemblance to the Shinto in Imperial Japan (Kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers, as well as as the mandate of world conquest. There are no less than 26 nations in Asia and Africa in which Islam is the state religion. In many even the attempted conversion of people to other religions is a capital offense.
Should it surprise us then to learn that on Sunday thousands in Bangladesh violently protested recent changes to the nation’s 1972 Constitution that retained Islam as the state religion of the nation but which diminished somewhat the role of Islam in government? The Bangladesh Nationalist Party demanded that “absolute faith in Allah” be put back in the constitution. Not only riots but strikes have also crippled the nation. The protesters, chanting, “There is no God but Allah” blocked highways and started fires. They also attacked police, as Sheikh Ainul Haj, the district police chief related: “The activists … beat seven of our officers who are injured. We shot rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the unruly mobs.”
All religious practitioners have not exhibited the same tolerance for non-practitioners that typically is demonstrated in Judeo-Christian cultures. The surest path of peace and liberty has most often been shown by those willing to embrace the Bible and those faiths that nourish their souls on its wisdom and goodness. Anti-Christian, anti-Jewish states such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia have been among the most oppressive in the world, suggesting a penetrating question: Why do we try to separate our God from America? America and its liberties were founded upon faith, and these liberties die without God — a historical fact evil and prideful men wish to deny.
As John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
Now this is just a snippet of what the man wrote; and I highly recommend that you go read the entire thing first.
Here is my problem with this piece. The truth is, most American Muslims are peaceful and most of them, just want to practice their religion in peace and not be bothered and further more, most of them have no desire whatsoever to hurt anyone at all. What this article does not do, is separate between peaceful Muslims in America and violent extremist Muslims living abroad and some here in America. I will fully admit to having personal reservations about Muslims here in America, especially those who tend to embrace extremism. However, I am not ready to toss out the proverbial “baby with the bath water” just yet.
This, I am afraid, is a tactic straight out of the far Christian right; which panders to the fears that most Americans feel, when around people of other cultures. Fifty years ago or longer; it was blacks and now, it is Muslims. Further, this article is a classic textbook example of the very flawed belief system that America was founded as a “Christian Nation.” In fact, the United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Republic by men, who by today’s standards in evangelical Christianity; were Religious at best. In fact, one them, Ben Franklin was, in fact, agnostic.
The founders of this great Nation of ours, did, however, believe that one thing was, in fact, paramount — Religious Freedom. This is why the first amendment was added to the Constitution. Further, the founders also believed that the State should keep its nose out of the affairs of the local Church; as well, as the Church keeping its nose out of the affairs of the Government.
So, while I respect the “Christian Right,” I am afraid cannot, as a believer in Constitutionalism; support the idea that Islam should not be protected under the First Amendment. Nor can I support the foolhardy idea of “Christian Supremacy.” I would never support the idea of Islamic Supremacy, nor White Supremacy or any other sort of group that wishes to exert its particular group as supreme. So, why would I support this foolish notion? I believe that all men are created equal and should be treated as such and that no religion, political party or ethnic group should be held in higher regard than another.
To do anything other, is quite dangerous and is a grave danger to our Republic.