A Massachusetts public school district allowed middle school students to participate in a Muslim prayer during a school sanctioned field trip to a Mosque. From the letter/permission slip sent out to parents:
“During our visit, we will get a chance to hear from Islam from members of the Cultural Center, learn about the architecture of a Mosque and observe a midday prayer service.”
A concerned parent did a bit of investigation into this Mosque and found out some interesting facts about this Mosque. It is called the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center and is run by the Muslim American Society, which has been identified by Federal authorities as the “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.” The Muslim Brotherhood is a political arm of the radical Islamic terror movement. According to one of the MB’s own documents from 1991 says that, “the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is ‘settlement’, defined by the author as a form of jihad aimed at destroying Western civilization from within and allowing for the victory of Islam over other religions.”
Many of the Mosque’s leaders have ties to Islamic terrorism. In fact, the founder of the Mosque, Abdulrahman Alamoudi is currently serving a 23 year prison sentence for his terrorist related activities.
An FBI insider once described Alamoudi as an “expert in the art of deception” because of his abilty to appear to be a moderate Muslim while privately embracing a radical anti-American agenda. Behind the scenes,
much of Alamoudi’s energy was devoted to fundraising activities on behalf of Hamas, Hezbollah, Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda. He also had dealings with the Libyan regime of Muammar Qadhafi.
It is also documented that he has said, among other inflammatory anti-American statements:
– “I think if we were outside this country, we can say, ‘Oh, Allah, destroy America,’ but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it. You can be violent anywhere else but in America.”
– In October 2000, Alamoudi attended an anti-Israel protest outside the White House. Speaking to a group of Palestinian-terrorist-supporters, he declared: “I have been labeled … as being a supporter of Hamas. Anybody supporters of Hamas here? … We are all supporters of Hamas … I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah.” – Source
The Cultural Center’s own website encourages wife beating, stating that, “Hinting at punishment is an effective means of discipline, so the reason for hanging up a whip or a stick in the house was explained in another report, where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘Hang up the whip where the members of the household can see it, for this is more effective in disciplining them.’” – Since this controversy, it seems that the ISBCC has taken this particular page down from their website, however, I found a copy of the report here.
Thankfully, the field trip was videotaped by one of the parents whose child was on the trip. The video plainly shows one of the Mosque’s spokespersons telling the students, “You have to believe in Allah, and Allah is the one God, the only one worthy of worship, all forgiving, all merciful.” The same spokesperson goes on to practice revisionist history saying, “Islam was actually very advanced in terms of recognizing women’s rights. At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, women were allowed to express their opinions and vote. In this country, women didn’t gain that right until less than a hundred years ago; so Islam was very advanced in terms of recognizing women’s rights.”
Now we know that this is simply not true. In Muhammad’s 7th century rule of Islamic Arabia, he was a supreme ruler and did not allow ANYONE (neither women OR men) to vote, claiming divine sanction from Allah himself. And in today’s Saudi Arabia, men and women have very limited political rights. In fact in Saudi Arabia today, women are not even allowed to drive automobiles.
The school has since apologized to parents and promised to not let this happen in the future. However, I wish to warn parents everywhere that the religion of Islam is very big on practicing “dawah,” which literally means “proselytizing for Islam.” This goes back to what the Cultural Center’s founder, Abdulrahman Amoudi espoused when he called on Muslims to abandon violence in America because, “once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” An Islamic Dawah organization offers a guidebook to help convert young schoolchildren to Islam. From their website:
Students are routinely exposed in their classroom to new information and opinions, hence they tend to be more receptive to new beliefs and ideas. – Source
Schools are therefore fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed inside the hearts of non-Muslim students. Muslim students should take ample advantage of this opportunity and present to their schoolmates the beautiful beliefs of Islam.
Where is the ACLU in all of this? While the ACLU did sue a school in Minnesota because it was proselytizing Islam, they must feel that in Massachusetts, the separation of church and state only applies to the Judea-Christian religions. The ACLU’s New England Education Director, Nancy Murray is a strong supporter of the Muslim American Society.
Once again, it falls to us radical, right wing, domestic terrorists (otherwise known as average Americans) to stand up for our children and our way of life. I just thought you should know.
Here is the video shot by the parents of one of the children who attended the trip to the Mosque:
Crossposted from Present Discontent
Of course it does: “separation of Church and State” is EXACTLY what it states, separation of ONLY the Church (not Synagogue or mosque or Temple or whatever), and the State.
It’s a code word for an attack on Christianity by all others, atheists, Jews, muslims etc.
When are Christians going to fight back? Turning the other chick is committing suicide.
@P B:
Define “it” please.
@AC:
“it” : the expression “Separation of Church and State” (wasn’t this clear?)
If you wish me to elaborate, then I can add: ‘and how it has been “interpreted” by a multiplicity of individuals/Courts/Agencies etc over the past 250 years, but especially over the past 30 years or so.’
@P B:
What I’m trying to determine PB is where exactly you get the idea that the Separation Clause applies “ONLY” to churches and “not Synagogue[s] or mosque[s] or Temple[s] or whatever.”
Well, AT; can you point out any cases where Jews, atheists, muslims or whatever were affected by this Clause?
My point is that, de facto and de jure, this phrase has turned into a well orchestrated campaign against Christianity.
ps: a note/disclaimer about me: I was born a Christian and now I am a 21st century theist and don’t belong to any organized religious group. However, I will defend Christianity against its enemies (from both the outside and from inside it) because I recognize all the good it has done to humanity, the West, this Nation, my family and myself, in spite of all its shortcomings.
@P B:
Jews: “Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet”
512 U.S. 687 (1994)
Muslims: “American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota v Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy”
Civil No. 09-138 (DWF/JJG)
Atheists: Since atheists represent no established religion there aren’t likely any cases in which the clause has been used to affect them negatively.
There are two examples from among many.
AC:
First case; If you carefully read the Souter opinion for the majority and especially paragraph (2) of that opinion, you will see that in effect the decision wasn’t one against even a sect of Judaism – but to the contrary the SC through Souter went out of its way to accommodate the School and to offer them alternatives on how to bypass the Clause:
http://openjurist.org/512/us/687
In the second case, this is my latest on the issue:
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6735
where it is mentioned that the US Dept of Education “found no evidence any laws have been broken.”
It’s a joke to argue that the Clause has been anything else but an attack on Christianity by the liberal judges of the SCOTUS.
@P B:
Well, that’ll be news to the Satmar Hassidim who live in Kiryas Joel Village, NY…especially considering that the issue was that the school district was specifically drawn around the boundaries of the community in which they live.
And in the world in which you live the US Dept of Education decides whether or not laws have been broken?
No, what’s a joke is that you continue to dig even in the face of court cases which prove you wrong.
Now AC, take it easy, and read carefully what I ‘ve written: I didn’t write that “The US Dept of Education DECIDES…” but they for sure opine, and in this case they did, and that’s all I had.
Nothing PROVES me wrong, except in your mind. In social systems, PROOFS don’t exist, only opinions. In mathematics, where PROOFS do exist, it’s a different matter. It might come as a surprise to you, but that’s how social systems operate.
In my story above, I wrote in part:
This refers to the case in Minnesota where the ACLU sued a charter school that was instructing students how to pray in Muslim and promoting Islam over other religions.
@P B, If your comment that the separation of church and state has been used mostly against Christianity, then there might be some merit there. But to say it is ONLY against one religion is not true.
I used the premise that the separation of church and state only applies to Judea-Christian beliefs with a touch of sarcasm. It would seem that while other religions have had to face separation of church and state issues, the Judea-Christian beliefs bear the brunt of the attack by the left in this country.
WTF?
Okay, just dying to see where, in Souter’s majority opinion, you see that one. Would you mind ID’ing that text in the opinion? Inquiring minds really want to know.
@anticsrocks:
I would compromise by accepting the main thrust of your claim, if you would accept the proposition that it hasn’t simply been “mostly” but “overwhelmingly” so.
In AC’s weak evidence of two minor cases, I could supply many and MAJOR decisions involving the use of the Clause to suppress Christian values and beliefs. And furthermore, although many other major Court cases were not formally and explicitly targeting Christianity, like the issue of Creation or prayer in public schools, informally it was well understood that Christianity’s main dogmas were the target. When in a country of 300 million with more than 80% calling themselves Christians one decides to suppress these issues, it isn’t the small Jewish minority mostly and negatively impacted but instead this vast majority.
@ mataharley:
I supplied the reference and the paragraph he did so. Please, again, as a blogger that your are on this site, try to be civil to a guest like me who is simply visiting to have an exchange of views in a civil manner, without using name calling and vulgarities. We both might benefit. Thank you.
That’s quite true. It is not *only* used against Christianity. As Aye pointed out above, the decision went against redrawing of a school district based on the religion of the residents.
But perhaps even more true is what never makes it to court. Opinions and rulings never happen when the event is sussed out by the school boards and angry parents. And in the event above, it should be the parents on the warpath with the school.
It’s an odd threshold the ACLU uses.. .and perhaps it has to do with the amount of funds and who is the source. i.e. in the ACLU v TIZA Minnesota complaint you mention, antics, it was about the transfer of state funds meant for charter schools but were being used for excessive leases. Will a single, if public funded, school outing be enough to file a lawsuit? I doubt they’d see the value in that.
But then, the similiarities don’t end with only Islam and mosques. It was only July of last year when a group of KY parents went on the warpath with a football coach who arranged an outing to the local Baptist church. Then the headlines screamed about peer pressure forced baptisms.
This never made it to the courts. But the ACLU weighed in, saying it “appeared” it was in violation of separation of church and state. But Liberty Counsel (a charity legal assistance firm for religious matters) said that since it was voluntary by the team, and not using public funds (the coach paid for it), so there shouldn’t be an issue.
Needless to say, parents, school and football coach sussed it out, outside of a courtroom, but it sure got the lib/progs knickers in a twist.
Talk2Action’s Rob Boston talks about that KY incident, and also and mentions yet another dust up in Iowa – where a school policy created a Bible course to study the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, and allowing the student body to vote on allowing prayers, and allowing teachers to speak with students about faith if they asked.
Maybe because it’s Iowa, and few people care about IA until Presidential primaries, but no one made a stink about that one… or apparently knew it happened.
Then, of course, there’s the ongoing battles with the TX Dept of Ed… their revamping American history and strange ideas for textbooks INRE religions.
The point is, there’s no dearth of outrage for students being exposed to religions… Islam or otherwise… but so many don’t necessary rise to the lawsuit level of action. In the case above, I don’t see whether it was funded by the school. But you did mention they got permission slips from the parents. Therefore, it was voluntary for both students and parents. That takes care of one element of the “Lemon Test”, according to Religious Tolerance.org.
Depending upon the specifics, it’s not likely to pass the sniff test. But then, if there was no public funding involved, and the parents and students were voluntarily attending, wherein lies the case?
You supplied a link to the SCOTUS opinion, which I read along with the concurs and dissenting. You did not supply the paragraph or text where he was providing ways to “bypass” the Establishment Clause”.
Pardon me… just where was I uncivil in my request for your assertation, PB?
@ MH:
Do you know the meaning of “WTF” while using it?
WTF? Doesn’t that mean Where’s The Facts? 😛
Nice try there, LOL (which means “left out the link” ?)
My, aren’t you the hypersensitive creature, PB. First off, if acronyms offend you, you’re not likely to live thru many of our threads with our very direct forum family.
But since you apparently think it’s all about you, the victim, the WTF was not directed at you, but in response to the suggestion that any SCOTUS robed one would so boldly advise an attorney – who had presented oral arguments – how his client could bypass US code. If there were such an action by the High Court, I’d most certainly be interested in seeing it. Nor was I uncivil in asking for it. But apparently, one needs to tiptoe around you. Good luck with that.
However your link to the opinion included nothing of the sort that supports what you say happened. Did you read it elsewhere?
Therefore, I will ask yet again… just where do you get that information? Because it most certainly is not in the opinion.
And while we’re at it, why don’t you provide the sundry links you told Aye you have that the SCOTUS has many precedents, undermining the separation of church and state for Christians. SCOTUS opinion reading is a geeky hobby of mine… as my author archive indicates with posts on Boumediene, the decision that Padilla could sue Bush, the SCOTUS opinion that Bush officials could not be sued, Obama on the “living Constitution” theory, and the Heller decision.
Unfortunately, just searching the SCOTUS opinion database doesn’t cover all decisions INRE church and state, since there’s a plethora of cases that never make it past the lower courts stages. Nor are all these cases apples to apples, since situations are rarely identical. So again, it becomes “malleable” as to just how you can assume the “overwhelming” cases involving separation of church and state are predominately aimed, and intended, to quash Christianity alone.
@PB
The so called “separation clause” does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find a declaration that there must be a separation between church and state. The “Establishment Clause” you keep referencing is not an existing “clause” per se, but a Supreme Court “opinion” on Constitutionality. Souter’s majority ruling is an “opinion” on the “Supreme law of the land. which is NOT the same thing AS “the Supreme law of the land”. The fact that Souter did not name every possible name or term that exists for “house of worship” does not preclude it’s inclusion via ambiguity to the force of a SCOTUS “opinion”, or in any way give them a pass. The fact that Federal courts have ordered the removal of displays of the Ten Commandments (which was a Jewish covenant with God) from government buildings proves that the opinion applies towards all religions, and not only Christianity. The use of the word “church” was based on the writings on the subject by Thomas Jefferson, who clearly did not single out any one religion, but instead discussed a separation between government and religions in general.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Note however that the Supreme Court has in fact made various other “opinions” that build-on sometimes contradict and at other times clarify earlier “opinions” (Examples: Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown V the Board of Education of Topeka…)
anticsrocks: HI, WHAT I understand from it all, is that, THE CONSTITUTION OF
AMERICA as a REPUBLIC, has been done by CHRISTIANS EXPERTS to protect
the PEOPLE and including their children to follow the wisdom of the CONSTITUTION
TO be learned unto all generations to follow;
NOW why would the schools start to indoctrinate the children with another RELIGION,
not mentioned in the CONSTITUTION, the idea is of course OFFENSIVE to the familys, who dont want their children to be INDOCTRINATE but to learn their maths and other class subjects to become the proud AMERICANS, not become sorrys AMERICANS dictated by those foreign
countrys believers.
Let me try to narrow down a bit this discussion, because it seems to be spinning away to all kinds of tangents, veering off the main point which is (at least as far as I’m concerned) the overwhelming use of the “separation of Church and State” (specifically the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as “understood” now to require this “separation”) as an instrument to attack Christianity. I don’t wish to lose sight of the forrest for the trees.
We can all agree that Court decisions are zero-sum games. One can look at the interpretation of some Articles of the Constitution by the Court system (by liberal, radical, call them what you wish judges who have taken over the US jurisprudence) as efforts to protect (whatever one defines as) “minorities.” The flip part of that coin is, however, that the rights of the majority (the complementary set to the previous one) have been at best infringed, at worst violated by doing so. As I mentioned under comment #12, the preponderance of evidence (as we seem to agree here in general, albeit arguing details) in this case clearly suggests that the overwhelming effect of this specific Clause has been the “taking” of Christian privileges, rights and customs and the concomitant “granting” of such to all types of other “religious” minorities by default, given the zero-sum game nature of the beast. In effect the very purpose of the existence of the Constitution to some has been undermined by these indirect “redistributive” effects of such “rights.” Going beyond merely “religious” rights for just a moment (a side point, please don’t expand on it), and seeing the broader picture, where other “rights” are involved like the right to life, the right to citizenship, “civil” rights, etc, glancing at the modern demographic and economic face of America, one realizes how profoundly effective these large scale assaults upon its European, Christian base have been. To some of course, this has been desirable, to others not so (here comes the obligatory “raaaacist” “extremist” “Christian taliban” comment by the left; please, spare me those).
Now, some Jews can argue that the prohibition of the “Ten Commandments” from the steps of a Court House, or the banning of teaching “Creation” in K-12 science classes of public schools is an affront on Judaism. My counter to that would be, that although indeed the TC and C are encountered in Judaism as well, their use by Christianity and Christians was the motivating factor behind the assault. In effect, the intent wasn’t to protect muslims, Jews, atheists, Taoists and others from “religion,” but to deny Christians their rights to exercise it as they see fit or had been accustomed to. It has been (along with other cases involving other Constitutional Rights) an attack against the Christian based culture of America. That’s my point.
Now on some specifics: MH, sorry the link I supplied earlier on in the discussion, yesterday, can’t come up today – it had a nice summary of Souter’s majority opinion, and in there under paragraph #2, the claim I made was laid out. Maybe, it will be up tomorrow (?) For a direct however, access to the opinion, check this link:
http://law.onecle.com/ussc/512/512us702.html
specifically at page 16 on, where Souter is indicating to them how by working with the State they could have bypassed the perils of running into the EC. These are among the token cases to show the World that the SCOTUS is “fair” to all “religions” and “irreligion.” (Nice term there, some other time we could debate that jewel.)
Ditto: what you say is well known. As I mentioned above, one could argue as to what was the intent of the FF at the writing, and in this case TJ’s regarding this “separation” issue – and I would suggest it wasn’t to ultimately convert this Nation into islam, which is what we’re headed.
Thank you for identifying what made you think a Judge was coaching an attorney and client on the losing side how to “bypass” the law. I suspected you may be reading his explanations of Larkin as that, but I don’t know how many SCOTUS opinions you’ve read all the way thru…. including all the concurring opinion snippets, and the dissenting opinion. When I read SCOTUS opinions, I read it all… and I read them quite often in my course of research. So I already looked up a friendly display of the full opinion and read it prior to my last comment on this.
I mention familiarity with SCOTUS opinions because in almost all, the judge who pens the opinions for both opposing and dissenting discusses other cases in depth… as to why one was found to be compliant with Constitutional law, and another not. Summarizing… the neutrality between government and religion is best exampled by the Larkin specific arguments presented. Thus Souter’s explanations of Larkin – as well as the other precedents that are always cited in opinions – are clarification of how and why the High Court views compliance. Go pick a random 5 or 6 opinions to read, and you’ll always see the citing precedents and situations, spelling out why they flew, or didn’t. It’s common and should not be construed as advice on how to “bypass” the law.
I’m going to disagree with this. I don’t historically see the High Courts as defenders of the majority or minority because both have had rulings/appeals reversed or held. SCOTUS is a defender of interpretation of the law, guided by the legislative language and related precedents, and applied to very specific (and always unique) situations. I’m not saying that both sides of the court don’t have their activist side. But activism alone don’t cut the mustard, and they have to have cogent reasons to justify any activism outside of the obvious in law. (altho “obvious in law” could be an oxymoron…)
Granted, there are more than a few opinions which leave me disgruntled, but as a friend of mine likes to say… for the most part, the robed ones get it right. Or, at least they have in the past. With women like Kagen and Sotomayor, we’ll have to see… since they were chosen specifically for their activism. But traditionally our High Court has churned out agonizing, and in depth analysis of not only current law and precedents, but has reached into the past into Colonial law as well to ascertain “intent” when examining an issue.
And because much depends on the value and presentation of the oral arguments presented by respective attorneys, sometimes they are forced to render decisions that reflect the poor quality of the presenting briefs. There’s been a few opinions that, when I hear it, say “that can’t be right”. But when I read the arguments and specifics, I can see where SCOTUS came up with the opinions they did. It’s too easy to say “here’s what happened, so whaddaya think, guys?”, and then be aghast at their ruling. It’s frustrating to read opinions at times because of the way these unique civil servants’ minds work. But until you read it all.. and sometimes the lower court decisions that led to SCOTUS.. all is not what it seems, nor cut and dried.
@Mata Harley: thank you for your excellent insights on this (very specific and quite limited in its applicability) case. Since I’m not a lawyer, I tend to rely on summary views of a case written by lawyers but for non-lawyers. And being a professor in my previous life, I understand the limitations of both, abstracting and simplifying things which are very complex by their very nature.
Nonetheless, I think we could both agree that my main point of contention was reasonable: Christianity has been the main target of the Clause.
You’re welcome PB. However I can’t say as “agree” with your main point of contention being reasonable with Christianity as the main target.
On one hand, if you are saying that the majority of the cases involve the religion of Christianity as one of the principles (*and* lawsuit party principals as well), yes… that’s a given. Christianity is still the majority religion in this nation, so it’s logical that the majority of lawsuits brought by activists over government/religious neutrality would involve the dominating religion.
However you can’t say with any certainty that they were unduly disciminated against… unless you went thru every SCOTUS opinion ruling involving a Christian organization in separation of church and state appeal to find some statistics. Since each case is unique, their rights were either upheld if done in accordance with our laws, or their affirmative decisions were reversed if not. This is not being “a target”. It is SCOTUS, ruling on specific situations on the issue.
@MH:
We’ll leave it at that, I’ll allow you to have the last word on the issue. Thank you for an informative and spirited discussion. I enjoyed it.
PB
I don’t think anyone here claimed an intention of the “separation clause” being to convert this nation to Islam. I was taking issue with your claim that it applies exclusively to Christianity. The “FF” (as you say) covered ever aspect of their Constitutional intent quite well within their personal writings, and in the Federalist and Anti federalist papers. (For proper research, don’t read one set of papers without reading the other, else you miss the alternative sides of the discussion).
While I am NOT a “churchgoer” (if that is what they
are called) and likely will NEVER become one —
I do feel a strong need to note that the phrase of
“separation of church and state” is NOT found
ANYWHERE at all WITHIN ‘THE American
CONSTITUTION’ (or ANY of its Amendments).
The Phrase of “Separation of Church and
State” is a statement that was taken out
of ‘The Federalist Papers’ (which, by the
way, are NOT the governing documents
of the United States of America) — and it
was actually based on a Biblical teaching
of Jesus Christ in His statement about
“rendering” (i.e. “separating”) things
unto ‘Caesar’ (i.e. the government)
that belong to ‘Caesar’ and things
unto ‘God’ (i.e. “religion”)
that belong unto ‘God’.)]
In today’s modern world, the phrase of
“Separation of Church and State” has
now become an over-used statement
that’s more akin to a worn-out cliché
that’s preferred by uninformed people who …
1) are unaware that ‘European History and
Eurocentric Viewpoints” simply do NOT
represent every group on the planet.
[i.e. Everyone on the planet has NOT experienced
being “Persecuted” by ‘The Church’ of Europe — but
rather — some of the rest of us have been (and are yet
still being) “persecuted” by ‘the mosque’, ‘the temple’,
etc. systems — that are found elsewhere on earth and
everything does NOT revolve around the history,
viewpoints and experiences of the Europeans.]
2) by “SINGLING OUT” the so-called “church”
(rather than by simply using a more generic, neutral
and, dare I to even say, a more culturally-inclusive
phrase such as that of “Religion”) — it REVEALS
(especially to anyone who is a not a “christian)
that one is quite solely, specifically, and directly
‘TARGETING’ the ‘Christian’ faith for “separation”
— and THAT is a form of DOUBLE-STANDARD
and HYPOCRITICAL BIGOTRY that rivals that
of the radical “religious right” found worldwide.
3) by “SINGLING OUT” the so-called “church” for
“separation” — it opens the door for non-christian
religions to add their religious practices into the
American government system by using the simple
“recant” of “we are not part of “the church” and thus,
you cannot target us for “separation” from ‘the state’”.
As a result of this convenient ‘”recant”, many American
public schools and government offices have now found
themselves being required to add “religious” symbols
(ex. ‘muslim prayer rooms’) due to the ‘convenient’ fact
that they are not associated as being ‘church’-related.
This is just one of the many reasons that I feel that
certain Americans really need to understand that —
their action of singling-out ‘a symbol’ (the “church”)
of a specific religious group (‘christianity’) for being
THE specific ‘Target’ of “Separation” (much to the
exclusion of the many other religious groups found
in the nation) —- 1) comes across to many people
as being BOTH an overbearing attempt to try to
enforce a “freedom” FROM religion AND also as
a type of “persecution” (if I dare say) against that
specific religious faith, practice and teaching AND
2) it also leads to many of the non-‘church’ religious
groups feeling as if they have a ‘loophole’ in which
they can force their practices onto the government
(i.e. “we are NOT ‘a church’, so we CAN do this”).
Currently, in parts of Europe, the Muslim faith is THE
specific TARGET of secularization — and in America,
clearly the Christian faith is THE TARGET of the same.
Sadly, all of this TARGETING (against specific religious
groups and teachings) is being done “in the name of our
secular freedom” (just as in the past, ‘secular freedom’
was targeted by some religions “in the name of God and
holiness”); it makes the TARGETED group look and feel
as if they are being “persecuted”; and, it is simply leads
to a hatred and contempt for the targeted religious group
(which can lead to ‘reactionary-radicalization’ and / or
even a sympathy-led “push” for “privileged treatment”).
So how about … if we all just PLEASE try to STOP using
the overworn, worn-out, clichéd (and dare I to even say
BIGOTED) phrase of “Separation of Church and State”
— and let’s all try to, instead, use a more inclusive
(and less “targeted” or “biased”) phrase such as
“separation RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT”.
Seriously, I feel we should all work together in order
to learn how to STOP THE religious-TARGETING;
to neutralize the terms; to let people practice as
they belive; to keep RELIGION and GOVERNMENT
(and NOT JUST ‘church’ and ‘state’) separate; and
let everyone live and let live — without ANY group
being hassled and / or specifically singled-out.