The Muslim world is threatened by religious fanaticism. The Western world is threatened by secular fanaticism.
Both seek to dominate society and to use state power to do so. Both seek to eliminate the Other — for Islamic fanatics that means non-Muslim religions and secularism; for secular fanatics it means Christianity and virtually any public invocation of God. The Islamists impose sharia law; the ACLU, and the Left generally, impose secular law. The Taliban wiped out public vestiges of Buddhism in Afghanistan; the ACLU and its allies seek to wipe out public vestiges of Christianity in America — as it did, for example, in Los Angeles County when it successfully pressured the County Board of Supervisors to remove the tiny cross from the county seal. A city and county founded by Catholics — hence the name “The Angels” — was forced to stop commemorating its founders because they were religious.
Advertisement
This fanaticism has been on display most recently in the state of Rhode Island. This past Christmas, Governor Lincoln Chafee renamed the state Christmas tree a “holiday tree.” Though Christmas is a national holiday, for the secular fanatic, anything Christian — or, as we shall see, anything that relates to religion or God — must be banned from public life.
The latest expression of the secular equivalent of Islamism is the lawsuit brought against a Rhode Island high school, Cranston High School West, for allowing a banner, written by a seventh grader in 1963, to remain hanging on one of the school walls. An atheist student along with the ACLU brought the lawsuit and a judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for it to hang in a public school.
To appreciate how fanatical the student, the ACLU, and the ruling are, you have to know the words on the banner. So, here they are:
Our Heavenly Father
Grant us each day the desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, to be honest with ourselves as well as with others. Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
Amen
The idea that this prayer violates the Constitution of the United States is as much a mockery of the Constitution as it is of common sense. Only a fanatic can welcome the removal of such a non-denominational, sweet, moral exhortation from a high-school wall. America is indeed as endangered by the ACLU as the Muslim world is by Islamists.
Great article, but it misses the sinister link between Muslims who push sharia law and Leftists who push secularism: as Andrew McCarthy thoroughly documented in The Grand Jihad, even though the two groups have wildly different aims, they are willing to work together to tear down the obstacles between them and their divergent goals -- namely, the institutions within our civil society that protect our individual freedom.
Both are not only religious totalitarians, seeking to subjugate all faiths to second-class status under either Islam or secularism, they are also economic collectivists.
And the Left has proven a willingness to ape at least one tactic of the Islamists: the doctrine of taqqiya and willful deception, embodied by a stealth radical who surrounded himself with unreconstructed Marxists -- including race-essentialist conspiracy mongers and unrepentant domestic terrorists -- only to present himself as a post-partisan moderate.
The alliance of the left and the Islamists has precedent in the Axis of WWII. The Germans and the Japanese united in an attempt to destroy civilization, but each fully intended to dispose of the other once their primary task was completed.
"America is indeed as endangered by the ACLU as the Muslim world is by Islamists."
Mr. Prager, would it really have killed you to acknowledge that there are degrees of threat? Your points on liberal fanaticism were generally sound (aside from the holiday tree example). But while liberal fanatics attempt to over-use the First Amendment in courts, Islamists set off bombs in market places. Equivocate much?
Exactly. One group is sawing people's heads off, the other would prefer not to be forced to pray in a government building they are FORCED to go to. I see a bit of a difference there.
So insisting on a "holiday tree" is an instance of moderate and reasonable behavior?
There are Islamists who eschew violence but have the same goals as the terrorists, namely sharia law. Are they moderates just because they use non-violent means to achieve such radical ends?
The societal dangers of fanatacism isn't in what you do in your own personal life, but rather in how you do or don't attempt to impose those beliefs on others. Ergo, setting off a truck bomb in a crowded market is, indeed, an example of dangerous fanatacism.
Renaming the Christmas Tree a Holiday Tree wasn't fanatacism, since it was the governor, whose job it presumably is to name the tree to start with, who renamed it. If he's a pagan and wanted to call it a Yule log, fine. If he's a secularist who wanted to rename it a Holiday tree, also fine. Apparently one of the perks of being governor in Rhode Island is that you get to name the tree. If you want to vote against him on the grounds of what he named the tree, that also is fine.
As for the non-violent advocates of Sharia, moderation is a relative term. So compared to people who go around blowing up markets, yes, the non-violent Muslims are moderates. Followers of the Christian Reconstructionism like Gary North want to impolse the Old Testament law (e.g., death penalty for gay sex, adulterous sex, worshipping other gods, etc.). I've yet to see one of them blow up a market, so compared to those who DO blow up markets, yes, they're moderates. Compared to your average pastor, on the other hand...
But one more thing about the non-violent religious extremists (e.g., the truly non-violent, democratic Islamist or the Reconstructionism): they just don't seem to be all that dangerous to a true democracy. I cannot think of a true western-styled democracy that ever voted in religious extremism as its law. In places like Egypt that are moving away from one form of despotism, they can be very dangerous to any hopes for a transition to democracy. But once the democracy takes root, even the truly non-violent religious extremists seem to be able to get traction.
"Apparently one of the perks of being governor in Rhode Island is that you get to name the tree. If you want to vote against him on the grounds of what he named the tree, that also is fine."
Renaming a Christmas tree is not an allowable perk. Government officials are elected by the people fully expecting they will represent the peoples' wishes. This Governor was not elected so that he can do what he wants. He was elected to do what those who elected him want and even if they did want the tree renamed, it would remain a Christmas tree.
There is no other name for a Christmas tree. It is one of Christians' symbols celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, as you well know. This renaming is as insulting and offensive just as it would be if some began calling the American flag, the American rag. If other religions and beliefs want a symbol, they need to design their own rather than steal one from Christians and rename it.
YOU: Renaming a Christmas tree is not an allowable perk.
ME: It's illegal for him to do it? Well, then slap on the cuffs. Barring that, the First Amendment by itself gives him the right to call it what he will.
YOU: This Governor was not elected so that he can do what he wants. He was elected to do what those who elected him...
ME: I very much doubt that he was elected to rename the tree or not rename it. Hopefully the people of the state were more focussed on other things. Frankly, governors are not puppets. They are actually allowed to use their discretion a lot of the time. This being one such example. Again, if you don't like it, vote against him.
YOU: ...and even if they did want the tree renamed, it would remain a Christmas tree. There is no other name for a Christmas tree.
ME: Uh, there is now. It's a stupid name, but it's still another name.
YOU: This renaming is as insulting and offensive just as it would be if some began calling the American flag, the American rag.
ME: If you chooses to take it as an insult, fine. I doubt that it was meant that way. And while calling something a rag is often meant as an insult, there is no parallel here. Perhaps it's overly PC to do this. OK, strike the "perhaps", it IS overly PC. But being PC isn't forcing one's views on another, which is what we're talking about.
YOU: If other religions and beliefs want a symbol, they need to design their own rather than steal one from Christians and rename it.
ME: Oh, the irony. It's entirely possible, though hardly provien, that Christians borrowed the tradition of a tree from other religions, and more likely that they borrowed the date from Roman pagan traditions. I myself used to go to "Harvest Festivals" that my church held on October 31, making sure to give out lots of candy. They just couldn't handle the word "Halloween" but also didn't want their children feeling left out of the American tradition of giving out candy that day.
Traditions can be modified or borrowed as the person doing so sees fit. They aren't owned, so they cannot be "stolen".
What is it today with the over-generalizations? Livewire, you're just the flip-side of stgstl. First, the history of the left can hardly be summarized by the history of the Weathermen. Second, Prager clearly isn't refering to the Weathermen. He's refering to the ACLU and similar organizations. So, yes, he is equivocating.
Both the left and Islam have one thing in common: they hate Christianity. And there is another group in America that hates Christianity as much as the first two. However, it's never permitted to say anything negative about them else that be called a crime.
With 3 groups committed toward your destruction then it's a wonder things are looking grim for Christians.
Perhaps this is why the old Protestant vs Catholic vs Morman argument feels so obsolete: we're all in the same boat as Christians and our enemies are working toward our destruction. I have no doubt that inside of 50 years that America will be giving hunting permits against Christians and it will be celebrated in the press. Evil is as evil does and nothing will save Christians from the coming tribulation.
The Devil's shock troops are the gays and his best servants are Islam and Leftists. Our parents in the 40s, 50s, and 60s could confront evil directly. We can't.
75% of Americans identify as Christians. Stop your whining. There is actual oppression in the world, and you are not subjected to it. Of course, a Christian's definition of "oppression" is the government refuses to force my beliefs on somebody else.
Such as trying to force the claptrap called 'intelligent design' on unsuspecting, innocent children. I would name such people Christian extremists. Somehow I doubt the author has any problem with them.
What a bunch of hogwash. Look, I get it. I get that god people are brainwashed from an early age that they should take no responsibility for themselves, and that god is the answer to everything. As a conservative, this is insulting to me. If I make a mistake, it's my fault. If I act immorally (depending on who's definition we are using today), it's my fault. The idea that people have to be constantly threatened by an invisible monster in order to maintain some level of morality, is outlandish and shortsighted.
Obviously some of these examples walk a fine line. If an airline decides not to hand out prayer cards, they are free to decide what to do because they are a private enterprise. If the Boy Scouts decide to start each meeting with a prayer, then so be it. They are a private group, and sadly that means me and my son won't be a part of that group. Oh well. On to the next thing. However, when we start talking about government institutions, all the rules change. It is wholly inappropriate to display prayers in a government building where people are forced to attend. Those children don't have the opportunity to choose not to be preached to in hallways or from the banners on the wall. As we have learned over the years with all god people, once you give them an inch, they will take a mile. That's how we end up with god on our money or in our pledge. And then it's just a short little prayer before a football game. And then just a short prayer before graduation. And then just a short prayer before class each day. Nope. The god folks have proved that they can't be trusted.
You know why else we can't take this argument with any seriousness? You are going to compare someone who would prefer not to be forced to pray with the animals that are sawing off heads of the people that disagree with them? Come on. Thou doth protest too much.
You wrote, "They are a private group, and sadly that means me and my son won't be a part of that group."
It's your two cents that it will be sad that yourself and your son are not in the scouts.
I no longer believe in the pledge of allegiance. (It's that "liberty.. and justice for all" thing; don't believe a word of it with the TSA). I just walk out of the room or stand silent.
Learn to ignore it. I've had 8 years of practice for "der Slickmeister" and 3 years for "the da-won".
BTW, the scouts do some pretty "extreme" stuff. In two weeks my son & I are doing "luge". Pure "crank" comes with a debit or two.
I see you accept that there is such a thing as morality. Do you have an objective standard? If not, is it determined by a rough concensus or by some pragmatic measure of outcomes?
You take responsibility for your own mistakes. Very commendable. Some mistakes have consequences of course that can't be undone. As you've worked it out, must you carry guilt for those actions your entire life or have you worked out some means of redemption?
"Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason - that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing - while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does."
- The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels
YOU: As we have learned over the years with all god people, once you give them an inch, they will take a mile...The god folks have proved that they can't be trusted.
Geeze, dude, over generalize much? It's one thing to come here and express a contrarian opinion (something I myself do a lot). But it's quite another thing start throwing this kind of stuff around.
As for the issue with schools, while I'll agree that no mandated expressions of religion should exist in our current school system, I think that this whole issue again shows the virtue of vouchers. With parents allowed to send their children where they choose, then anything the child is forced to do comes by the consent of the parent, which is as it should be.
As for the Boy Scouts, if you don't like one troup and prefer another for your child, again, that is your choice. But if there is no other choice, it the occasion prayer REALLy such a bad thing. You live in a society that is generally more religious than you, and if you can't just maintain a respectful silence for a minute for occasional expressions of faith, you might want to ask yourself who the bigoted one is.
Hear! Hear! I was about to make the same comment, but you beat me to it.
If ever there were an argument against the state monopoly over education, this is it. The state monopolies are concentrations of power, and those concentrations of power can be subverted against freedom, just like the Founders understood.
