BCT Editorial – 9/16/05

This page was last updated on September 17, 2005.

Jogging around; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 16, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“PREACHING HATE: The role of Saudi Arabia, directly and indirectly, promoting the extremist Wahabi version of Islam is well documented. But Pakistan is no better. The Los Angeles Times reports students in Pakistan’s public schools are taught - via government-approved textbooks - that Jews are tightfisted moneylenders and Christians vengeful conquerors. One textbook even tells children they should be willing to die as martyrs for Islam. (Still think the separation of church and state is a bad idea?) And Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our supposed partners in the war against terrorism. It seems a bit like having the fox guard the henhouse, doesn’t it?”

[RWC] In case you missed it, when the author wrote, “Still think the separation of church and state is a bad idea?”, he equated an official state religion preaching hate to U.S. citizens who believe it’s OK to say the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school or to display a Nativity scene on a town square during the Christmas season. Is the author serious?

Regarding religion, the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

With very, very few exceptions, no one in the United States wants an official state religion. It’s just as true that very few Americans believe government should be hostile to religion. Today, though, when someone starts speechifying about “separation of church and state,” more often than not he’s advocating some position openly hostile to religion. For example, the U.S. 9^th Circuit of Appeals actually ruled it was unconstitutional for students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school because it says “one nation under God.” A few years ago, a public school teacher was dismissed because she wore a cross on her necklace and refused to remove it. (That ruling was eventually overturned.)