Since the controversy over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” began, we have heard many deplorable and ignorant comments against law-abiding Muslim Americans who have every right to practice their faith in the United States.
Most recently, TV preacher Pat Robertson announced on his TV program, “The 700 Club,” that Muslims could bribe local officials to expand their influence. "Imagine what $10,000 does to a small, local politician in a small, local town," he observed.
A recent survey by the Pew Forum indicated that the number of Americans who falsely believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim has actually increased since his election. That astounding and dismaying finding has understandably captured a lot of headlines.
OK, people, listen up: “Jersey Shore” party girl Snooki Polizzi is not a good role model for American young people, Barack Obama is not a Muslim and the Christian cross is not a secular symbol or a highway safety sign.
The first two assertions are too obviously true to need discussion. You’d have to be pretty darn clueless not to come to those conclusions.
Fighting crime can’t be easy, but deputizing religious groups to do the job of police officers definitely isn’t the answer.
Fortunately, that shouldn’t be happening in North Carolina, thanks to a unanimous state appellate court decision yesterday. In State of North Carolina v. Yencer, a three-judge panel ruled that it is an unconstitutional “government entanglement with religion” to allow a religious school’s security officers to enforce state law.
President George Washington received an interesting letter 220 years ago today.
Washington was visiting Newport, R.I., and Moses Seixas, an official at the Touro Synagogue, wrote to welcome our first chief executive to the city and to solicit his views on religious liberty.
Washington’s reply, dated Aug. 21, 1790, isn’t as well known as some other historic documents from the founding period, and that’s a shame. Every American should read it.
The nuances of the Religious Right are admittedly sometimes hard to follow. But I was still surprised on Saturday morning to read a seriously misguided Washington Post article that touched on Christian Reconstructionism. As a matter of fact, I almost turned over my bowl of Cheerios.
For years, we’ve heard the Religious Right and its allies assert that the cross is a secular symbol, not a religious one, in order to get around the Constitution and keep Christian displays on public land.
We’ve always thought that argument was pretty ridiculous, but Religious Right activists keep trying. Here’s their latest proposal: a cross is not a religious symbol, it’s a tourist attraction.
There’s been a new development in the situation over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.”
Yesterday, New York Gov. David Paterson came up with an idea that he felt would be a compromise in the recent uproar over the building of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan.