The New Model Army?

The New Model Army of Great Britain was formed in 1645 by Oliver Cromwell's Parliamentarians in the English Civil War, and disbanded in 1660 after the Restoration. It was raised partly from among veteran soldiers who already had deeply-held Puritan religious convictions, and partly from conscripts who brought with them many commonly-held beliefs about religion or society.

I am amazed that there are organisations that try to convert those serving in the US Military to Christian Fundamentalism to make it a New Model Army.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has a history of religious freedom in the US military. Not to mention I've blogged that The First Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution provide for religious freedom.

Mikey Weinstein, a retired officer and activist for religious freedom in the military, published this communication from the wife of an American Muslim serving in the military:

…I wanted to let you know what life has been like for myself, being an American-Muslim military spouse, over the last few days here at (military installation withheld), since the Ft. Hood incident. When I first learned of this, I was sitting in the PX food court with my best friend whose immediate reaction was, “ No offense to you, but Muslims shouldn’t even be allowed in the U.S. Army”. Wow, this was from my best friend here! I have heard this and similar sentiments repeatedly from various “friends”, as well as people insisting it’s really a terror plot.

Since this happening, my Muslim husband, who is deployed to Afghanistan, has been put on duty to build a chapel on his base, as well as being told not to associate with the Afghan nationals that work there. I went shopping at the commissary and had people mumbling under their breath but loud enough to ensure that I could hear, things like, “get out of our country”, “go back to your country”, “ F-ing Muslims”, “G-Damn Muslims,” and several other expletives you can insert there. Now people don’t just stare at you when they see you go by wearing hijab, they glare. Last time I checked, I was born in this country, this is my country, and my husband is serving it and continues to serve it despite the harassment and racism he encounters. He proudly serves despite the fact that our family pays a higher price for it than many others.

I know that The United Kingdon has a state sanctioned Church, but how can the US condone intlerance in its military? And despite the state religion, The United Kingdom has worked to encourage diversity and understanding in recent years.

The first recorded Englishman to become a Muslim was John Nelson, who converted to Islam at some point in the 16th Century. In the 18th and 19th Centuries there were a number of converts to Islam amongst the English upper classes, including Edward Montagu, son of the ambassador to Turkey.

The first large group of Muslims in Britain arrived about 300 years ago. They were sailors recruited in India to work for the East India Company, and so it's not surprising that the first Muslim communities were found in port towns. Islam was not recognised until the Trinitarian Act in 1812, though Muslims were present prior to this. Today Islam is the second largest religion in the UK with recent estimates suggesting a Muslim population as high as 2.4 million, in part due to considerable immigration to the UK from its former colonies.

My question is why is the US so far behind the UK in recognising Islam? This is especially true considering the Treat of Tripoli I mentioned in my previous post.

I can take some guesses as to why the US demonises Islam, but none of those reasons would be valid ones for such an action.

Religious freedom takes on an additional importance in the current international environment, where religious motivations are an increasing rationale for waging conflict. At a time when the United States is encouraging greater freedom in Muslim nations, it is imperative upon America to show by example that religious pluralism is a viable and preferred option. Any sign of hypocrisy in United States policy, official or otherwise, toward the free exercise of religion within the military makes it more difficult to convince others to follow its example.

Muslim Backlash in the USA?

Why should the vast majority of peaceful people suffer from one insane person's actions?

I have a hard time understanding how some people in the US, in particular the religious right, can be religiously intolerant. The religious right of the founders' time were the ones who wanted religious neutrality from the Government.

I have a problem with people like the one who wrote in the Guestbook at ane exhibit on Jewish Soldiers in the Civil War at Ford's Theatre:
"You can't be a good American unless you are Christian."

I had to respond: "Sorry, but the United States is supposed to be religiously neutral. It doesn't matter what religion a person is, they can be a good American."

I found Naveed Ali Shah's blog when I was trying to learn what went down at Fort Hood. He's a public affairs specialist in the Army who has been deployed for the past 4 months. He is stationed stateside at Fort hood and his wife and child are there now. I watch his blog to see what is going on from a Soldier's point of view.

General George Casey said that “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

People need to understand that this was the action of one man and that Islam is one of the world's major religions and is the predominant religion in much of Africa, the Middle East and major parts of Asia. But muslims can come from anywhere. Americans have the misconception that all Muslims are Arabs and that all Arabs are Muslims. In fact, less than 20 percent of the Muslims in the world are Arab, and all Arab countries have populations that believe in other religions. The nation with the world's largest Islamic population is Indonesia -- 88 percent of its 280 million people are Muslims.

In the United States, Islam is the fastest growing religion, a trend fueled mostly by immigration. There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States. They make up between 10,000 and 20,000 members of the American military.

The word Islam is a homograph, having multiple meanings, and a triliteral of the word salaam, which directly translates as peace. Other meanings include submission, or the total surrender of oneself to God.

But some people prefer ignorance to the light.

Another muslim soldier, Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, moved Colin Powell to say:

It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way.

The problem is that The American Family Association, a right wing Christian group is calling for no more Muslims in the military. I'd like to think that groups of this sort don't have much sway, but...

The problem is that the US is supposed to be religiously neutral. Article VI of the Constitution states that: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

To prevent Muslims from Serivng in the US forces is unconstitutional. Moreover, we have to remember this from the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Somehow that sentiment has been lost with the passing of time, which is a shame since the US should not demonise 1/5 the world's population.

I realise that the next passage was written by George Washington about the Jews, but it applies to all religions

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

President John Tyler wrote in an 1843 letter:

"The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma, if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions."

Ultimately, we must keep in mind what Army Chaplain (Capt.) Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad said regarding the need for understanding that their fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who are Muslim are just like they are non-muslims. "It's important for all of us to see ourselves as coming from the same origin," he said. "It's too easy for people to get off on what's different.

"People have a way of just being people," he continued. "That nature God has already put into us. There's not one Polish nature or Italian nature or Muslim nature or Christian nature. It's just human nature. When people get to the essence of what makes us who we are, then that's what binds us together.

"The Koran says that God created us different nations and tribes that we may come to know each other, not that we should hate or despise each other."

I'll take my religious fanatic extra crispy!

The religious right needs to remember that the First Amendment was written to provide us from government interference in religious affairs. In fact, the United States is supposed to be religiously neutral.

Unfortunately, countries such as Britain with an official church show a much better example of religious tolerance than the religiously neutral United States. Somehow the belief that this is a Christian nation has become popular.

And given the tendency of Justice Robert's Supreme Court's to neglect inconvenient language in the constitution, we may be able to kill Catholics and burn protestants.

Nothing like a nice religious war.

Censorship

You have no right to read this.

The First Amendment gives me the right to write it, but doesn't necessarily give you the right to read it. While the right to free speech certainly infers a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken or written, the First Amendment doesn't explicitly grant such a right to read anything you want. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists.

The key word being "theoretically". As a practical matter, the freedom to read whatever we choose is such an intrinsic part of the US or British national character as to make legal theory superfluous. People would rise in outrage if government ever attempted to proscribe what they read. Theory and reality are often two different things.

Add in that my ability to write or say what I want will allow ideas to get out, even if there are attempts to censor them.

Now, I just moderated some comments about my Mitt Romney piece which may have come from some Mormons (Mormons and Jews tend to proselytise in a similar manner). They are happy to see people accepting their beliefs and defending them as well. I will defend their ability to practise their beliefs even if I have some personal qualms about their faith as an ardent believer that the war of independence and the US Constitution are a disaster and not divinely inspired.

The American War for Independence was satanic in my opinion, but I don't see Mormons as satanic. Their beliefs are not satanic. I would like to think that the Mormons believe in the Spirit of the Constitution and what it means than what this country has become. But I also think most of the founding fathers (and mothers) would probably think this country was a disaster as well if they were able to see what it has become.

On the other hand, as I have said before, I don't see any reason to give the RKBA crowd more of a soapbox to push their opinions upon us. They flood the internet with repeated lies. Repeating these lies will not make it the truth. And the RKBA position on guns is detrimental to society. which is made especially clear after waking to yet another mass shooting in Illinois.

As a lawyer, my job is to state what the law IS, not what I would like it to be. And, until the Supreme Court states otherwise, the Second Amendment protects only the militias which are organised under Article I, Section 8.

I have to update this to say that Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), is a piece of political hackery which he should be ashamed of if he truly believes what he professes to believe. So, I remain unconvinced of the validity of this decision as legal precedent.

So I see no reason why District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) should not be overturned and replaced with something which makes proper legal sense or why Washington, DC's locally enacted law should have been judicially repealed. Isn't that judicial activism anyway?

Not to mention tyranny.

I am glad to see that I have readers and I am glad to support people's right of conscience if it doesn't hurt anyone. Quite frankly. I have absolutely no problem with any of Mormonism's beliefs. As I said before, I think that they are absolutely dead wrong about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution being devinely inspired. Along with finding retroactive baptism a bit odd, which I am sure my dead Jewish relations who are retroactively baptised do as well.

But, My Mormon relations tell me that my Jewish relations who are retroactively are free to accept or reject Mormonism as they please. Not to mention that the Mormons have helped me in my genealogical pursuits. I have also donated genealogical material to the Mormons who will protect it. So, I have absolutely no problem with Mormons and their beliefs since they are not forcing them upon me.

The Mormons aren't the Branch Davidians, yet I see some of the religious right defend the Branch Davidians even though the BDs were engaged in illegal activities. This is because they were a "Church".

The Mormons are law abiding and not prone to force their beliefs on others, which is what the First Amendment right is about.

And, I really don't care if anyone reads this blog, but it is my right to write it. This is the real first freedom which protects all other freedoms. The Second Amendment's significance is so lost in history and polemic that it is meaningless.

But, it does feel good if my writings make a difference.