Prayer in School

The Story I mention in my previous post, Oi Vey!, reminds me of a piece of art I would like to make called prayer in School.

You see, I have no problem with prayer in school. The problem does lie in the fact that the US is religiously neutral. This means that one can't favour one religion or sect over another.

So, I imagine that prayer in school would have an orthodox Jewish kid davening, a Moslem kneeling toward Mecca, a Hare Krishna, a Catholic saying the rosary, a flagellant, a Pentecostal speaking in tongues, a dervish, a snake handler, a Santeria adherent, and so forth. The ideal picture would have loads of the world's faiths practising in their own unique ways.

It would be quite a raucous and busy scene!

That's how I imagine prayer in School!

Islamic Extremists

This is a comment about the 5 missing U.S. Muslims who were found in Pakistan. This comes in after other stories about Muslims committing acts of "terrorism" (in quotes since I think the Ft. hood shooter was just a lone whack job). But there are other terror plots (e.g., Fort Dix and Quantico) that are substantiated. Nearly a dozen Americans or US-based foreign nationals have been arrested or charged in recent months in connection with efforts to go to either Pakistan or Somalia, allegedly for terrorist training or to recruit and finance the training of others.

But before we start saying that Muslims are evil, we have to remember that the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680 was the Oklahoma City Bombing. That was just some disaffected white guys. And the worst part was that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols styled themselves as "patriots". That is another point that people forget.

The US needs to look at the factors that cause people to explore violent extremism as an option. The British Government is now seeking to recast relations with its Muslim population because of the mistakes which have been made in the drive against violent extremism in the UK. The new British approach is expected to ensure that funding goes to a wider range of organisations, while a more explicit strategy to resist white racist extremism is also being developed due to the British National party's strong showing in June 2009's European elections.

As in the UK, The existence of violent far-right groups and the rise of the far right means we must adopt consistent principles and a proportionate approach to the issue of violent extremism. The fact that extremism is being view as a threat from the any one Community (e.g., Muslims) can marginalise people who are within that Community.

And, yes, I am sympathetic to Muslims (and other ethnic minorities) since I grew up in a Community with a strong Asian presence. I know these people are peaceful citizens in whatever nation they live. I believe that learning about Islam is much more positive than the continued hatred and ignorance we see from some people.

After 9/11, while the American Muslims were feeling insecure, hundreds of Muslim soldiers of the US army were serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thes Muslims have been giving the proof of their patriotism while on duty. It is well known that many Muslim soldiers also lost their lives besides the soldiers of other communities in the US army. Among them, most of the American soldiers were practicing Muslims. Here are some names:

Cpl. Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Spec. Rasheed Sahib, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, accidentally shot to death by a fellow soldier in Iraq.
Maj. James Ahearn, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed by a bomb in Iraq.
Cpt. Humayun Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed when he approached a suicide bomber in Iraq.

My father in law is buried at Arlington National Cemetary, a Jewish Korean War Veteran; however, some sick bastard decided to desecrate his grave stone. So, religious intolerance goes beyond just Muslims. I do not countenance those who promote religious intolerance of any kind.

President Barack Obama evoked the constitution in his statement at the Fort Hood memorial service, advocating tolerance. "We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God."

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."

More Blackstone silliness!

I have to admit to musing on the fact that using Blackstone as US Constitutional authority leads to some very wrong results: especially for Catholics.

One needs to remember that the Test Acts, as well as anti-Catholic sentiment, were still going strong in Britain and the United States during the Revolutionary and Constitutional drafting periods. One of the Test Acts is titled An Act for preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants', Charles II, 1672, Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 782-85

Get the picture?

As I mentioned in my previous post, John Jay, the first chief justice of the US Supreme Court urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil." That means you mackeral snappers need to renounce popery and put your true allegiance in the US Constitution.

Love it or burn at the stake.

I believe they were still chopping off heads and sticking them on poles as punishment for treason in Britain around this time. I am not sure about hanging, drawing, and quartering. Whatever the state of capital punishment at the time, the English Criminal law at the time of the adoption of the constitution was called the Bloody Code because a large number of crimes were punishable by execution. Transportation to the North American colonies, which went on to become the United States, and Australia after US independence, was a frequent alternative to the death penalty.

One reason we need a space program is so that we can shoot criminals into space.

It is a melancholy truth, that among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than an hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonious without benefit of clergy; or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death — William Blackstone

I predict that Scalia's last opinion be that by using Blackstone as an authority and no less than the words of the First US Chief Justice, the Article VI language that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" is unconstitutional.

Scalia would then order that all US Catholics would be burned at the Stake on the Captiol Mall on the Fourth of July.

I mean wouldn't that be original intent?

(Note: I should write for the Onion: Scalia writes opinion advocating burning Catholics at the Stake

More Blackstone

I hinted at deference to the legislature in my prior Blackstone post which leads to some interesting knowledge.

First off:

The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law.

Section The Second, Of The Nature Of Laws In General

So, one needs to defer to the intent of the legislators, not only the text. Also, if a law is within the spirit of the legislation, or not covered by the legislation, then it is presumed constutional.

3. As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions only.

4. As to the effects and consequence, the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them. Therefore the Bolognian law, mentioned by Puffendorf, which enacted "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity," was held after a long debate not to extend to the surgeon, who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit.

In other words, one cannot read into a law what one wants, which Scalia did. One cannot take popular meanings and interpretations which have no legal basis and use them as law: especially in the face of prior judicial precedent. Unfortunately, Scalia has shown that he is ignorant of the meaning and history of the Second Amendment. I use this in the proper term as ignorance can mean that one chooses not to take notice of something as in:

ignorance XIII. — (O)F. — L. ignōrantia, f. prp. of ignōrāre not to know, misunderstand, disregard, rel. to ignārus unaware; see -ANCE.
So ignorant XIV. ignore †not to know XVII; (of a grand jury) reject (a bill); refuse to take notice of XIX. — (O)F. ignorer or L. ignōrāre.

In fact, given Scalia's prejudices in this case, I am amazed that he did not recuse himself. It is obvious that his own opinions clouded his decision and removed them from the law. In fact, "RKBA" commentators were hopeful that Scalia would write the opinion given his known bias for this theory.

I was going to use this post to say that the judge needed to think of the consequences of his decision, but it is obvious that Scalia had only one intent and that was to give official sanction to a lie. It has burdened the Constitution with unwanted and unnecessary baggage even if it should be overturned by a decision which is based in reality.

Another point I wanted to make about reliance upon Blackstone was that the text he was commenting upon was this:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

I find it amusing that the mackeral snappers on the SCOTUS should hook their decision upon this text. Even more humourous is that the author of the Heller decision is a devout papist (or so he claims).

By what means does he presume that he is covered by this text?

If he is truly an "Originalist" than he must surely know the anti-Catholic sentiment in the English speaking world at the time of the adoption of the Constutition!

The "Second Amendment Scholar" came out with some mention of the Gordon Riots which have no meaning to the Second Amendment, but do show anti-Catholic sentiment in England and the United States at this time.

John Highham described anti-Catholicism as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history". Anti-Catholicism which was prominent in the United Kingdom was exported to the United States. Two types of anti-Catholic rhetoric existed in colonial society. The first, derived from the heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars of the sixteenth century, consisted of the "Anti-Christ" and the "Whore of Babylon" variety and dominated Anti-Catholic thought until the late seventeenth century. The second was a more secular variety which focused on the supposed intrigue of the Catholics intent on extending medieval despotism worldwide. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against the Catholics as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and conservative Peter Viereck once commented that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals."

William Blackstone shared the general Anti-Catholic prejudices of his age and millieu. As discussed in more detail in the article on Anti-Catholicism, his Commentaries summarized his attitude toward Roman Catholics as follows:

As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.

— Bl. Comm. IV, c.4 ss. iii.2, p. *54

I find it amusing that someone who is an Originalist should not only bastardise, modernise, and debase that which he claims fidelity, but I find it even more amusing that he should do so with such a text which is obviously as dated, if not more so, than the one he has baselessly altered.

Some of America's Founding Fathers had anti-clerical beliefs. For example, in 1788, John Jay urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil." Thomas Jefferson wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government," and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

Although, perhaps Scalia is showing his fidelity to the founders' and Blackstone's sentiments toward Catholics and being faithful to another master in deceit to the one he has taken an oath of fidelity.

Again, using Blackstone as an "Authority" is a minefield unless your intent is to destroy the Constitution.

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.

Mitt Romney: Mormonism and the religious right

I have to admit it is humourous to me to hear Mitt Romney being accused of not being "Christian" since he is a Mormon. I have had a thing for Mormonism since I was a youth and have to admit more knowledge than the average person about this faith. The cabinet d'avocats we were associated when I lived in Belgium represented the Mormons.

An anecdote from that period is that a couple of Mormon missionaries were arrested by the Belgian police since the Police weren't sure what exactly Mormon missionaries did. Of course, this was well before the film "Orgazmo" was released (sorry, I had to put that in). Anyway, Belgian law allows for the police to arrest someone for 48 hours and hold them just to check them out. The Mormons were fed a baguette and a litre of coffee every 4 hours. Something which doesn't happen in the USA. These poor buggers are suffering since they can't drink coffee and don't understand why the police can just pull them off the street for no reason.

But Mormonism is the most American of religions.

They see the United States as the promised land and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as divinely inspired. Of course, that is where I find fault in their faith as a true tory, but that is a total digression.

And, of course, Mormons believe in Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, there are evangelicals out there who believe Mormonism is a cult. See http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html. However, I am going to quote that article here:

The first time I ever heard about Mormons was in fifth grade, sitting in a basement classroom of my Baptist church, watching a filmstrip about cults. Our Sunday school class was covering a special month-long unit on false religions; in the mail-order curriculum, Mormonism came somewhere between devil worshippers and Jim Jones. Although most of the particulars are lost to me now, one of the images remains in my mind: a cartoon of human figures floating in outer space (an apparent reference to the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression") that appeared on the screen next to our pull-down map of Israel. Even at age 10, the take-away message was clear. Mormons were not like us, they were not Christian.

Evangelical opinions about the LDS Church haven't changed so much since I watched that filmstrip more than 20 years ago. In 2004, Mormons were specifically excluded from participation in the National Day of Prayer organized by Shirley Dobson (wife of James Dobson, leader of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family) because their theology was found to be incompatible with Christian beliefs.

Mormons believe that they are the fully realized strain of Christianity--hence the "latter-day saints." They acknowledge extra-biblical works of scripture (such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants), follow a series of prophets who claim to have received divine revelations, and teach that God inhabits an actual physical body. This is all blasphemy to evangelicals; they argue that "the Bible explicitly warns against adding to or detracting from its teaching" and refer to the revelations as "realistic deception[s] by the Devil himself."

Evangelical Christians consider Mormonism a threat in a way that Catholicism and even Judaism are not. The LDS Church, they charge, has perverted Christian teachings to create a false religion. As John L. Smith, a Southern Baptist who runs Utah Mission--an organization that tries to convert Mormons--told Christianity Today: "Mormonism is either totally true or totally false. If it's true, every other religion in America is false." To be tolerant of Mormonism is to put evangelical Christianity at risk. And to put a Mormon in the White House would be to place a stamp of approval on that faith.

Southern Baptists have been particularly vocal about labeling the LDS Church a "cult." In 1997, the denomination published a handbook and video, both with the title The Mormon Puzzle: Understanding and Witnessing to Latter-day Saints. More than 45,000 of these kits were distributed in the first year; the following year--in a throwing down of the proselytizing gauntlet--the Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting in Salt Lake City. Around the same time, a speaker at the denomination's summit on Mormonism declared that Utah was "a stronghold of Satan." When Richard Mouw, president of the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary, tried to repair relations with the LDS community by apologizing on behalf of evangelicals during a speech in the Mormon Tabernacle last year, his conservative brethren lashed out. Mouw had no right, they declared in an open letter, to speak for them or apologize for denouncing Mormon "false prophecies and false teachings."

Now, the First Amendment was proposed as a bulwark against government interference with religion, not to establish Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity, as a religion. The US Constitution Article VI states that: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Why? Because the Puritans knew that government interference in religion was something to be avoided. Most of the faiths that came to the United States were dissenters in Europe and knew the problems associated with government sanctioned religion. Europe had nearly two centuries of religious war and a millennium of religious persecution to look back upon.

I was at a Jewish CLE class where the Rabbi said something along the lines of even though we may agree with the religious right, we know that we cannot support them. Because we are working toward something which may backfire upon us. So, we cannot impose our beliefs upon others even though we may not believe in abortion, birth control, etcetera.

Mormonism has a long history of persecution by "Christians" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism), which they should not forget. I remember when I was young seeing a memorial to the Mormons who went to Beaver Island to escape persecution while camping in northern Michigan.

I ask my Mormon Brothers and Sisters to remember their past and the persecution by those who called themselves Christians to remember what our religious freedom means. Even if Mormons disagree with positions on abortions, birth control, prayer in school, and so forth, they must remember that others have once persecuted (and still do persecute) them for their beliefs.

We cannot have religious issues blocking our other freedoms and the freedoms of others. We cannot have religion being used as a method for blocking real social legislation by making religion a wedge issue. we must allow for freedom of conscience whether we agree with it or not.

otherwise, we may return to the religious wars our ancestors fled their homelands to escape.