Secular State is Just Like a Muslim Theocracy?

One of the primary targets of Muslim theocrats has always been western secularism. Even back in the 1950s, celebrated by conservative Christians as a time of faith and tradition, America was a godless, secular wasteland for some Muslims. This makes modern secularism a primary opponent of Muslim theocrats, but secularism is of course an opponent of all supporters of theocracy -- including Christians. This appears to be the reason why some Christian theocrats try to portray secularism as an ally of Muslim extremists, completely ignoring the degree to which their own ideology mirrors that of the Muslims which they complain about.

The overwhelming focus and consensus of the atheist barrage was ultimately of one mind: to declare us UNFIT and EXCLUDE Christians from participating in American democracy and government on the basis of our religious beliefs. To that END, you twist not only history but the words of the Constitution itself... "prohibit the free excercise thereof"... In other words, as long as we keep our religious values silently locked away in our private closets or behind the closed doors of our churches, we possess "religious freedom".

But the moment that we put WORDS and ACTIONS behind our beliefs in the public arena, especially as applied to government policies, we have overstepped our boundaries and must be pushed back. Yet, we're expected to continue PAYING our taxes so that atheists, pagans and socialists can continue to IMPOSE their legislative and policy agendas without opposition, even if they violate the conscience of Christian Americans. There's a word for that: SLAVERY.

Well you know what? That's what the Islamic countries call DHIMMITUDE and the jizya tax, imposed on the "people of the book", in order to relegate them to second class citizen status under their Shari'a law. That's the nature of the SECULAR state that you atheists would impose on us HERE. Take a look in the mirror.

Well it won't fly. But it DOES explain why the ACLU, CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Democrat Party and A.N.S.W.E.R..(international socialists) have all joined arms as an AXIS OF SEDITION in this country.

Source: Sillie Lizzie

Notice the very un-subtle shifts in Sillie Lizzie's argument. First, she accuses atheists of trying to exclude Christians from participating in American democracy and government because they are "unfit." By any reasonable definition of those terms, that would have to include cases of atheists trying to keep Christians from voting and atheists trying to keep Christians from working in government. Does Sillie Lizzie offer any examples of this? No.

Curiously, the closest sort of incident I can think of is when Christians argue that atheists can't be good, moral, or trustworthy citizens. You can definitely argue that there are cases where Christians at least express the belief that atheists are "unfit" to participate in democracy or government, but do you really suppose Sillie Lizzie disagrees with them?

Lizzie then shifts her argument away from mere "participation" and to the more activist behavior of applying beliefs to government policies. Once again, we have no examples, which is especially strange because she definitely could find cases where atheists have tried to oppose Christians applying their personal religious beliefs to the government policies that are enforced on all citizens.

Then again, she could have found just as many cases where Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others have also opposed Christians trying to apply their personal religious beliefs to general government policies. In other words, what Sillie Lizzie is trying to portray as a conflict between Christians and atheists is really a conflict between a narrow segment of conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians against everyone else.

This is as it should be because "free exercise of religion" does not, cannot, and has never included the "freedom" to use the force of law to impose one's religious beliefs on others. Freedom to exercise one's religion is limited to one's private life, which is to say the sphere of personal, private action in one's own life. It does not include the actions of the government, public laws, public policies, carrying out official duties when acting as a representative of the government, etc.

To put it simply, "free exercise of religion" means you have the freedom to pray in public or hand out tracts in public, because those are ultimately the private actions of people acting as private citizens. It doesn't mean you can get the government to encourage prayer, promote your tracts, or favor any of your religious traditions over any other religious traditions. Those are not the private actions of private citizens.

So, Muslim states that impose a religious law on all citizens, even non-Muslims, is bad and secular states that refuse to allow some Christians to use the force of law to impose their beliefs on all citizens is exactly the same situation. Huh? It would be kind, I think, to say that that merely made no sense. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone expressing an idea which is so diametrically opposed to reality. A truly secular state protects the religious beliefs of everyone equally and doesn't privilege any one religion for any reason, especially if it happens to be the most powerful, popular, or vocal religion.