Selective Constitutional Rights

I am alarmed at the continued debate over General Boykin’s comments. James Carroll of the Boston Globe criticizes Boykin’s religious beliefs, “Boykin’s remarks can only inflame Arab perceptions.” He concludes by saying: “In the 21st century, exclusivist religion, no matter how ”mainstream” and no matter how muted the anathemas that follow from its absolutes, is a sure way to religious war.”

Never mind that after 200 years, this country has not started a religious war. Carroll’s point seems to be that General Boykin should not state his religious beliefs because it offends others and they may attack us for those beliefs.

This point is ridiculous. This country was founded through war to protect the right to practice religion freely (among other reasons). This is one of the rights that was important enough to fight for. Now our media expects us to give it up so as not to offend Islamicist.

He also infers the solution is to reject Christianity. Since Christianity is exclusivist and that philosophy only leads to war, then – following the logic – we must reject Christianity if we want to avoid a war with Islamicist.

Why is it Christians must give up their faith? The Islamicist surely won’t. Again we are in the position of rejecting our right to worship freely. People quote the saying that they are willing to die to protect other’s rights to free speech. Journalists are willing to go to jail to protect their rights under freedom of the press. Why are they so willing to deny the right to freely practice our religious beliefs?