By Carter Bundy
The Hawaii Legislature made a mistake this week in proclaiming September 24 “Islam Day,” but not for the reasons bigots would have you believe.
I said bigots. Yup. The outcry that we can’t respect a religion because a handful of wackjob extremists is bigotry, pure and simple. We have anywhere from two to seven million American Muslims, depending on whose estimates you believe — somewhere between just over half a percent to just over 2 percent of all Americans.
Not one of them hijacked a plane or has been shown to have planned 9/11. Not one has killed as many people as good ol’ boy Tim McVeigh, or probably even David Berkowitz. There was that one incompetent shoe bomber who makes us all stink up the security line at the Sunport, but so far, he’s the highlight.
The big brush
Are there some American Muslim extremists? I’m sure there are, and we need to be on alert as with any other extremist groups. Does that mean we single out Islam as a terrible, violent religion not worthy of general respect?
Let’s answer that with another question. Remember the outrage — largely justifiable, in my opinion — about the study saying that returning veterans were potential recruiting targets for violent militias? Remember how outrageous it was to paint all vets with that label, even if the label was qualified? Remember? Exactly.
Given all the hysteria about Muslims, and Islam generally, I don’t really have a problem with anyone who wants to make a statement of respect for a group that is going through a rough period of discrimination and unfair attacks. So in a generic sense, the Hawaiian proclamation is no big deal.
What would Jefferson do?
Where Hawaii went wrong is in making a legislative statement supporting a specific religion. Islam can argue for itself, primarily through the decency of normal, everyday Americans. Non-Muslim, fair-minded Americans can see through the scapegoating, stereotyping and bigotry to judge individuals and faiths on their own merits.
Where Hawaii’s action contributes to a much greater good, if inadvertently, is expanding the understanding of the importance of separation of church and state to some Americans who have traditionally supported an intertwining of the two.
Among the gems in Thomas Jefferson’s “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” is this statement:
“… the impious presumption of legislature and ruler, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical…”
In other words, using any part of government to push for any religion is bad. And there’s no founder more central to America’s philosophical and legal underpinnings that Thomas Jefferson.
Now batting: Justice Jackson
No discussion of the separation of church and state, or free speech, is complete without the single most eloquent paragraph on the issue, written by Justice Robert Jackson (sorry, Mr. Jefferson!).
During World War II, when patriotism ran even higher than it does today, Jehovah’s Witnesses stuck to their religious principles of swearing allegiance to only, well, Jehovah. A few kids in West Virginia were punished for it, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Jackson, writing for a 6-3 majority, said it all:
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”
Both sides now
The subtle but real upside to Hawaii’s action is that those who traditionally don’t much care for the wall between church and state have been given pause — what if that wall keeps us from Mohammed, not Jesus? Suddenly the wall’s not such a bad idea.
Those of us who believe in the founders’ vision of separation of church and state have often asked our friends who believe in government promotion of religion how they would feel if the government supported a religion other than Christianity. Now we know.
It’s encouraging that deep down, we’re not all that different. Turns out almost no one likes to have their tax dollars or even cost-free action by their government taken in support of another religion.
Jefferson would frown on Hawaii’s action but enjoy the accidental heightening of awareness of one of his most treasured principles.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.