veiled4allah: Boykin has caused concern before

Although Lt. Gen. William Boykin's views about Muslims are getting all the attention (just see the comments thread on my previous entry about this topic), it's his views about church and state that may be of greater concern.

Boykin said that Bush should be president not because a majority of votes were cast for him but because God appointed him. How did Boykin determine this? What if Boykin determines that God has instead appointed, say, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to be president? Should those individuals then become president?

This isn't the first time Boykin has caused concern over his views on the separation of church and state. In April of this year, Boykin arranged for a group of Baptist pastors to come onto Fort Bragg, which he was serving at, for a "motivational seminar" that he and other military officers would speak to. The pastors would also get to attend weapons demonstrations and spend the night on the base. One of the invitees was concerned that the event crossed the line of what is acceptable and contacted Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which contacted the Army. As a result, the military involvement in the conference was scaled way back (you can read an article in the Associated Baptist Press in response). The New York Times had the full story (reprinted on a mailing list but with a link to the original article now locked away in paid archives)

Let's just try a little thought experiment here. The government of a predominately Muslim country appoints to a senior position a military officer who is actively involved with Islamic fundamentalist groups and invited them onto military bases for "motivational seminars" and who thinks that the current leader of his country should be there "because God appointed him" not because he was properly elected. He also talks a lot about how the real enemy is satan (to get a taste of how this would be, check out this satire piece).

It must be obvious that the same right-wingers who are defending Boykin (because they agree with his views about Islam) would be and do condemn the same behavior from Muslims. Could the double-standard be any more blatant? If it's wrong and dangerous for Muslims to do that, it's wrong for America to do that. And if it's OK for America to do that, then by what right do we protest when others do the same? Religious extremism is religious extremism whether the religion is Islam or Christianity. The same things that make it dangerous in Islam make it dangerous in Christianity. We shouldn't give it a free pass just because it's "on our side". Any Muslim who attempted to excuse that kind of rhetoric for the same reason would be roundly condemned, again by the same people who defend Boykin.