Every now and then, you’ll read something so incredibly dumb that you can’t help but marvel at the depths of its stupidity. Such is the case with a recent piece up at American Thinker. Not much thinking was done in the composition of this stomach-turning word vomit from conservative pundit Ed Straker. His fear? That taking in Muslim refugees will undermine the Judeo-Christian nature of America.
Putting aside the fact that America is not and never has been a Judeo-Christian nation, his description of why it matters that we are supposedly a Judeo-Christian nation is utterly stunning:
The basis of our Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, is Judeo-Christian values. That means a respect for private property, individual liberties, freedom of choice, and above all, religious tolerance.
That’s why in America, while Protestants were killing Catholics in Europe and vice-versa, both groups lived in peace in the 18th and 19th century. That’s why, while Jews were being exterminated in Europe in the 20th century, as they are again in the 21st, they are free to live their lives in peace in America and are valued contributors to society. We have no state religion which forces people to believe anything, and we do not kill people who fail to believe in any particular religion.
Because we have equality of the sexes, and respect for the individual, women can work if they choose and wear whatever they like. They don’t have to cover up their bodies for fear of being raped.
A free market economy was another benefit of Judeo-Christian values, celebrating the right of the individual to engage in livelihood without government intervention. Private property rights provide more protection for the individual, and the rule of law provides stability that enables millions of people to seek better lives.
Let’s chew on this for a minute, shall we?
First off, the assertion that America is “tolerant” of other religions is laughable. His entire missive condemns Islam and amounts to “Get off my lawn!” We live in a country where a 14-year-old boy was arrested for building a clock because he was brown and where mosques and temples get bombed. We’re not supposed to have a state religion, but our sex ed curricula in many places are still rooted in backwards Christian ideology about sexual expression, Creationism as an alternative to evolution is still a thing, and we’re still fighting with teachers and administrators about not proselytizing in the classroom. Religious tolerance? Give me a break.
My jaw fell open when I got to the “equality of the sexes” bit. He’s right that women can wear whatever they like, but they also get blamed for wearing whatever they like when men don’t have enough self-control to focus on school or work, and are definitely at fault when their attire causes men to really lose it and violently attack them. Can we also pause to appreciate the fact that his view of equality of the sexes is this confounding assertion that women don’t get raped in this country? I’m not sure what’s more mind boggling: that he thinks not getting raped makes women equal to men, or that he thinks women in America don’t get raped.
And that free market love letter — what a gem. It’s enough to make you wonder if Straker has ever read the Bible. Jesus asked his followers to give away everything they owned, advocated for equal pay regardless of work contribution, talked about how hard it would be for rich people to get into Heaven, and kicked the asses of merchants who used the local temple for commerce. If anything, Christ was a socialist. Throughout the rest of the Bible, God’s “chosen people” regarded people of different faiths, people of color, and women as property for use in a bartering economy. King Solomon levied insane taxes, driving his people into poverty so he could build a palace for his 700 wives and 300 concubines, all after God had supposedly blessed him with wisdom.
So much for Christianity being a great defender of capitalism.
But Straker makes it clear that logic is of little importance to him. Instead, of greater significance is the fact that there aren’t any political candidates sounding the alarm about the impending Muslim takeover:
If we are to continue being an open, tolerant nation, is that compatible with admitting large numbers of Muslims? If not, why won’t any candidate speak out on that? None have. The closest we’ve gotten is Donald Trump vaguely calling for other countries to take in more refugees. All he says about America, though, is that “we have our own problems.” For a straight talking guy, he won’t speak frankly about the dangers of Muslim immigration.
If a candidate, any candidate, spoke about the dangers of Muslim immigration, is there any doubt in your mind that he would shoot up in the polls as Trump has?
Yup, you read that right. Straker thinks Trump isn’t xenophobic enough. I shudder to think what kind of candidate he’d support and cry a little knowing that people like him vote. But, hey, there’s a debate tonight; Trump may rise to the disgusting occasion yet.