In March, The Denver Post let us know that Sarah Palin will share a podium with Lt. General William G. Boykin (ret.) at "Tribute for the Troops" rally Monday at Colorado Christian University in Lakewood, CO.
But The Post didn't mention -- and neither have other media outlets -- that this isn't just any run-of-the-mill General Boykin.
It's Gen. William "Holy War" Boykin, widely known for describing the war on terror in religious terms, saying America is fighting "Satan," views President George W. Bush disavowed when Boykin first voiced them in 2003 as an active member of the U.S. Army.
He got in the most trouble for delivering a speech at a church in which he discussed his battle against a warlord in Samalia in 1993. In a widely circulated quote, Boykin said, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." Boykin later said he meant no offense against Islam and the warlord's god.
Boykin left the Army in 2007, and during his retirement, he's unapologetically stepped up his attacks on Islam.
For example, in an article published by the Centennial Institute, an arm of Colorado Christian University, where he's scheduled to stand with Palin Mon., Boykin argued that full First Amendment protections should not apply to practitioners of some forms of Islam because "Islam is not just another religion," but, "in its fullest form, Islam is a complete and totalitarian way of life." This, he writes, "is a huge problem for the nation's future."
He argues in the article, titled, "Sharia Law or the Constitution: America Must Choose," that the Koran is "unequivocal in its directive to Muslims to establish a global Islamic state" with "Sharia as the only law of the land."
"Islam does have a religious component," Boykin writes in the article, "but it has many other components, which should not be entitled to the same level of constitutional protection. Islam is foremost a legal system, called Sharia law. The Koran is unequivocal in its directive to Muslims to establish a global Islamic state, or Caliphate, over which the Islamic messiah, or Mahdi, will rule with Sharia as the only law of the land. That is the intent of many influential Islamic elements in America. But it is the exact opposite of what the First Amendment was designed to protect."
"We have taken for granted that Islam deserves the same constitutionally protected status afforded to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and other faiths," he wrote, in asserting that we should do re-think our view of Islam.
Boykin is a familiar figure at the Colorado Christian University, where he's spoken three times previously.
In an a short essay titled "A Clash of Loyalties" and published in Feb. with Boykin's article, John Andrews, President of Colorado Christian University's Centennial Institute, asks:
"Can a good Muslim be a good American," and he concluded that "the answer is not so simple."
Andrews writes that some may find Boykin's article "unwelcome or offensive" but Andrews says Boykin's "warning here is a plea of a patriot; we should listen well."
Andrews is a former GOP President of the Colorado State Senate. The President of Colorado Christian University is Bill Armstrong, a former U.S. Senator from Colorado.
In the conclusion of his article, Boykin warns:
"Americans can no longer afford to operate from a position of ignorance about Islam.... Relying on political leaders, opinion elites, and the media to inform us is unfortunately not an option. When Americans realize the threat of Islamic law, they will certainly sense a call to action. Europe failed to answer that same call [to take action against Islam], and it may now be too late for them to reverse the inevitable Islamic domination of their continent."
When you read these types of lines by Boykin, you see that his attacks on "manifestations" of Islam bleed into all people who practice any form Islam.
I've tried to figure out how he distinguishes one manifestation of Islam from another, and I don't see his he does it. So you have to interpret Boykin's views as attacks against Islam, period. How else can you read his words except as a condemnation the entire religion?
I mean, we have plenty of laws to protect us from any religious person who commits a crime, whether the criminal is Islamic or Christian, but Boykin isn't proposing using criminal code against Muslims. He's proposing a radically different approach, albeit a touch vague on specifics, targeting Islam.
Imagine the uproar if Boykin wrote, "America can no longer afford to operate from a position of ignorance about Christianity...." Or that Judaism "is a huge problem for America's future."
Seriously, what if Boykin condemned Judaism or Christianity in this way?
Can you imagine Palin getting anywhere near him, much less speak together with him at a public event? I don't think so.
Makes you wonder whether Palin agrees with Boykin.
Reporters should ask her about this Monday if not sooner. And if she disagrees with Boykin, they should ask her why she's comfortable speaking with him at all.