The Unique Issue of Tolerating Islam

Religious freedom is a given and a must in this country - and I would personally like to see it extended to the globe. But for all that said, we're seeing an absolute stress test on the level of tolerance that can be offered when it comes to Islam, and why? It really is a unique case if its to be taken at face value, because it is fundamentally asking to be approached differently from other religions. So this ushers the question: can the same level of tolerance be shown to one that admittedly asks to be treated differently than its cohorts?

I am in no way an advocate of in any way changing the First Amendment, and this should be considered first and foremost when understanding my writing. But just as importantly, one has to ask the consequence of the unfettered degree in which the Western World has begun to hand the reins over to the Islamic World, presumably on the grounds of an apology for a thousand year old slight. In the West, there's no shortage of excuses, ranging from the Crusades to the Inquisition, to the notion that we're raping the Middle East's natural resources and depriving them of their human right to prosperity. Therefore, it is reasoned, we need to remain obediently apologetic towards the Middle East.

That appears to be the thought process anyhow, and it is really the only way I can imagine that the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, and others could so willingly hand themselves over to people on the platform of double standards. I don't believe it necessary to waste time explaining the historical errors made in the claims that the West owes an apology to the East, as I've devoted nearly 200+ articles to the topic, however there is something to be said about how this is greatly affecting our current mindset, and it is important to understand how this historical distortion is directly impacting both foreign policy, and the topic at hand. Which is, specifically, does the First Amendment extend to everything that Muslims are asking for?

When the Founding Fathers drafted the idea of freedom of religion, it has largely been imagined as meaning one has the right to practice their own faiths as they see fit. This means you can dress how you want, eat what you want, marry how you want, worship who you want, and pray how you want. There will be no state sponsored religion, there will be no clamp down on what one can practice, assuming that it is in the realm of their own particular actions, not to impose on others.

But a recent news report that comes out of India fundamentally explains how this notion of freedom to practice has been stretched like Taffy. According to Rediff India, Muslim communities are rejecting Constitutional tenants and laws, on the grounds that they forbid them from practicing rights granted them in Sharia.

Among those specific laws include that a girl cannot be married until she's 18, and the notion that marriages required certification. Specifically, they state, ""Any marriage in Islam is certified by three people including a Kazi, and there is no need for any other certification."

Another member of an all Islamic board of law stated, "Muslims are governed by their own rules which are different from the rules of other communities."

The rationale is nothing new: they believe that religious tolerance requires that we allow Muslims to live under the rules of Sharia Law. This creates a complex problem, in that Muslims attempt to take the notion of religious freedom, and apply to it a judiciary standard that may very well run contradictory to the West's - and in the case of women's and human rights, this certainly appears to be the case.

Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism...Socialism, none of these religions come with any legislative or judicial baggage. Well, maybe Socialism does, but I digress.

Christianity actually has specific scriptural decrees ordering its followers to obey secular law, and to abide by the wishes of the current political regime. The notion that Christian life needs to be violently imposed on anyone does not run congruently with the claims of Jesus, who famously said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's."

None of these faiths demand that a nation either create a special rule set for them, or let them create their own rule set, and to act autonomously outside the normal realm of behavior. In this realm, Islam finds itself alone.

Consider the Sharia Courts in Canada, Islamberg, New York, and the increasingly hard line Western censorship of "controversial" topics, such as the U.K. banning virtual "Three Little Pigs" books for fear of angering Muslim sensitivities, or, even more harrowing, U.K. schools dropping the subject of the Holocaust because local mosques teach that it never happened. In essence, as the Muslim population of a nation increases, the level of traditional cultural values erodes equivalently, as it is replaced with Islamic culture.

There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to carve out their own area that reflects their culture - after all, the United States is the Great Melting Pot of cultures. But there is a law of the land that cannot be asked to be changed on the basis of religious freedom - one has to either obey the secular law, or they need to go find a country (and there are many at this point) that run congruently with your cultural thought.

Therefore Islam truly does present a unique conundrum: are all these absurd notions protected by the First Amendment? I truly believe not - the idea that one is required to practice Sharia Law and overcome the power of the Constitution runs fundamentally counter to everything I believe this country is founded on.

But how does one overcome the calls of racism and bigotry when they state the damnable term that we will not tolerate Islamism? Especially when close allies, such as the U.K., will bury their heads in the sand, and deny the very nature of the threat, by referring to Islamic terror (which can and consistently is justified by religious leaders) as "anti-Islamic terror"?