Beware the freedom to kill the freedom of religion Part 2 of 2

The irony facing America (and some other non-Islam-based societies) is its legacy of supporting the freedom of worship of any religion, even if that religion contradicts the concept of separation of church and state.

Putting the irony in simple terms: Islam can be practiced in America even though in practice, more often than not, it refutes the separation of church and state, a principle that forms the very foundation of America.

Here’s the rub. The Constitution does not have anything to say about the state preempting religion. The First Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

However, as the quotes above make clear and as subsequent court rulings have stated, America’s system is built around the principle of church and state separation. As one example, in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878), the Supreme Court held “religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment.” The Court went further in later years. Justice Hugo Black wrote, “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”

Here’s the second rub. In most parts of the Quran I have read (or read about), all is subservient to Allah. So what? In the Bible, all is subservient to God. However, Islamic theocracies place these passages into practice. Secular democracies do not.

I have been taken to task on these assertions. My critics mention Turkey and Indonesia as examples of countries that successfully keep a wall between the two. To some extent, yes. But in Turkey, its political system is evolving toward a more direct role of religion in the affairs of the state. And for most parts of the Muslim world, as in Iran, religion reigns supreme.

It is with regret that I say: The practice of Islam is at odds with and contradictory to the political, religious, and social fiber of America. I welcome those who can correct my supposition. I wish it were otherwise.

If you do come forth, I ask for opinion and facts. As said (paraphrased) by someone much wiser than I, “You are entitled to your own set of opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.” I am seeking dialogue about this subject. I’d rather hear “cons” to my stand than “pros.” I can learn more from the former than the latter, but I welcome support as well.

I also welcome those of the Islamic faith who adopt the principle of the separation of religion and state. However, those who do not wish to do so are not compatible with our society. If they do not seek to overturn our government, perhaps there are ways we can help the immigrants without jeopardizing our ways of life — but joining religion and government is not one of them.

The Melting Pot in Danger

This week one of my friends and I exchanged emails about the mass migration of refugees into Europe, and eventually to other places in the world. The discussion began in the context of the Paris attacks (including the earlier murders of satirical cartoonists). I expressed concern about recent urban violence that has been precipitated by militant Muslims. My friend wrote back to remind me that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. He said (paraphrased), Let us not fall into the trap that fewer than 1 percent of Muslims are of this breed. I agreed, and it is much less than 1 percent. It is a miniscule part of the Islamic population.

Nonetheless, the statement my friend made is disingenuous, because it distorts reality. The desperate people leaving their dysfunctional worlds are not coming to, say, America seeking our way of life. They are seeking to carve out their own way of life in America. So have many others. The Irish. The Swedes. The Mexicans. They etched out their own miniature Irelands, Swedens, and Mexicos.

However, the difference between this migration and those in the past is that the Islamic immigrants, if they are to adhere to their religion, relegate the state to that of their religion. Taken in modern context: The practice of Islam is at odds with America’s political/religious milieu. Or for that matter, any country that practices democracy, and not theocracy.

The skeptical reader of this essay — from a writer who is a supporter of religious freedom — can say my suppositions are academic, theoretical. I need only ask this skeptic to surf the Web for what some militant Muslims are saying: They intend to take over heretofore secular democracies and replace them with Islamic caliphates (or a world-wide caliphate). It is their belief that they are ordained by their Quran to do so — violently if necessary. This brand of Islam is not interested in proselytizing; it is demanding capitulation. Still skeptical? Start your surfing with Belgium, then France, then the Boston Marathon — on and on.

Thus far, this small population has resorted to weapons of limited destruction. Unless the cultural and religious climates of this world change over the next decades, it will be only a matter of time before weapons of mass destruction find their way into the hands and bomb-belts of this disaffected population. As recent events prove, they will have no compunction about blowing themselves up. The more mayhem, the better.

Melting Pot Disintegration and Terrorism

Most of the major religions of the world have managed to evolve beyond their violent origins. Most religions have been able to “tame themselves” in relation to how they guide their flocks in dealing with other humans.

Below is a quote I make in my book, "2084 and Beyond," from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel (New York: Free Press, imprint of Simon & Schuster, 2007), np.

“I think fortunately the majority of Muslims today will not commit acts of terrorism. But to argue that there is nothing in Islam that leads to violence—that would be a weak argument to a false argument, because if you define Islam as 'submission to the will of Allah,' then you find out what that submission means…you find out that…the sixth obligation is to convert others to Islam, first by peaceable means, then by violent means. So when Islam is violent—you can’t argue…that it’s not a violent religion. Then you will say, 'What about Judaism? What about Christianity?' Now, adherents of these religions over the centuries have been pacified to understand and accept the separation of the divine and the worldly…Nowhere in the Muslim world has that profound pacification of Islam…taken place. And I think that is the difference.”

Integration of Cultures and Jobs

The media’s take on the current unrest and terrorism in Europe faults the state because (a) it has not properly integrated the native and immigrant cultures with each other, and (b) the state has not created jobs for its incoming populace.

The media overwhelmingly criticizes countries such as France, for not providing jobs for the Muslim youths who live in their country. This situation leads to disaffected young people shooting up the population. But they do not kill a country’s leaders who are thought by the gun-toters to be the creators of mass unemployment and pervasive inequality. Mindlessly on the part of the murderers, the people they kill might very well be in the same boat as they.

Beyond the jobless issue, the radical Muslims, sitting at a café in Brussels, Belgium, proclaim they are going to replace the Belgium government with an Islam-like caliphate. Those who convert to Islam will be spared. Those who do not will be eradicated. These statements are made with impunity because of the rights of free speech.

Irony in action: The right of free speech gives a declared potential killer the right to practice a religion that will deny others the right of free speech — and the right to live.

Ironic payback: Imperialism Redux

As another irony: The aftermaths of World War I and World War II resulted in the triumphant Western nations subjugating, humiliating, and disemboweling what once were natural and prideful tribal turfs, boundaries that separated factions and kept them more-or-less away from one another’s throats. The dysfunction spawned by the creation of artificial national boundaries led to many of the modern-day Middle East disorders, creating nation-states in which the citizens have no more in common than night and day.

We read the history of how England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and other imperial powers dispossessed and exploited the people living in the Middle East (and other parts of the world such as the profound tragedies associated with the creation of Pakistan). However, Europe was the more recent colonist. Earlier, the Ottoman Empire; before that, Russia; along with Sweden, the Mongols, on and on. Subjugation is the legacy we humans leave behind us.

For now, the Islamic militants must surely be thinking — besides establishing Islam as the worldwide religion — it’s pay-back time.

First Generation and Later Generation Immigrants, and the Disproportionate Ratio Effect

The well-intentioned thoughts of people, such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler, likely see the signs being held by the immigrants trekking away from their deviant homelands, “We love Germany!” “Thank you, France!” The signs are carried by a first generation of mass-immigration refugees. The next generations, admittedly a few, will not be carrying signs, they will be carrying guns. The recent Paris killings are a harbinger of things to come.

These peoples’ immediate relief of having survived will be surpassed by unsuccessful efforts to live in vastly different cultures. Some will integrate successfully. Others will not. Some members of future generations will not understand the gratitude of their parents, or the fact that neither they nor their parents can find jobs. Meanwhile, the clerics of their faith will pass on the tenets of Islam. It happened before. It is happening now. With the overwhelming influx of immigrants, what is to prevent it from continuing to happen? No wonder subsequent generations of Islamic adherents become dissatisfied and aspire, with religious zeal, to become ambassadors for Allah.

These thoughts lead me back to the discussion I had with my friend about his correct assertion that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. As he said, let us not fall into the trap that fewer than 1 percent of Muslims are of this breed.

I responded, “And let us not fall into the trap of the Disproportionate Ratio Effect: With the advent of modern weapons, a few can do great harm to many. A very few, much less than the 1 percent you cite, are doing great harm.”

It is the Disproportionate Ratio Effect that I find disturbing. That and the additional fact that a few (again, a very few) Muslims are bent on having Islam assume both church and state functions for nations throughout the world. With such ideologues roaming around, with the increased availability of weapons of astounding lethal power, the idea of freedom of religion (the freedom to practice any religion) can very well translate into the freedom to eliminate the freedom of religion.

Even moderate Muslims, if they follow the Islamic creeds, cannot disavow that their religion is an antithetical philosophy to that of America. I’ve had discussions with Muslim friends about this issue. Some have tacitly purged this aspect of Islam from their practice of their religion, a price they say they are willing to pay for living in America.

Another Muslim, wise beyond his years said he liked the philosophy of the Dalai Lama: If modern tenets prove that age-old religions have outmoded models, ones that do not work in an ever-changing world, the religions should adapt. Throughout the past several centuries, most of the major religions have adapted to a changing and more knowledgeable world. Judaism, Christianity, even a conservative branch of Christianity named Catholicism have made these adaptations.

Islam has not. Until it does, it is destined to become increasingly unwelcome to the parts of the world that allow the freedom to worship but with the belief that this worship cannot undermine the government of the nation in which it is practiced.

The Other Side of the Coin

America’s native citizens must also continue to insist on the separation of church and state. Some special interest groups lobby Congress and local legislatures for “bringing back religion,” as if it had somehow become lost. They contend that America is slouching toward godlessness and the solution is to inculcate religion into government.

I respect the heartfelt beliefs of these citizens, some of whom are my relatives and friends. But I believe their approach to governing America is as dangerous as any other religious creed that espouses the commingling of prayer and politics. America’s history — and many centuries of humans’ history before America even existed — has taught us that this separation must be absolute.

Several years ago, I could not have conceived that I would even consider writing this article. Even now, I key-in the words with the knowledge that I might be branded by many as a xenophobe. I trust those readers who have followed my writings over these many years will know I am not such a person. I greatly favor legal immigration for those who pledge allegiance to America’s laws. I welcome immigrants of all stripes to my country but with one caveat: “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” That declaration is the story of America.

Uyless Black is an award-winning author who has written 40 books on a variety of subjects. His latest book is titled “2084 and Beyond,” a work on the origins and consequences of human aggression. He resides in Coeur d’Alene.