Drawing the Line

Geert Wilders is having problems exercising his right to free speech when that speech is critical of Islam. His problems are part of a larger problem for all of us.

Commenting on Mr. Wilders, Gary Fouse wrote:

[…] In America, everyone can practice their religion freely, including Muslims. It is when it becomes a political ideology preaching hate that we draw the line. […]

Mr. Fouse touches on the central issue concerning America and Islam. Indeed, the central issue concerning the evolving relationship between America and religion: what limits do we want to place on the freedom to practice religion?

The secular version of that question is: what limits do we want to place on the freedom to promote political ideologies? In the case of Islam, both questions must be asked. They must be asked because the limits of these freedoms are being tested. Purposefully.

We must pay attention to these freedoms. Asserting them keeps our individual citizens free to act and think as they wish—a kind of freedom that should be on the world’s endangered species list. Acting against abuses of these freedoms protects the whole democratic enterprise which is America. As Mr. Fouse points out, we need to draw the line between freedoms we want to protect and abuses we must prosecute.

How to do it?

It’s not rocket science, but it must be done with care—we are dealing with fragile and precious national assets—our freedoms and our global reputation. No new legislation is needed. Islam does not need to be singled out, our laws apply to all religions. We simply need to enforce the laws we already have. We have some experience with this.

There was a time when American Mormons openly practiced polygamy. It was part of their church law, part of their covenant with their god. They passionately believed in it. But in America, secular law takes precedence over religious law and most Mormons gave up their illegal practice.

Islamic law (Sharia) is incompatible with our secular law in:

• Advocating the forcible overthrow of any national government that does not submit to Islam (Jihadism)
• The lack of separation of religion and state
• Demands from Islamic law on the allegiance of the American Muslim citizen
• The doctrine of Islamic supremacy
• Muslim treatment of non-believers
• Blasphemy penalties
• Gender inequity
• Persecution of homosexuals
• Lack of freedom of speech
• Lack of academic freedom
• Lack of artistic freedom
• Lack of freedom of conscience

Looking at this list, even a non-lawyer can see the cultural and legal chasm between American law and Islamic law. It’s not rocket science.

Are there Muslims who do not follow every command of Islamic law? Yes, as surely as there are Catholics who do not follow all of Canon law. Are there Muslims who are actively opposed to the present interpretation of Islamic law and want to change it? Yes, Muslims Against Sharia and American Islamic Forum for Democracy are two such groups. We should support them and groups like them in their efforts to create a version of Islam that is acceptable in a liberal democracy.

Unreformed Islamic law does not qualify to be part of a liberal democracy. It is more logical to treat it as a competitor than a component of America.

Originally posted on 5/3/09