Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Religious accommodation- or surrender?

"Death to Fousesquawk!"

In a free and civilized society, should every person be free to practice his or her own religion? In my view, absolutely. On the other hand, should a society accommodate itself to a minority religion to the point that it subjugates its majority religion and its culture in the process? In my view, absolutely not. This is the question that Western Civilization is confronted with in its relationship with Muslim immigrants. It is troublesome to me that several factions of our society wish to virtually surrender to our Islamic minorities in order to buy peace. In other words, freedom from terroristic attacks.

Let me give you one example. In the Netherlands, a nation that has a growing Muslim minority, that liberal nation has seen a rise in violence perpetrated by Muslims. Dutch film producer, Theo Van Gogh, who had the effrontery to produce a film critical of Islam, was murdered, literally butchered on the streets of a Dutch city in 2004 by a Muslim immigrant in retaliation. Indignation? Only in some quarters. Just this past week, a Dutch Catholic priest, Tiny Muskens, has issued a call for Dutch churches to now refer to God as Allah, solely to appease Muslims in that country.

In another country, Scotland, in the wake of the Muslim terrorist attacks at Glascow Airport, has now passed a regulation that bans workers eating at their desks during the upcoming Ramadan holidays when Muslims are refrained from eating from sunup to sundown. In addition, offices are now expected to remove their food vending machines during Ramadan as well.

Well, you say, that would never happen in the US. Think again. Kansas City Airport has now decided to install foot baths for Muslim cab drivers. Ditto for the University of Michigan at Dearborn in consideration for their Muslim students. Does this fly in the face of the principle of separation of Church and State? Well, yes, but never mind. As you know, universities in the US are all about "Inclusion" and so forth. Of course, if Christians were to ask for a similar concession, they would be promptly refused.

Of course, you and I know that in Europe and the US, there is truly rising anger and indignation among the common folk, not only at Islamic acts of terror world-wide, but also at the arrogance and effrontery of some Muslim immigrants who have resettled in the West and expect us to adjust to their customs and religious practices. Yet, who speaks for us in our governments and universities? At least in Australia, Prime Minister, John Howard, has had the courage to publically tell Australia's Muslim immigrants that they should accept the culture and traditions of the country they have chosen to immigrate to -or return to their countries of origin.

Here in the US, in the wake of 9-11, Muslim groups, such as CAIR are now resorting to legal action against any perceived acts of discrimination against Muslims. The classic example is the lawsuit being filed by the Flying Imams, not only against US Air, but also against any passengers who had the gall to alert officials of suspicious activity by Muslim passengers. If the Muslim minorities in the West want to distance themselves from the majority populations in which they live, they are doing a pretty good job of it.

In my opinion, it comes down to this. Western societies are correct to allow immigrants to maintain and practice their religions. However, there is no obligation to allow these immigrants to subvert our own religions and traditions. We expect immigrants to respect our traditions and not demand concessions from us. Muslims who immigrate to the West are free to build their mosques and practice Islam. They should not be able to demand that we change our customs. So-called "honor killings" cannot ever be allowed in our societies. Anti-Semitism is likewise unacceptable. If we choose to drink alcohol, we will do so. Same with eating pork. They must also understand that freedom of religion also means the freedom to criticize a religion, including Islam. Christianity gets criticized every day in the US. (In Europe, it is all but forgotten.) Why should Islam be immune?

Muslim immigrants need to understand that, while their freedom to practice their religion is protected, they have no right to impose their values on their adopted countries. Those that have visions of converting the West to an Islamic society under Sharia law, should understand that they will only place themselves on the margins of our society. While we should welcome Muslims who wish to assimilate while maintaining their religion, those who do not wish to do so would be better advised to return home.


Anti-Racist Blog said...

Great article Gary.

I just posted something somewhat related.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Muslims Against Sharia denounce the decision by the Indianapolis International Airport to install footbaths. The controversy will further alienate the non-Muslim population. Footbaths will be used as urinals, which will provoke tensions, and more importantly, installing religious ritualistic devices on public property clearly violates the separation of Church and State.

That's one small step for Islamists towards Islamization of the West, one giant leap for Americans towards Dhimmitude.

Gary Fouse said...

Very well stated.

Vanesha Prescilla said...

Ayam Bagkok