To read the bulk of the letters to the editor in the New York Times, Americans not only must extend full Constitutional rights to the worshippers of Islam (as they must), but they also better like it. Not being enthusiastic about the prominent physical manifestation of the religion in a neighborhood that witnessed the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent victims by that religion’s followers has been called evidence of bigotry, mindless hate, and “Islamophobia,” as if there are no rational and reasonable justifications for regarding Islam as a less than positive addition to the United States culture.
On the contrary, there are many tenets of Islam that are directly antithetical and in opposition to core American values. The religion does not acknowledge the separation of church and state, for example, holding that the governments of man should be expressions of the goals of religious law. Speech against the Prophet and the faith is not allowed, and may be punished. Women are explicitly designated as deserving fewer rights than men, who can practice polygamy and beat their wives under certain circumstances. The religion condemns homosexuality. Islamic law is directly contrary to American prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment. Even more troubling than all this (which is troubling enough), Islam does not accept that society and religion have to adapt and change with the progress of human wisdom and enlightenment. The religion was perfected long ago, according to Islamic theology, and thus need not bend or change. This makes Islam doctrinaire rather than ethical. Because it is “the one true religion,” the goal of Islam is to become the dominant, and ideally the only religion. This, of course, is directly contrary to American ideals of pluralism, autonomy, and free choice.
Islam doesn’t particularly frighten me. I do not recoil in horror at every crescent moon or reference to Muhammad. Many conservative Christian sects have similar attitudes and beliefs. I don’t like or respect these, either, any more than I respect or like the Communist Party, or the governments of North Korea, Somalia, China and Iran. I agree with and admire America’s unique insistence that all beliefs and points of view can express themselves without government censorship, and that people can belong to whatever groups or religions they please. Nothing in the Constitution, however, says I have to enjoy what they say or stand for, and I can certainly demonstrate my contempt, dislike or disrespect for their beliefs by saying that I wish they’d be quiet, practice them somewhere else, or get some common sense.
I would indeed be a bigot if I automatically hated, disliked, or showed disrespect for the individuals who hold these political and religious views. Sometimes it is difficult not to treat the believer like the belief, but the fact is that many Muslims don’t accept all of their religion’s teachings, just as many Catholics accept homosexuality, divorce, birth control and pre-marital sex. If America means anything, it means giving each individual the chance to be treated according to his or her conduct and the composition of his or her character. Even then, there is no ethical principle that requires me to like everyone. A reasonable level of tolerance is essential because it allows us to be civil (Note: burning an individual’s holy book is not civil) to those we don’t like, even when we have a good reason, or twenty good reasons. Sometimes, of course, what we think is a good reason just isn’t. Tolerance helps protect us from being unfair.
The rabidly politically correct seem to believe that a society’s members should not express dislike and disapproval of beliefs, habits, traditions and practices that violate or even threaten that society’s core values. Wrong. A culture has an obligation to constantly test the validity of its own values, but when it has concluded, in the light of wisdom and experience, that a value is right, then it members must make it clear to those embracing contrary values within the society that their values are not welcome, appreciated, endorsed or appropriate. If they are legal, we will allow them, but we do not have to pretend we like them.
I may have to tolerate you making your daughter wear a burqa, but I’m going to criticize you for doing it–civilly, of course–and it may stop us from being friends. I don’t care if your religion allows you to beat your wife: if I witness it, I’m swearing out a complaint. I don’t respect men who beat their wives and subjugate their daughters, and I don’t respect any religion that tells them that they can. And maybe if I and a lot of other people make that point strongly, persuasively and loudly enough, such men will accept and follow their adopted nation’s cultural values. Because, you know, ours are better. Never be ashamed to say so, for not only is it right to say so, it is necessary if those cultural values are to prevail.
In some respects, the controversy over public hostility to Islam mirrors the debate over illegal immigration. It is completely appropriate for us to demonstrate, in our laws and attitudes, that those who enter the country illegally are not welcome, and those who ascribe this attitude to bigotry are either intellectually dishonest or deluded. Similarly, when a rigid theology that rejects basic American values attempts to exercise influence on our culture, there is nothing bigoted or intolerant about resisting it.
It is not unethical to dislike Islam and express that dislike, as long as that expression is legal, non-violent, fair, civil, and reasonable.
Ethics Alarms 
The beauty of the US is we’re free to dislike things as much as we want but we have the freedom to say and do the things we want. I despise the KKK yet would defend their right to free speech as much as I’d expect others to defend mine. Respect doesn’t mean like and we are free to express our displeasure in ways that do not involve infringing on civil liberties.
That’s what’s so great about living here. Having lived elsewhere, it’s actually pretty special.
with freedom also comes responsibility. If you do not want to be labelled a “bigot” then learn before you critisize…..
polygamy—-is allowed—but NOT encouraged in the Quran. Marriage provides legal protection to a woman—-that is why polygamy is better than pre-marital, or extra-marital relationships—which can leave women with the consequences (children) while men avoid its resposnibilities……
abuse—is NOT allowed in Islam.
Burqa—while cultural nuances of ones country should be respected—women in a free society should be able to choose what they wear—-and many young women choose to wear the Burqa out of SELF-RESPECT because they place a high value on what they, as intelligent human beings can contribute to society—and not simply as decorations to be admired……..
I beg to differ on the issue of beating and punishment of women. Women are required to wear burqas in many Muslim countries—it is not an option. No intelligent woman would wear such a thing unless she had to—but these are very entertaining Muslim rationalizations: I salute you. “Cultural nuance” is a terrific euphemism for “subjugation.”
Who said polygamy was required? If it is allowed, it is per se degrading for women—unless women are allowed multiple husbands (They are not.)
Is “anon” a traditional Islamic name? Gutsy. What are you ashamed of? At any rate, we don’t allow “anons” here. Call it tolerance.
We’re going into “No True Scotsman” territory here; who better represents Islam: the trendy Turkish girl from Istanbul whose token headscarf doesn’t even fully cover her hair, or the conservative Pashtun woman living in a village where the term “Enlightenment” doesn’t exist?
Both—but if the Pashtun woman is a true Muslim, that tells me what I want to know about the religion. Who is the true Hitler: the one who was (supposedly)kind to animals and children, or the one who had people murdered? Maybe both—it doesn’t matter, if the dark side is dark enough.
Did we end Hitler because he was evil or because there were reports of genocide? I fear it is the latter which suggests we would have welcomed a world with an evil man and hateful theology.
I don’t think it was either. Hitler declared war on us. A majority of the country probably would have supported letting him ravage Europe….a good example of how the public doesn’t always know best.
Tim,
We ended Hitler because he stood in the way of American and American-allied interests. Discovery of the camps was made surprisingly early in the war effort and yet the US (and her allies) showed little concern. The same goes for the specifically anti-semitic immigration policies at the time limited the number of Jewish refugees who could immigrate.
Jack,
Your take on Islam is patently false. While I would agree there are a number of troubling passages in the Qu’ran (and even more troubling ways in which some have chosen to enact them) but it is no more or less a religion of violence than any other.
Soldiers flying under a Christian flag have massacred entire countries and oppressed millions, all of whom Christ supposedly died to save (see: The Defenestration of Praque, The Spanish Inquisition). Jews have overseen the deaths and forced conversions of untold thousands as well (see: the Maccabees, the Arab/Israeli conflict). Buddhists and Hindus have been involved in or responsible for countless terrorist guerrilla campaigns (see: the “liberation” of Tibet). Sadly, atheism offers little solace as millions more were murdered during the Five Year Plans in Russia and mass enslavement under other Communist regimes. Even those “American values” you laud so much were used (or mis-used) to justify Manifest Destiny, slavery, and Japanese internment camps).
History is replete with examples of humanity perpetrating acts of depravity and violence on each other if the worst parts of ours nature are left un-checked; and it is truly frightening. The kind of hate that causes one person to seek harm against their neighbor needs no religious or moral justification because it’s ingrained in us (or at least some of us).
As I’ve said before, what bothers me is that so many in this country seem quite eager to point out the faults of Islam while sweeping their own ideological messes quietly under the rug, which is why I consider it to be bigoted. Those involved in 9/11, Hamas, and the Intifadas are using their religion to promote violence and fear the same way others fanatics of other faiths have done since the dawn of time.
In your eagerness to demonstrate the evils existent in Islam you seem to have conveniently overlooked the rest of humanity in the process. That’s why it’s unfair ..
-Neil
Neil, I did not focus primarily on the violence. Focus on the subjugation of women if you like, or the resistance to change, or the commitment to aggressively overcoming other faiths. The religion is incompatable with American values. Individuals who don’t follow those tenets to live here is a good reflection on them, but it doesn’t change the religion. Your comment is pure deflection and rationalization. When sufficiant tenets of a religion are illegal in our culture, that should be a tip-off. It is mystifying to me that so many smart and ethical people think making excuses for a medieval and destructive religion, that can create a nation like Iran, Afghanistan or Somalia…or Saudi Arabia… is the “right” thing to do.
For me, it’s more about that on paper, I find all 3 Abrahamic religions (and various religious tenets in general) to be ethically questionable to a similar degree, even on matters such as women’s rights (I’ve read the Bible and the Koran, though I’ll admit to my lack of knowledge regarding the Talmud and the Hadiths). Obviously, in practice, Christians and Jews have done a much better job on average of adapting to modern ethics. I wonder if it’s because the Bible’s and Torah’s semi-allegorical and more literary nature allows for more freedom of interpretation than the Koran’s browbeating sermonizing. Regardless, I think a better debate is how to force Islam into its own Enlightenment (given the political and economic nature of most Muslim countries, not tomorrow, though one could argue Turkey, being more Westernized and prosperous than most, has come surprisingly close from time to time).
I do agree that we should dislike and reject the most backwards tenets of Islam, in the same way we’ve rejected some of the more backward tenets of Judaism and Christianity. Let’s just not throw out the baby with the bathwater by driving away the Muslims who can reform it from the inside.