Safraz 3

Submitted by Daisy (United States), Oct 31, 2006 at 15:55

Safraz, you state, (and, for consideration of time, I will only address this point and not many of the good points you've made )

1. Just because the motto of the United States is "From many, one" does not make the culture of the people one culture. Perhaps we are using different definitions of the word "multiculturalism," but I see America as "multicultural" because it is one nation that is made up of many cultures. Yes it is the reality, but I would argue that it was also the intention - in the spirit of the pilgrims who came to escape religious persecution, so do many immigrants come today to escape political persecution (usually in the form of economic subjugation under authoritarian regimes) elsewhere. And the idea was to create a place free of discrimination based on your cultural or religious beliefs. The intention "E Pluribus Unum" or "From many, one" is clearly apparent when one understands the idea of immigrants coming to America to escape religious persecution; religious tolerance is foundational to American style democracy. Religious freedom and the practical application of tolerance in a religiously pluralistic democracy in NO way implies separate cultures.

As I have repeatedly said, ethnic diversity is a natural byproduct of American freedom, not a goal. Islam, having no separate domains for mosque and state (and for that reason being naturally totalitarian) has a special and important task in assimilating to American culture .. since we keep the domains of religion and state separated .. it's imperative that Islam takes seriously this task of separating these domains within Islam itself - otherwise Islam will fall prey to the delusion that 'might makes right'. Might most certainly does not make right - as we can see in the failure of Europe's 'multi-cultural' experiment .. which today is simply Colonialism played out between two Imperialists: Old Colonialist Europe and Imperialistic Islam.

The moral tasks of statehood, civil laws are, of course, informed by religious influences (e.g. the very idea of giving what belongs to the state - or Caesar - and to God what's Gods' was brought to us by the Jew, Jesus - and so, it's no accident that early America valued this sort of separation of spheres of influence in their social institutions) - and religious bodies are naturally influenced by the secular culture they operate within (American style Catholicism probably shares more in common with it's Protestant sects than it does, in some ways, with European's Catholicism .. or at any rate, what's left of European Catholicism). Pointedly, while Europeans and Islamically dominated states have official state religions, America has no state religion. But we do have one culture.

This unified culture can come under fire as is currently happening, for one example, with illegal "immigrants" and those who benefit in the short term by enabling the illegal invasion. This power struggle is displayed by the agenda of those who would impose Spanish as the second 'official' language of the USA. This sort of struggle, if 'won' by those who would impose Spanish .. will only enfeeble American culture ... and make second class 'ersatz citizens' out of people who inherently deserve to get in line and walk through the front door of this country with intact dignity .. legally .. the same as other immigrants. Similarly, one does no favor to Muslims by enabling this false idea of "many-cultures operating alongside each other" .. an enabling will result in a weakened social outcome for American Muslims.

Having said all this, I return to your proposition, "And the idea was to create a place free of discrimination based on your cultural or religious beliefs." and ask you to consider that the difficulty you have in separating 'cultural' out from 'religious' has more to do with the lack of discreet domains within Islam itself than anything else. At the end of the day, we can discuss, for instance, Islamic 'secular culture' as opposed to 'religious culture' and how they interact in complementary ways (or not). However, that day seems not to have discernibly dawned .. and this is a real and substantial problem.

The Islamic process of separation of mosque and state must begin in a conscientiously determined fashion and American Muslims are patriotically obligated to this process. I strongly suspect the devotees of Islam of believing this problem of freedom will be resolved once they become demographically dominate .. passively waiting for the time to come when Islam can dominate .. without having to first become a religion able to operate freely in a free society. This will most probably play out in Europe - where 'multi-cultures' are routinely held as 'separate but unequal' within the dominate culture (importantly, an idea not foreign to Islam) .

It will most definitely not be a welcome (or functional) solution in the USA - where freedom and equality are held much more dearly .. and where, very significantly, Might Does Not Make Right (as it does in European style democracies and under Sharia law as well). In the USA, Muslims will have to give to Caesar what is Caesars' and to God what is Gods' .. just like everyone else must. We are, after all is said an done, ONE nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. One nation .. one culture. The process of differentiating mosque from state must begin immediately, if not sooner.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".