A Troubling Disrespect for Religious Toleration
By Anthony Gregory • Sunday July 17, 2011 3:27 PM PDT • 23 Comments
If there is any American principle I have taken for granted since I was a little boy, it is freedom of religion. And indeed, this is one area where the United States comes close to living up to its professed values. Most of the world has state-sanctioned religions and churches. In the United States, ever since the American Revolution and even before, the doctrines of religious liberty have animated the nation’s political ideals. Notably, Thomas Jefferson’s grave does not mention his presidency, yet it boasts the man’s involvement in securing the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.
Yet something nasty has happened in this country, particularly since 9/11, and it became worse recently. I’m referring to a growing threat of intolerance against Muslims. We saw it in the controversy over the Cordoba House in downtown Manhattan—the so-called “Ground-Zero Mosque” debate. The Bush administration was careful rhetorically to oppose the demonization of Muslims, thus neutralizing the most vociferous religious bigots partisan to that presidency and holding their discontent beneath the surface. No longer restrained by the desire not to gainsay a president they favored for political reason, the peddlers of this ugliness have now been unleashed. Under Obama one can more easily claim to oppose the president and accuse him of being insufficiently anti-Muslim. And we see the hatred now in the musings of a presidential candidate being seriously touted by many conservatives as a potentially great alternative to Barack Obama, or other Republicans.
Herman Cain was asked to clarify his position on local prohibitions on mosques. He reiterates that communities have the right to enact such bans, out of concern that an increased Islamic presence will bring Sharia law into their neighborhoods. He has also confirmed he would be uncomfortable with Muslims in the cabinet.
This notion of his that American Islam represents an institutional threat to liberty is particularly dangerous, and its growing popularity should disturb us all. First of all, the notion that Islam itself is inherently legally prescriptive and its growth in the United States will bring with it a hijacking of the legal system is a misunderstanding. The fear of Sharia is also, in itself, misguided, as it does not always take on the medieval character often associated with it, any more than the common law is always bound by the punitive measures common in England in the Middle Ages. Sharia law looks different in every nation. Even if it somehow grew in the United States, it would not resemble what is seen in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. In fact, the existence of religious legal institutions is not in itself a threat to freedom, but can to the contrary be compatible with liberty, coexisting with a secular legal system so long as it is adhered to voluntarily and the principles of subsidiarity are respected.
Yet this is all beside the point, since Mosques are not the same as Sharia law in the first place. Any attempt at any level of government to ban places of worship of any kind are at least as much a threat to freedom and the American way of life, insofar as this is a noble, admirable thing, as is any plot concocted in the name of Islamist extremism. Such attempts run counter to property rights as well, and for that reason too should be adamantly resisted.
Religion is a deeply intimate and profound part of people’s lives, and freedom and toleration are absolutely fundamental to any free civilization. The reason the United States has done so well compared to the Old World in respect to its various religious factions—the reason religious peace characterizes America whereas religious sectarianism and strife plague much of the world—is that the American tradition is one of religious freedom, toleration, and separation of church and state. Efforts to prohibit the practice of Islam are not only counterproductive, pushing religious practices underground, radicalizing Muslims and leading to increased animosity; they are an evil in themselves. That a presidential candidate who so openly rejects the grand American heritage of religious liberty is so passionately favored by large portions of the electorate marks a very disturbing trend.
Tags: American History, Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Conservatism, Culture, Liberalism, Liberty, Personal Liberty, Philosophy, Property Rights, Religion, The State 
Shariah law is completely incompatible with American law and has no place in America. In a country that pioneered women’s rights as well as gay rights, to even suggest Shariah could have a place is to be so ignorant as to demand your silence.
Shariah law would exact the death penalty on all gays. Do you find that acceptable? Would it even be acceptable to you if it was acceptable within the Muslim community and applied only to Muslims?
I don’t support Herman Cain, but he is absolutely right to point out that for many Muslims (certainly not all) Shariah law and adherence to Islam is a greater responsibility than allegiance to the American Constitution.
This has nothing to do with religious tolerance, and for you to characterize it as such is to play directly into the hands of those who desire to subvert American law and fundamentally alter the character of America.
Antimedia | Jul 17, 2011 | Reply
Fox news quote:
“Cain again argued that residents were objecting to “the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law. That’s the difference between any one of our other traditional religions.”
America’s oldest bigotry–anti-Catholicism (“it came over on the first boats”) rested on a similar accusation that Catholics were loyal to a foreign power (the Pope). Even John Locke, in his famous “Treatise on Religious Toleration,” excluded two groups from toleration: atheists and Catholics, precisely for that reason. I’m living in a county where Catholics and Protestants bloodied the soil in the 1920s. (Disclosure: I’m Catholic and the book is “Bloody Williamson”).
At the same time, ZONING has been used in ways that prohibit churches from getting permits (for choice property) or expanding; and eminent domain used to bulldoze existing churches. It’s often difficult to tell if there is a religious animus. The primary motive seems to be: the greedy hand of government (religious establishments are not taxable).
Here is a weird twist: an alleged Shariah-friendly mortgage program?? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tim-pawlenty-gop-presidential-hopefuls-blast-sharia-law/story?id=13238930
Anyway, the transcript refers to some case in Murfreesboro. Anything on that? A zoning decision or what? I’ve surfed and surfed and gotten hints of it but not much else.
Sounds like Cain has “clinging to guns and religion” moment (although Obama overcame far more troubling stuff — 20 years of Jeremiah Wright sermons!). Let’s hope SOMEONE can get elected in 2012 whose name is not Barack Obama — for the sake of the economy, not religion (of course).
Jonathan Bean | Jul 17, 2011 | Reply
Anthony:
As Rodney Stark’s excellent research also shows, competition is as healthy for religion and the service of faith as it is for everything else—supermarkets, education, etc. Where a particular sect or religion is officially “recognized” or subsidized by the state, it withers (e.g., churches, state-subsidized, across Europe today) or is corrupted (e.g., the German state church under the Nazis). And arguably, theocracies anywhere.
Mary L. G. Theroux | Jul 17, 2011 | Reply
The problem with the Mosque at Ground Zero is not a religious one, but a social one. Those who wish to build the Mosque so near the site where an extremist group of the same religion killed thousands is insensitive. The government should not prevent them from building it there, don’t get me wrong, but they should know that some ignorant people might vandalize the establishment. It would be wise not to build it, but the government should not intervene because the government has no business in such matters.
Jeff | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
A major flaw in this blog, Islam and the libertarian views do not mix.
Islam’s core value is submission. Under Islam there is no freedom except the word of their god.
Our founding fathers would have flipped their lid over the states or federal government banning faith, but Islam isn’t a faith, but a political movement with a cover story claiming its a faith. Our founding fathers would have kept England from attempting to build a base of operation during our early years(1781 to 1812).
Look at many nations with Islam as the leading faith, freedom is gone, and the common citizens are uneducated thus unable to throw off the shackles of their slaver.
Loki | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
I couldn’t disagree more.
Stop thinking about Islamism as a religion. That helps a lot. It’s a CULT. A Cult of undemocratic repression, oppression, mysogeny, hatred and murder. Now why on earth would we allow that? Did you also sit on the other side of The Cold War?
Everything about Islam as it is practised in every Muslim dominated country is inimical to our modern secular western democracy. It’s 600 years behind us in human development.
It’s the literal opposite of Libertarian and some people need to sit up, wake up and take a pill.
Unless you vote for treating women like rats and exterminating folk of alternative sexuality.
Stewie | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
@Johnathan > You state “Sounds like Cain has ‘clinging to guns and religion’...”
So what if Cain is clinging to guns. I really wish people would stop lumping those two together. It only makes it harder for us to keep our 2nd Amendment in tact.
There are only a couple of the GOP contenders that are not Right Wing Extremists. Full of “Do as I say, not as I do.” And just as bad, if not worse, than the ‘evil-doers’ from whom they claim to want to protect us.
I believe this Country is getting ready to go through some very tough times. I just hope I survive and it out to the other side.
T.E.Finnegan | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
Thank you for writing this article!
Saad Ali | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
Well said!
Ardis | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
This doesn’t just apply to Islam. I live in Utah where the Mormon church works very hard at keeping control of our state government. Almost 90% of our representatives are Mormon and they very often redistrict our voting precincts to favor their candidates. These representatives are often counseled by the church about issues that concern the church whether they are constitutional or not in order to maintain the church’s power. Religious power needs to be kept in check. I am not against religion (even Mormons) however if there isn’t a separation of church and state our liberties are in danger of being lost.
Charles Kvenvold | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
Well said, I couldn’t agree more. People are afraid of Muslims today for the same reasons they were afraid of Catholics 100 years ago.
History has proven they were wrong about Catholics, and it will prove they are wrong about Islam.
And let’s stop to ask ourselves, is discriminating against them going to make them more likely to live in peace or less likely? More likely to absorb into our culture or less likely?
Jared | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
Let’s also remember that 700 years ago it was the Islamic country that lived in relative freedom, wealth, and technological superiority while we Christians were hunting Jews, burning witches, and stoning adulterers.
Religious fundamentalism and the resulting violence are a result of society-wide economic depression.
Jared | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
Your “democracy” is really a false religion masquerading as political justice.
Free Market Imam | Jul 18, 2011 | Reply
I’ve worked briefly in Provo. Not once did I see a woman kept in slavery or beaten in the street. I didn’t see a single execution of a person for adultery. Not one homosexual was hanging from a tree. Clearly you don’t know the difference between apples and fish.
Stewie | Jul 19, 2011 | Reply
Idiot.
People are afraid of Islam for the same reasons as they were of Catholicism 600 years ago. But this is 2011 and we know what’s totally unacceptable now and can do something about it.
Stewie | Jul 19, 2011 | Reply
Anthony, your case is based on an air-tight principle. My one observation would be that America has been peacably hosting Islamic communities since way way before 9/11. I haven’t seen executions of homosexuals or adulterers in American Islamic communities – communities that have proliferated since at least the early 1960′s. It is good to distinguish ‘American’ Islam from it’s existence in suffocating Middle Eastern societies, as I believe Anthony’s article does. Keep in mind, no shouts of ‘Allah’ motivated the Matthew Shepherd murder...
Tim | Jul 19, 2011 | Reply
That is actually a very good argument for what he’s saying. The best I have heard so far. While it may be true that some Muslims adhere more to the sharia law than they do American law that is not to say that all of them do. It’s a slippery slope if we start putting restrictions on religion in this country but sometimes it seems like it does need to be done. Namely I think Scientology should be barred as a farce. Thanks for giving me a viewpoint I hadn’t thought of before.
Austin | Jul 19, 2011 | Reply
Did this post get linked on some big-government, anti-property-rights website? I doubt these paranoid (there is no other word to describe someone worried about Sharia law being implemented in the US) statists are regular readers of The Beacon.
Frank | Jul 20, 2011 | Reply
Stewie,
You make some excellent points, however, have you ever read a translation of the Koran? It is an interesting read (even if your or my religious beliefs run counter to it). What I have found is that, like the Bible, people have twisted the texts to meet their own agenda, political or otherwise. One can easily find Biblical texts that would condone stoning an adulterer or polygamy, however, these views are tempered by the social mores of the societies that have emerged since the “Old Testament” days. No Christian follows the edicts of the Bible 100% of the time, nor does a Muslim follow the Koran 100% of the time.
What we need to do is to stop the demonization of Islam and keep an open dialogue with Islamic-America to make sure that there is no hijacking of constitutional law by the more radical elements and also, to let them know that their views and welcomed to be woven into the fabric of this country.
Islamic-Americans are now the “scapegoat of the times.” They’re a small minority, easy targets, etc...but shouldn’t we be spending our efforts towards those we hold in established regard (Democrats-Republicans) who are bastardizing our Constitution right under our noses?
Kurt B Smith | Jul 20, 2011 | Reply