London Bombings

Once again, a bomb has gone off in London. Once again, ISIS has claimed responsibility. Whether or not a faction of the so-called Islamic State carried out the attack almost doesn't matter anymore. People are convinced that Muslims simply do this sort of thing.

Which leads to the defining debate of our generation, especially in light of the humanitarian crisis involving Syrian refugees and others who will undoubtedly come after them from elsewhere in the Muslim world.

On the one side, how do we call ourselves civilized if we will not take in those who just want to live in freedom? How can we insist that nations like Syria, Egypt, Iraq or Afghanistan embrace democracy over there when we refuse to let them get a taste of it over here in the West? Don't people have a right to flee for their very lives? Shouldn't Europe and the United States be the destinations for freedom-seekers they have always been? And isn't the granting of freedom for refugees a fundamental value?

On the flip side, how can any Western democracy accept hordes of refugees who are irreparably tainted with a small but persistent minority of those who want to destroy the very democracy they are fleeing to? How can any economy take in so many people when most of them are unskilled and don't speak the local language? Why should indigenous residents have to flee for their lives from those who are fleeing for their lives? Why should one humanitarian crisis abroad lead to a domino effect that will create even more crises at home?

At the root of all of this is religion. Specifically, Islam. Many of my fellow atheists have pointed out that Islam is inherently evil, and they are far from unjustified in this accusation. But isn't religious freedom one of our core values? Isn't tolerance towards those whose creed differs from our own the very thing which defines us? Especially for us atheists, isn't it our duty to protect others from religious-based prejudice?

There are those I used to agree with, like the British video-blogger Pat Condell, who believe that taking in Muslim refugees is killing Europe. Oddly, these left-wing warriors find themselves in agreement with radicals on the right, who want the influx of Muslims stemmed in an effort to preserve cultural identity. Yet on the other hand, there are those who take an opposing view, insisting that speaking out against Muslim terrorism is somehow tantamount to "Islamophobia," xenophobia or even outright racism. And while it is surely wise to condemn Islam while not condemning Muslims, and to embrace individual Muslims as friends while damning minority Muslims who turn out to be terrorists, we do so at our own risk. Muslims consistently fail to blame their fellow Muslims for this, and there are those on the left who play along with this touchy-feely kind of myopia.

How does one square this circle?

I think I know how. It takes a form of wisdom which we are not prepared to hear, and which we may not be mature enough for as a culture, but we must embrace it if Western democracy is to survive. And it is simply this:

Religious freedom is not an absolute.

No, really! One cannot scream "fire" in a crowded theater. One also cannot commit libel, and cost another his or her fortune by spreading untrue slander. Freedom of speech is not an absolute. We have the freedom to scorn our leaders and poke fun at them, but we cannot use curse words on family programming. In like manner, freedom of religion has its limits too. If a Satanist wanted to sacrifice a baby, he would not be allowed to do so. The baby is a non-consenting person with rights. Laws against murder would override any claim of religious freedom. If a prison inmate wanted to file a lawsuit claiming that not getting chunky peanut-butter instead of creamy is a violation of his religious freedom (as once famously happened back in the early 90's), too bad. Religious freedoms don't extend to those who invent one-member-cults in order to try to game the system. By similar reasoning, if a Muslim father wants to kill a child for becoming an apostate, tough shit! The child has its own set of rights which cannot be violated.

Individual freedom outranks religious freedom.

In short, is there room for Islam within democracy? Yes. But is there also room for Sharia? Hell, no!

Sharia runs contrary to everything freedom stands for. It insists upon enforcing what is thought to be "God's laws" over and above laws which protect an individual's rights. To be perfectly blunt, fuck that bullshit!

It's a tricky line to take for an atheist, because here in the U.S., most Christians still struggle with the stupidly simple concept that putting up a nativity scene in front of a city hall is a clear-cut case of religious favoritism. When confronted with this sort of common sense, Christians actually still dare to scream "oppression!" What, then, will we do when the day comes where we must say the same sort of thing to Muslims? Where will we find the fortitude? What will we do when some of them want to force girls who are not their own daughters to stop wearing tight clothes in public schools? Or only serve halal meat in the cafeteria? What will we say when they threaten violence if they don't get their way? When they want to interrupt their work schedules five times per day when their secular coworkers must continue working until their regular break times? How will we have the strength to deny them undue favoritism if we cannot even understand the concept of denying undue favoritism to the relatively more benign and pacifist religion of Christianity?

We'd better figure it out soon. Because if we don't, Europe and the U.S. really are in trouble.

Am I saying Islam must water itself down or be outlawed? You bet your ass I am! Because religion is a drug, and drugs should be regulated. The softer drugs, alcohol or cannabis, can and should be legal. People need their recreational toxins.

But the hard shit can kill you.


Eric

*