Islam – Is it Better to Be Safe or Consistent

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I have to apologize. As conservatives, particularly social conservatives, we’ve been all wet on the topic of religion – mainly Christianity and Islam.

We say one can’t possibly be a true Christian if, for example, one appears to accept abortion, the taking of an innocent life, as just some women’s issue, or a political football.

We chide people like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi for not living the faith they profess – saying there is no such thing as an a-la-carte Catholic. You either are or are not. It’s not a judgment – it’s just a fact. It’s like being a man or a woman. You are one or the other. It’s just fact.

We evidently want them to adhere to their faith – obey the word of their God and stop cherry picking – yet we wish the exact opposite for those of another faith – that being Islam.

I wrote in an article just the other day and in it I stated that being a Muslim is itself not antithetical to our Constitution or American Judeo-Christian values, but being an Islamist is. Well, I’m not too proud to say I was wrong.

We conservatives can’t have it both ways. The left can and does – be we can’t – or shouldn’t. We can’t complain about self-proclaimed Catholics like Kerry not living his faith but give a pass to Muslims. Worse – we not only give them a pass, but celebrate them for the courage to not adhere to their faith and to the words of their Holy book, the Quran.

If you are a true Christian or Jew, should you not abide by the teachings of the Bible and the Torah? Anyone would think that to be a reasonable goal. Therefore, if you are a true Muslim, should you then not abide by the teachings of the Quran and the collections of (Sahih) Hadith? Otherwise, are you not merely an a-la-carte Muslim? And as conservatives – if we are to be consistent – should we not frown upon pick-and-choose Muslims the same way we do Christians?

jihad-300x180Now, one could argue that being an a-la-carte Christian will only harm the individual (abortion not withstanding), but being an adherent Muslim has demonstrably caused harm to millions over time.

One can find quote after quote from the Quran regarding the good it preaches to Muslims – being kind and charitable and what not.
As one reads over hundreds of quotes, one should realize a singular truth. Not a single passage exemplifies any kindness or compassion to peoples of any other religion. They are confined to the treatment of Muslims.
The Bible preaches love, kindness, charity and good will to all, regardless of ones faith, whereas the Quran preaches the same only to those who adhere to Islam. So one could argue quite easily that as a practical matter, Americans should be promoting the pick-and-choose practice of Islam, not strict adherence. It certainly seems to be the politically correct “safe” play.

But choosing the “safe” play involves possibly compromising our security, taking Muslims at their word that they aren’t hardliners, when over 50% say they wish Shariah to trump American law and the Constitution. How do we know if American Muslims are or are not true adherents to their faith? How do we know if “Clock Boy” and his family are tolerant, live-and-let-live Muslim-Americans, or adherent Muslims?

And there in lies the quandary. Is it better to be safe than consistent? And if we choose politically correct “safety,” is it just an illusion?

About the Common Constitutionalist

Brent, aka The Common Constitutionalist, is a Constitutional Conservative, and advocates for first principles, founders original intent and enemy of progressives. He is former Navy, Martial Arts expert. As well as publisher of the Common Constitutionalist blog, he also is a contributing writer for Political Outcast, Godfather Politics, Minute Men News (Liberty Alliance), Freedom Outpost, the Daily Caller, Vision To America and Free Republic. He also writes an exclusive weekly column for World Net Daily (WND).