The immigration of considerable numbers of Muslim populations from the Balkans and the African continent to European countries in the decades after World War II has led to significant collisions in cultural and political terms. Enclaves of Muslim populations in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom demonstrate resistance to substantial stakes in Western democracies, such as the rule of secular law and societal values and principles.
Despite the current literal invasion of refugees and immigrants into Europe and the United States from the war-torn regions of the Middle East, despite the rise of the Islamic State (I.S.), and despite the recent invigoration of terrorist Muslim extremism in Western nations (France/USA), the European Union and the current U.S. administration by in large still abide by their policies of misguided globalism and sanctimonious humanism. When will people understand that misguided and self-righteous humanism is nothing but an inhumane blunder that eventually strikes back with atrocious brutality and multiplies the harm it initially intended to prevent?
In the face of violent Islamic extremism, besides the astonishing errors of open border policies and amnesties for illegals, the most striking political blunder appears to be the equal treatment of Muslim communities and the Islamic faith in Western societies. This author has wondered for almost a lifetime why, to his knowledge, neither political and religious representatives nor pundits or scholars seriously addressed the real reason for why Islam has such limited appeal to open and democratic societies and is hard, if not impossible, to integrate. Islam's primary problem is that it has not yet developed a dogma of separating religion from the State. What is still missing in the Muslim creed is something similar to the two-swords or two-kingdoms doctrine that Christendom has articulated, reaching back to St. Augustine and his De Civitate Dei.
When Augustine distinguished the Civitas Dei, the City of God, and the Civitas Terrena, the City of Men, or the Earthly City, he laid the foundation for the separation of Church and State. By separating the heavenly and spiritual realm from the temporal earthly domain, Augustine paved the way for developing the dualistic Christian doctrine that sees the Church control the spiritual kingdom. In contrast, the State is in charge of worldly affairs. While the spiritual realm stands hierarchically higher and allows the Church to influence politics and societal matters, the doctrine excludes the City of God's enforcement upon the City of Men. In other words, a Christian theocracy would collide with the dogma of the religion itself. The wisdom of this corresponds with Jesus' sayings, "My kingdom is not of this world" (as stated in John 18:36) and "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). On the basic tenet that the Kingdom of God awaits the Christian believer in a different world, one of divine and spiritual nature, it is proper and suitable to establish and submit to earthly authorities in Man's worldly existence. In the vein of this accepted wisdom of western thinking, the nation-state concept evolved and spread across the globe, with its inherent idea of a separation of powers and monopolization of force by secular political entities.
Unlike Christianity, Islam does not separate religion from politics. Attempts to reconcile Islamic tenets with secular governance are barely visible. Sharia law is prevalent, which means, strictly speaking, that divine law is imposed upon human conditions. Jurisprudence in Islam is merely the expansion and application of Sharia in worldly circumstances. In other words, in its most profound sense, Islam is a religion that aims at enforcing the Kingdom of God upon the Kingdom of Men. The objective is to establish the Ummah, the community of the true believers, of all Muslim people, sharing the same ideology, culture, and beliefs, dictated and held together by (divine) Sharia law.
I stipulate two propositions to be of utmost importance and have to be imposed upon the Muslim creed if we seriously envision peaceful coexistence.
(1) The Muslim creed itself must develop a doctrine for the separation of Church and State. The realization of this requirement pertains to the Muslim dogma itself. Although it would take a long time and its fulfillment is highly unlikely, it must be attempted and urged forward. It is astounding that no serious attempt at it has ever been made or demanded, as far as I know.
(2) The Muslim populations in Western countries have to declare their allegiance to the secular code of governance and decry any attempts to override it by religious law concepts. This second proposition pertains to the Muslim communities in western democracies as they become an ever-growing part of societies based on the Christian heritage. This condition should materialize through declarations of leading representatives of Muslim communities on the one hand; and individually, by every member of such societies when he or she is signing citizenship papers on the other hand. Refusal should lead to immediate expulsion to the country of origin or a Muslim country of choice.
Islam must find a straightforward solution to the separation of Church and State and care for a division between the ecclesiastical and civil sphere, the divine and secular realms. Until accomplished, any representative of this religion will be in collision with either their Muslim faith or the political environment of the Christian-based society they want to prosper. As long as Islam hasn't met proposition (1), proposal (2) as outlined above must come into effect to avoid inner conflict for the individual believer while at the same time enhancing the safety of society overall.
This circumstance does not impair or curtail religious freedom. Christian societies usually grant other faiths by allowing them the free exercise of their religion. As shown, the necessity for this type of action emerges from the dogma of Islam's religion itself.
The current outcry in American-Muslim and progressive quarters in Western countries demonstrates the want for proper erudition on significant subject matters of political and cultural affairs in this country and beyond.
Concerning the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the discussed aspect highlights the general problem of equal treatment of all religions in society and a political system primarily founded on Christianity's intellectual, cultural, and social heritage. How can this heritage, as it reflects itself in the customs, laws, and cultural configurations of this very society, be upheld if religions whose traditions and spiritual principles are in many respects irreconcilable with the Christian host environment are treated equally?
It brings to the fore a weakness in the First Amendment that the founders did not foresee when they adopted this amendment on December 15, 1791. We can assume that in those early years of the new republic, the legislators could not have imagined that this new nation's Christian roots would ever be discredited or put in doubt. They could not have anticipated the deranged hubris of progressivism, the cultural illiteracy of American politicians and presidents, the want of suitable erudition on the populace's part, and the arrogant audacity of certain minority groups.
We can amend constitutions and modify amendments to a Constitution. Both have to be adjusted so that its founders' spirit and the underlying ideas and principles can live on under the ever-changing conditions of worldly existence.
