Islam, Western Society, and the US' First Constitutional Amendment

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.

Immigration - US and Europe Governed by Lunacy

If one wants to find evidence for the headline's adequacy, one only has to look at the issue of immigration on both sides of the Atlantic ocean. Buried under would-be compassion and alleged humaneness, the self-destruction of Western culture is pushed forward at a mind-boggling pace. 

Can Europe Survive This Invasion? Asks Pat Buchanan in a column of November 9th, pointing out that the wave of immigrants released on Europe are not Christians, but Arabs, Africans, and Muslims. If the E.U. keeps its borders open, the immigration of hundreds of thousands per year will alter European civilization's face, if not destroy it. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the immigrants (ab)using the reckless immigration policy of the current administration come with an increasing tendency from different cultures and religions.

What underlies these suicidal tendencies is the increasing disregard for the political's ontological principles - to paraphrase the title of Carl Schmitt's major work. The real insanity has to be seen in the softening, if not negation of the significant parameters - territory, citizens, legal order - of the nation-state, combined and held together by a separation of powers and a monopolization of force, as one of the most outstanding political achievements of occidental rationalism. While globalist tendencies in communication and commerce transcend the nation-state's sovereignty, the significance of borders and a clear legal demarcation between citizens and non-citizens by way of immigration legislation is indispensable for the cohesion of societies that determine and organize themselves within the confines of the nation-state concept.

It is worth noting that, although the constitutional dimension of separation of powers is not necessarily equally developed and embraced everywhere, the nation-state concept has been victorious throughout the world. Even Islamic societies organized themselves following the western model and established nation-states, by which they conduct their domestic and international relations. As such, they are present at the United Nations or any other international forum for that matter. 

The western world's pernicious tendency to self-destruct appears to be driven by egalitarianism and democratic utopianism. But to renounce the great past of its history of ideas will come at the cost of its demise. In a blog I wrote back in 2010 (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2010/08/right-becomes-wrong-arizona-immigration.html), on the occasion of a regretful decision of a federal judge to turn down a specific immigration law in Arizona, I commented in-depth on the difference of what I termed the traditional versus the cosmopolitan approach in politics. 

The misunderstanding, if not total ignorance, regarding the vital ontological implications of human existence, undoubtedly result of inadequate socialization and education of elites as well as the public, by and large, is to be blamed for the terrible and highly damaging domestic as well as foreign policies carried out by most political entities of the West in recent decades.

Once the 'Political' is no longer considered based on human affairs' inner ontological conditions but is considered something to be arbitrarily constructed, we reach the state of delusion and ignorance that characterizes the policies of current political administrations in both the U.S. and Europe. 

I have provided reflections on Western society's philosophical challenges in a comprehensive essay entitled "Asymmetry and Western Society - Culture-Critical Reflections," in Schroefl/Cox/Pankratz, Winning the Asymmetric War, Peter Lang Publishers, Frankfurt 2009, pp. 23-34.)

It is high time to counter the suicidal tendencies as displayed in the United States and the European Union's immigration policies. The survival of Western Civilization, on the whole, is at stake.

Failed Foreign Policies Cause Human Catastrophes

Some 800 people recently died when an overcrowded refugee vessel collided with a merchant ship in the Mediterranean. Among the rescued were a handful of people-smugglers, thus giving testimony to migrant-facilitators' business, thriving in the Middle East as it does in Mexico and Latin-America. As an entry gate into the E.U., Italy can hardly cope with refugees' seemingly never-ending stream from the north-African state belt. Both the Italian Navy and Coast Guard are overwhelmed by the challenge. The European Union is scrambling to find solutions. For now, more funds are supposed to flow into the refugee programs Triton and Poseidon. 

This exodus of people fleeing the conflict zones and war-torn areas of Africa and the Middle East is a direct result of the U.S. and the E.U.'s failed foreign policies. I have criticized the blunder of U.S. foreign policy, supported by the European Union and NATO, in my blog entries of 2011 on Libya (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2011/03/us-and-european-foreign-policy-blunder.html) and 2013 on Syria (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2013/05/disastrous-foreign-policy-failures.html), and warned against the policies of supporting violent and extremist insurgent movements while letting down established heads of state and governing political administrations. It began with the Muslim Brotherhood's support in Egypt against President Hosni Mubarak and then the US-led NATO campaign to take down Libya's Gaddafi. The support of a conglomerate of dubious insurgents in Syria was the third cornerstone of a U.S. foreign policy that is unethical and outright in the wrong, as it is ineffective and destructive. 

While the E.U. does everything in its power to help refugees and get a grip on the situation, it abides by its strict immigration policies, thus preventing the internal order from descending into utter chaos. In contrast, the U.S. is propping up its foreign policy blunder by national security foolishness, courtesy of presidential executive immigration orders that pave the way for more or less unlimited immigration, serving nothing but sealing the fate of future political and social disaster.

 

However, most concerning is the fact that these policies seem to find an ever broader acceptance and support on a bipartisan level. Powerful voices of senators, congress members, and presidential candidates for the 2016 race on the Republican side espouse similar, if not identical viewpoints on foreign policy and immigration. 

Given the U.S.'s two-party political system, one has to wonder how the State Department could alter its harmful stance on essential foreign policy and national security issues? If both major political forces align in their position on such topics, how could this ever change and U.S foreign affairs brought back to its senses?

Empirical evidence and the reality of failures don't appear to have any impact. Established authorities and political counterparts are merely doubling down and adding fuel to the fire. In previous commentaries, I have criticized the geopolitical madness vis-a-vis Russia that has been unfolding in Ukraine. Ideological prejudice and a certain arrogance appear to be the dominant forces in a media-driven political business that seemingly doesn't allow concessions to be wrong. What is supposed to be a sign of strength and compelling character is now considered a weakness. 

What can be a solution to this predicament in global affairs, for the most part, instigated by the failed policies of the U.S. and the Transatlantic alliance? Let me reveal a secret here not debated in the political realms, even at the reproach of talking pro domo.

I see the only hope for betterment in the return of philosophers to the ranks of political advisers and proper philosophical instruction to higher education curricula. As far as the former aspect is concerned, the political business, specifically the advisers to political stakeholders and executive decision-makers, has to be enriched and balanced by adding the holistic philosophical thinker to the equation. As far as the latter aspect is concerned, I am talking about conveying the broad history of ideas of philosophy. No lip service to philosophy by providing courses in which so-called philosophy professors and lecturers try to indoctrinate a liberal-progressive political agenda. What is needed is a focus on ontology and social and moral philosophy, thus enabling critical thinking and independent and profound judgment.

No longer must the hubris of jurists and economists, who too quickly get stuck in sterile materialism and superficial rationalism and whose consciousness is lacking profound philosophical reflection, dominate politics and policy-making.