Timothy Birdnow

This from Michael W. Smith:

Christianity’s inside-out moral order produced the American system of liberty. Islam’s outside-in structure of social enforcement points in the opposite direction—conflict is increasingly unavoidable.

MICHAEL SMITH

MAR 13

Over the past couple of decades, I have written several essays about the incompatibility of Islam—both as a religion and as a culture—to the US Constitution and to the predominant culture of America. Stimulated by the recent spate of attacks by Islamist terrorists, what follows is a revisiting of those topics.

For many years I have argued that Christianity—more than any other religion—is uniquely compatible with individual liberty. That compatibility is not accidental. It arises from Christianity’s fundamental structure: it is a religion primarily concerned with the transformation of the individual heart.

Christianity begins with the individual. It calls upon men and women to govern themselves morally before attempting to govern others. Christ’s words in Matthew 18:20—"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”—capture the voluntary nature of the Christian community. Believers gather by choice. Faith is accepted voluntarily, and it may be rejected voluntarily. Christianity assumes that human beings possess free will and that God expects them to exercise it.

This inside-out moral structure aligns naturally with the American political tradition. The Founders built a system of self-government on the assumption that citizens possess the capacity for moral self-restraint. They handed the people the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and essentially said: these are the principles; now govern yourselves accordingly.

American liberty presumes that individuals can regulate their own conduct without constant external force.

This is precisely where the divide between Christianity and Islam becomes stark.

Islam, historically and doctrinally, operates on the opposite model. Where Christianity seeks transformation through voluntary belief, Islam seeks conformity through legal and social enforcement. The concept of sharia is not simply a spiritual code but a comprehensive legal framework intended to govern personal conduct, family life, commerce, and political authority.

In societies where Islam dominates politically, religious authorities enforce compliance through legal penalties, social pressure, and in many cases outright coercion. The individual is not primarily responsible for governing his own conscience; the surrounding system governs him.

Christianity governs from the inside out. Islam governs from the outside in.

A similar outside-in impulse can be seen in modern political ideologies that distrust individual autonomy. Progressive statism and twentieth-century communism both rely heavily on centralized authority to impose social conformity. While progressivism and Islam differ dramatically on many social questions, they share a common assumption: that individuals cannot be trusted to organize their own moral lives and must instead be shaped through external systems of enforcement.

This shared impulse helps explain an otherwise strange political alliance. Progressive movements often display hostility toward traditional Christianity while showing remarkable tolerance—even sympathy—for Islamist political movements. Christianity places limits on power by emphasizing individual conscience; both Islam and progressive statism are far more comfortable with using political authority to reshape society.

But the deeper issue is civilizational rather than theological.

The endless argument over whether Islam is good, bad, or misunderstood misses the central question. Debating the relative virtues of religions without a standard of judgment is like arguing about whether Ford, General Motors, or Dodge makes the best pickup truck: everyone has opinions, but no one agrees on the criteria.

The real question is this: Is a given religion or culture compatible with the American constitutional order?

America is not an undefined abstraction. Its character is clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. These documents establish a political system grounded in natural rights, limited government, and the sovereignty of the individual citizen.

Everything else in American public life flows from those foundations.

Historically, the United States welcomed immigrants not so they could recreate the societies they left behind but so they could participate in something new. The promise of America was that individuals could escape the constraints of their old political systems and join a society organized around liberty.

That promise always carried an expectation: assimilation.

For most of American history, immigrants understood that expectation clearly. They might preserve aspects of language, food, or family tradition, but their political loyalty and cultural orientation shifted toward the American constitutional order. They did not arrive intending to recreate the institutions they had fled.

In the past half-century that expectation has weakened dramatically. The rise of the "hyphenated American” has produced communities that attempt to maintain parallel cultural systems inside the United States, sometimes including legal and religious practices that conflict directly with the principles of the Constitution.

Islam presents a particularly serious challenge in this regard.

The American political order grew out of a Judeo-Christian moral framework that emphasizes the dignity of the individual and limits on state authority. While the Constitution establishes no official religion, the philosophical assumptions underlying the American founding were unmistakably shaped by that tradition.

Islam contributed nothing unique to those foundations. At the time of America’s founding, Islamic societies were generally understood in the West as hierarchical political systems shaped by tribal conflict and dynastic rule rather than constitutional liberty. The religious framework of Islam addressed the needs of those societies, not the requirements of a republic grounded in individual rights.

This difference matters.

A nation can absorb many cultural influences, but it cannot survive the introduction of ideologies that reject its core principles. Diversity of experience can strengthen a society when those experiences contribute to a shared national purpose. But diversity of incompatible purposes produces fragmentation and conflict.

Assimilation therefore remains essential.

Immigrants who come to the United States must ultimately accept the supremacy of the American constitutional order over any competing political or religious system. That principle does not forbid Muslims from becoming Americans. It simply means that when conflicts arise between Islamic doctrine and American law, American law prevails.

Those who come to the United States seeking freedom and opportunity are welcome. But those who arrive determined to recreate the political and cultural systems they left behind misunderstand the country they have entered.

America is not merely a place. It is a civilization built upon specific ideas about liberty, rights, and self-government.

If newcomers wish to share in that inheritance, they must accept those ideas.

If they wish to replace them, they should look elsewhere.

Hide Comments | Add Comment