In a recent editorial, a survivor of the Charlie Hebdo massacre praised French secularism against Islam.  You might have thought that the fact that he took a bullet while his friends were being killed in the name of Islam might buy him some credibility.  At least, you might think it would buy him some understanding for having a relatively negative view of the Islamic faith.  Nope!  Not, at least, from the mainstream media.

M. G. Opera at the Federalist calls for a more reasonable discussion.

Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own. This is the point that Michel Houellebecq made in his recent novel, “Submission.”

Of course, the French government does demand that Muslims not wear Islamic headscarves to schools or in public offices — not just the hijab, but the more invasive niqab or burqa as well.  This is part of a general law in favor of secular values and against ostentatious display of religious values of any kind.  The law was originally aimed at Catholics in the early 20th century, but affects Muslims and others as well.  Is that reasonable?

In Ireland, an Islamic leader has himself proposed that visiting preachers from the Muslim world be required to sign a statement similar to the one Opera proposes.

“I believe foreign speakers should be asked to sign a statement in which they condemn Osama bin Laden, ISIS and all extremist militants, call for tolerance and respect for all people including the LGBT community, respect democracy and the permissibility to vote in western countries,” [Dr. Umar al Qadri] said.

Now, ‘tolerance and respect’ for the LGBT community is plausibly a violation of sharia law.  There is a legitimate question about what the LGBT community has a right to demand of any religious person who has theological reservations about their lifestyle.  Certainly in any Western state they have a right to demand physical safety, no matter what sharia says.

On the other hand, religious liberty laws are being debated around the country backed by religious groups of many stripes.  Muslim citizens have a right to have their opinions heard in these debates, the same as citizens of any other faith.  Still, it is interesting to note that the left-leaning corporations like PayPal and Apple will boycott North Carolina over its law protecting womens’ bathrooms from being used by men, but do business in Malaysia where all sexual minorities are in danger of prosecution.

Ultimately the ground rules have to be enforced evenly.  If you want to say that France goes too far against Muslims, you have to say that they go too far against Catholics.  If you want to say that Muslims should be free to exercise prejudice against gays and lesbians, you have to say that Baptists are free to do so also.  We surely must say that sharia’s calls for violence are immoral, illegal, and forbidden no matter what.  Don’t we say that about every other faith?  Don’t we say that, no matter what, a religion’s laws cannot command adherents to kill?