The United States began its nationhood with its laws and freedoms formed by its predominantly Christian founders. Even though the US was rightfully characterized as a "Christian nation" during most of its first 200 years, that has changed in the last several decades. No prayer, no ten commandments, no religious symbols in public schools and in many other public places became the new standard. The current president decreed that we are not a Christian nation. The brief resurgence of Christian influence in government in the 70's and 80's came to an end with the demise of the "moral majority" in the early 90's. The tide of cultural diversity and secularism cemented the current belief that religion shalt not influence government. It appears that Christianity has lost its will to influence government. Islam has not. Islam has been building its base of influence in government.
Why has Christian influence declined while Islamic influence increases? Chrisitan doctrine is not as all-encompassing as Islamic doctrine concerning governance. Even among Christians, the "moral majority" was considered on the edge of sound Christian doctrine in its attempts to influence governement. Prevailing Christian thought is based on the teaching "to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars." In other words, keep religion out of government and government out of religion. Simply obey the laws of the land - don't dictate the laws of the land. While many argue that separation of Church and State has been carried to an unintended extreme, their view has not prevailed.
On the other hand, Islam has a robust political component embeded in its doctrine. There is little reason for debate among Muslims based on Islamic doctrine. Currently prevailing Islamic doctrine requires the establishment of Sharia (Islamic) law, a much different legal system than Christian-principle-based common law upon which the legal systems of Europe and North America are based. The devout Muslim is called upon to embrace the whole Islamic package to please Allah. This includes the teaching and implementation of the social, financial, political, legal, and military components as determined approporiate by one Mullah or another. Since many of these doctrines are at odds with Western thinking and governance, there will be incompatibilities and conflict when these Islamic mandates are imposed on Western cultures.
There is a point where the practice of this form of "religion", i.e. "ideology" infringes on the public heatlh, safety and welfare of a nation or another group of people. Islam is subtlely reaching that point. However, even if it was universally understood and agreed that the essence of Islam encompasses fascist, supremacist doctrine that promotes political action, espionage, and terrorism to convert individuals and change the form of government of our nation, would or should its status as "a religion" protect its right as a "religion" to teach and carry out these actions? Where should the line be drawn? At the teaching? The advocacy? The planning? The implementation of coercion, intimidation, and terror? When does a religion go beyond being a religion to the point of losing its protections as a religion? Do we have to wait for the taught violence and mayhem to actually be commited? Or should we have the right to stop the teaching and promotion of the violence and mayhem?
This question may be a moot point. Why? Because it may be some time, if ever, before we collectively in the United States reach the point where we agree that Islam is more than a simple "religion." Even though the facts confirm that Islam goes far beyond what we in the West consider to be "a religion", there are forces at work to suppress the expression of that truth. Speaking the truth is now being classified by some existing and proposed legislation as "hate speech." Hate speech is any expression that is deemed offensive or derogatory toward an individual, class of individuals, or organization, even if such speech is true. Hate speech legislation is being promoted by Muslims to protect themselves from public knowlege of what their religion really teaches. They would prefer freedom of speech to cease with regard to criticisms of Islam. Of course, criticism of any other religion besides Islam is condoned - especially anti-Semitism. The instances of Muslim complaints of "blasphemy" against their Islamic faith are many times more common than similar Christian claims. This does not mean the Islamic faith is unjustly criticized more. It does mean that Muslims are much less tolerant of criticism than Christians. And unfortunately, perhaps because Muslims tend to take their religion more seriously than most Christians do.
Many simplistic definitions of "hate speech" are overly broad and inclusive of speech which is "perceived" to be hateful. Here is an example at Wikipedia. A more reasonable definition would be "the purposeful distortion of facts intended to unjustly disparage or discredit and individual, class of individuals, or organization." "Purposeful", "distortion", "facts" "intent", and "unjustly" must be key components. Certainly, someone "perceiving" speech to be hateful, or taking offense, or disliking the truth being exposed should not be the measure of "hate speech. And certainly specifying facts with the primary intent of conveying accurate information about a group or individual should never be considered "hate speech."
Overly inclusive hate speech legislation suppresses the expression of facts. It is chilling to the free expression of ideas and information that warns or benefits a culture or a nation concerning individuals or ideology that are in opposition. Such legislation is an anathema to free speech. And such legislation would greatly inhibit exposing the truth about Islam.
Read more on this topic from columnist Diana West: The Impact of Islam on Free Speech In America. It is Islam that has distorted the meaning of the word "crusade" into somehing foul. The third definition - "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse" - that must be highlighted and embraced with regard to Islam.