I have to apologize. As conservatives—particularly social conservatives—we've been all wet on the topic of religion – mainly Christianity and Islam.

We say one can't possibly be a true Christian if, for example, one appears to accept abortion, the taking of an innocent life, as just some women's issue or a political football.

We chide people like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi for not living the faith they profess – saying there is no such thing as an a-la-carte Catholic. You either are or are not. It's not a judgment – it's just a fact. It's like being a man or a woman. You are one or the other. It's just fact.

We evidently want them to adhere to their faith – obey the word of their God and stop cherry picking – yet, we wish the exact opposite for those of another faith—that being Islam.

In an article just the other day, I stated that being a Muslim is, itself, not antithetical to our Constitution or American Judeo-Christian values, but that being an Islamist is. Well, I'm not too proud to say I was wrong.

We conservatives can't have it both ways. The left can and does, but we can't – or shouldn't. We can't complain about self-proclaimed Catholics like Kerry not living his faith and give a pass to Muslims. Worse – we not only give them a pass, but we also celebrate them for the courage to not adhere to their faith and to the words of their Holy book, the Quran.

If you are a true Christian or Jew, should you not abide by the teachings of the Bible and the Torah? Anyone would think that to be a reasonable goal. Therefore, if you are a true Muslim, should you then not abide by the teachings of the Quran and the collections of (Sahih) Hadith? Otherwise, are you not merely an a-la-carte Muslim? And as conservatives – if we are to be consistent – should we not frown upon pick-and-choose Muslims in the same way we do pick-and-choose Christians?

Now, one could argue that being an a-la-carte Christian will only harm the individual (abortion not withstanding), but being an adherent Muslim has demonstrably caused harm to millions over time.

One can find quote after quote from the Quran regarding the good it preaches to Muslims – being kind and charitable and whatnot.

As one reads over hundreds of quotes, one should realize a singular truth: not a single passage exemplifies any kindness or compassion to peoples of any other religion. They are confined to the treatment of Muslims.

The Bible preaches love, kindness, charity, and good will to all, regardless of one's faith, whereas the Quran preaches the same only to those who adhere to Islam. So one could argue quite easily that, as a practical matter, Americans should be promoting the pick-and-choose practice of Islam, not strict adherence. It certainly seems to be the politically correct "safe" play.

But choosing the "safe" play involves possibly compromising our security, taking Muslims at their word that they aren't hardliners, when over 50% say they wish Shariah to trump American law and the Constitution. How do we know if American Muslims are or are not true adherents to their faith? How do we know if "Clock Boy" and his family are tolerant, live-and-let-live Muslim-Americans or adherent Muslims? 

And therein lies the quandary. Is it better to be safe than consistent? And if we choose politically correct "safety," is it just an illusion? 

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.