Another way to put it: Muslims long ago realized (and it's more or less enshrined in the Koran-Sunna) that unless Islam takes over the culture, Islam will never quite have the power and dominance it deserves to have. Hitler and his ideological henchmen also realized this, and they created a Nazi culture, replete with symbolisms, new holidays, social gatherings, a new popular literature, a cinema, a new myth. But even what the Nazis managed to do pales in comparison with the depth and breadth of the Islamic Borg-like replacement of human culture with its new inhuman totalitarian culture. (I think this is one reason why Hitler and other Nazis admired Islam: they saw through the surface claptrap of its "religion" to its essence: a powerful totalitarianism both of society and of the brainwashed mind: doubly totalitarian, as Bousquet put it.)
The modern Western view of religion tends to regard it as one type of sphere (with many different flavors) within a wider social space of a whole panoply of varying shades of different spheres of life, competing and sometimes complementary with some overlap. The wider social space in turn does not merely blend into pure Nature (as many people unthinkingly seem to assume), but is itself a historical construct that has been painstakingly developed (as it has also organically evolved without a set blueprint) over the last two centuries or so in the West. There has developed what could be termed a "Neutral Umbrella", a kind of Big Tent in which the many differing groups and religions -- and individuals -- may find the greatest possible harmony (though, of course, never perfectly so).
Some Christians may sulk and begrudge this fait accompli of
modern Western secularism, and they may long for a society that generally reflects, and respects, Christianity; but, as the Founding Fathers knew, it's for
the best: a relatively neutral superstructure is really the only way to optimize sociopolitical order and
harmony, given that humans will inevitably fracture into competing
groups who advocate, claim to know, and promise the Absolute Truth about
the Meaning of Life. (Additionally, there has developed in the modern West an increasingly significant demographic of what could be called the "Comfortably Apolitical and Comfortably Agnostic" who don't want to think or feel too much about the "heavy questions" and just want to try to get through the shit of life and enjoy themselves as much as possible, and of course also try to be decent (within relatively selfish reason) to their neighbors, family and those in need.)
Obviously, when a society has multiple Absolute
Truths about the Meaning of Life jostling their elbows, the entire
society as a whole cannot legally ally itself with, and uphold, any one of them -- for that would grant
too much power to one of them over the others. So to maximize social
harmony, we need a "Secular Umbrella" so to speak, a general Big Tent
that is agnostic, non-partisan, neutral -- in which dwell the multiple
Absolute Truths about the Meaning of Life (including the Absolute Truths of Relativism, which is a spectrum that can be defined by its two polar endpoints, so to speak: Lazy, Pleasantly Non-Commital Agnosticism on one end, and Obsessively Anti-Religious Atheism on the other).
Of course, this isn't a perfect system, and there are aspects to this
"Secular Umbrella" by which it's not so wonderfully neutral, but seems
to be advocating -- or at least a bit too chummy with -- those who take
the stand on Absolute Truth of liberal (and libertine) relativism.
However, we may not have a third choice in the matter, between
1) a
domination of one group over all others;
or
2) a neutral sociopolitical
space that permits all groups as close to equal liberty and
participation as possible, even if the very nature of the neutrality
seems a bit overly accommodating to that one particular Absolute Truth of Liberal
Relativism.
That said, there is nothing essentially pertaining to this system of
the Neutral Umbrella that would logically compel its supporters to
countenance Islam; and in fact, it affords the logical conclusion of a robust
condemnation of Islam as, precisely an anti-liberal threat -- a hostile, intolerant and violently supremacist Counter-Culture -- to the entire sutructure of the Neutral Umbrella itself. Participants of this Neutral Umbrella can rethink and change their minds by jettisonning PC MC -- and still keep their precious Umbrella. Some may think the two are symbiotically interdependent; but a good case can be made that they are not, and that PC MC can be completely detached from the structure without one screw or nut or bolt coming loose.
Muslims may be adroitly using our Neutral Umbrella (especially in its current PC MC form) in order to continue to aggrandize their stealth invasion of the West, but of course they know that the Neutral Umbrella itself functions as a culture, and will have to be ruthlessly replaced with the Only True Culture (Islam), once Muslims have the power to do so.
Let's just hope modern Westerners can continue to evolve and, without waiting a ridiculously long time, rid themselves of this unnecessary fifth wheel in PC MC that is really doing nothing to support the foundation -- but in fact is serving to jeopardize its stability, if not its very existence. The grim prospect, however, is that this cultural evolution will not come but at the price of many thousands (if not perhaps millions) of our own innocents mass-murdered by Muslims in the coming decades.
Further Reading:
Secularism: The Neutral Umbrella
A reader in the comments thread of a recent Jihad Watch article on honor killings in India made, with apposite economy of words, a very useful point to another reader's reflex spasm about how other aspects of "culture" (such as the Hindu caste system) may have diluted this Islamic honor killing: