Part of the manifold problems with your posts is that you don’t really understand the evolution of “Western values” any more than you understand what you call “Islamic values”.
Many Christians and Jews voluntarily seek arbitration by religious governing bodies in certain circumstances, rather than appealing solely to the laws of civil authorities. (For instance, observant Jews and Catholics require a determination from a religious official or organization before recognizing a divorce. The congregations of many Protestant churches recognize the authority of councils of elders to decree the “shaming” or ostracizing of members considered to be acting immorally. Etc., etc., etc.)
So no, we cannot tell Muslim communities in the West that they can’t voluntarily establish religious arbitration entities such as Shari`a courts to make religious rulings within their own religious communities. That would be a violation of religious freedom as mandated by modern Western values.
We can certainly forbid such entities to apply their rulings to non-Muslims and others who don’t recognize their authority, and we can require their decisions to comply with various baseline regulations in our laws (e.g., no mutilation, no stoning, etc.). But we can’t just make a blanket prohibition of “no Shari`a courts” and claim that we’re upholding freedom. That’s bullshit.
Again, a large part of your problem here is that you don’t understand the evolution of Western values themselves. You imagine that the particular modern urban level of social freedom that you’re personally familiar and comfortable with is somehow intrinsically and essentially “Western”. Nonsense. Westerners disagree all the time about what sort of behavior is socially acceptable, and what counts as socially acceptable in Western societies has changed very rapidly over a very short time.
For example, until very recently, most Western societies had sex-segregated hours for public swimming-pool use (and many Western schools, for instance, still segregate swimming pool use by sex). Likewise, plenty of Westerners oppose swimsuit-wearing (or some subset of it, such as topless sunbathing or thong bikini bottoms) in public parks.
Conservative Muslims have the same right as any other socially conservative people and/or anti-dog types to protest against current social customs that they find offensive. They certainly don’t have the right to impose their preferences on the majority who disagree with them, but they sure as hell have the right to express their preferences. Disagree with them courteously and go about your bikini-wearing, mixed-bathing, dog-walking business. (And yes, do pick up and properly dispose of your dog’s poop. As for the sniffer dogs, when they’re all replaced by bees it will be a non-issue anyway.)
On this issue, for a miracle, you happen to be right. I have explained in a number of similar threads before this my take on the principle that “burqa = purdah”: i.e., wearing the burqa is a tacit acceptance of the conservative Islamic prohibition against women participating in society outside their own homes or interacting in any way with males they’re not related to.
The burqa should rightly be permitted as a sort of mobile purdah environment for Muslim women who need to do things like grocery shopping and going to the doctor while still technically not interacting with strangers. But Muslim women who want to participate in secular society in any meaningful way—whether by holding a job, taking a class, having an interview with a government official, whatever—need to comply with the universal custom in secular society of showing one’s face to strangers and speaking to them directly.
I have nothing against the expectation that Muslim taxi drivers at airports should be required to serve all passengers carrying items permitted by law, irrespective of whether those items comply with conservative Muslim doctrine or not. But only if it’s accompanied by an equally strong expectation that, say, Christian pharmacists at drugstores should be required to fill all prescriptions for legally-permitted substances, irrespective of whether those substances comply with conservative Christian doctrine or not.
In fact, I propose that all the conservative Christian pharmacists become airport taxi drivers, since they have no doctrinal prohibition against transporting liquor, and all the conservative Muslim airport taxi drivers become pharmacists, since they have no doctrinal prohibition against birth control. Problems solved!
As it happens, I know plenty of people in Muslim communities who are already an asset to my country and are valuable and respected citizens I’m proud to call friends and neighbors. They don’t need your seal of approval to be worthy of being here, dickhead.
Standard boilerplate hysteria directed against pretty much every immigrant community since human migrations began.
It is perfectly possible for rational supporters of democratic freedom to oppose religious extremism and intolerance wherever it appears, without indulging in this sort of frantic spittle-flecked ranting about “help we’re being overrun by TEH ALIENS!!!”
