First, some Chesterton:
There is one thing which, in the presence of average modern journalism, is perhaps worth saying in connection with such an idle matter as this. The morals of a matter like this are exactly like the morals of anything else; they are concerned with mutual contract, or with the rights of independent human lives. But the whole modern world, or at any rate the whole modern Press, has a perpetual and consuming terror of plain morals. Men always attempt to avoid condemning a thing upon merely moral grounds. If I beat my grandmother to death to-morrow in the middle of Battersea Park, you may be perfectly certain that people will say everything about it except the simple and fairly obvious fact that it is wrong. Some will call it insane; that is, will accuse it of a deficiency of intelligence. This is not necessarily true at all. You could not tell whether the act was unintelligent or not unless you knew my grandmother. Some will call it vulgar, disgusting, and the rest of it; that is, they will accuse it of a lack of manners. Perhaps it does show a lack of manners; but this is scarcely its most serious disadvantage. Others will talk about the loathsome spectacle and the revolting scene; that is, they will accuse it of a deficiency of art, or aesthetic beauty. This again depends on the circumstances: in order to be quite certain that the appearance of the old lady has definitely deteriorated under the process of being beaten to death, it is necessary for the philosophical critic to be quite certain how ugly she was before. Another school of thinkers will say that the action is lacking in efficiency: that it is an uneconomic waste of a good grandmother. But that could only depend on the value, which is again an individual matter. The only real point that is worth mentioning is that the action is wicked, because your grandmother has a right not to be beaten to death. But of this simple moral explanation modern journalism has, as I say, a standing fear. It will call the action anything else--mad, bestial, vulgar, idiotic, rather than call it sinful.
In keeping with my review of Cuckservative, I think it worth pointing out that the main failure of modern conservatism—and perhaps even protestant Christianity—is that it is utterly ill-suited to the task of discerning good from evil, of separating wheat from chaff. To wit: observe how often Islam is portrayed as violent, or as misogynist, or what have you. As is often the case, the argument against Islam is doesn’t attain the ideals held by the Modern Man, the modernist. In essence, conservatives accept the modernist, progressive premise that violence is bad (or, more accurately, undesirable), as is misogyny. In doing so, they must accept as right the fundamental underpinnings of progressive philosophy, which is where they ultimately go astray. For, if one accepts ones opponents’ premises, all that really can be argued is whether the logic is sound. Thus, the conservative finds himself in the position of arguing that the stated goals of modernism/progressivism will be more easily attained by other means. Cuckservatives are basically haggling over price.
What’s disturbing to me is how very few people seem willing to say that the real issue with Islam is that it is evil. While it is undoubtedly true that Muslims are violent and misogynist, it’s also true that God himself is rather violent (and uses threats of violence to keep Man in line) and would also be labeled a misogynist based on the teachings of the New Testament. By this line of reasoning, God and his children should be as repulsive to modernism and progressivism as Allah and his followers. Since the logic of modernism would call God evil (or at least undesirable), it should be obvious that the philosophical underpinnings and assumptions of modernism are completely rubbish, and are fit only to be ignored.
To get back to the point at hand, the issue with modernism, as Chesterton points out, is that it is utterly lacking in moral clarity. Violence is bad to a modernist, but it is not by its nature evil to God, for God himself uses violence as a tool. A modernist, then, can only oppose Islam on the grounds that it is violent, and never on the grounds that it is evil.
The fundamental issue with Islam is that it dishonest. Satan is a liar and the father of lies, and all liars are of Satan. As such, Islam is completely and utterly Satanic. The fundamental lie of Islam is that it denies the death and consequently burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of the father. In this regard, Islam is not any different than Atheism.
Because Islam denies the most fundamental purpose of Christ’s purpose on earth, its purported respect for the teachings of Christ is disingenuous or satanic. For example, if Islam takes Christ’s stated purpose for existence as sincere, then it has failed to respect his authority as evidenced by their elevation of Muhammed above Christ. If Islam takes Christ’s stated purpose as insincere but respects him anyway, then Islam respects a deceiver and reveres deceit.
That cuckservatives are unable to identify the problem with Islam is itself a serious issue, in that cuckservatives have the same moral blindness as the progressives toward whom they claim to stand in opposition. As such, they are not to be trusted any more than leftists.