Throughout Europe and the Middle East, people are dying. Some of them are non—violent and innocent of any wrongdoing. Yet they die, and buildings burn, the result of anger against western civilization erupting from outraged Muslims. But with so much of the West, in particular the Scandinavian countries, having diligently endeavored over the years to reach out to this 'religion of peace,' how could such things be happening, and in the name of Islam?

The incendiary event that triggered all of the controversy was the publication of some cartoons that lampooned Mohamed.

By Western standards, those taking offense to the cartoons have every right to disparage them. Moreover, within the boundaries of countries where their religion is dominant (and by its very definition, that dominance is absolute), they have the right to forbid their dissemination. But clearly, from the scope and intensity of the recent demonstrations, the protesters want, and believe they have the right to demand, something much greater.

In essence, they insist that their religious views be forcibly upheld on a universal basis. And either the governments from whom they are demanding such enforcement will comply with their wishes, or they will ensure compliance by any available means.

Consider the significance of such forced religious observance from a people who collectively yawned, and in some cases celebrated, when America was attacked and three thousand of its citizens were brutally slaughtered, on September 11, 2001.

While some notable Muslim authorities offered tepid condolences to the U.S., their remarks were often accompanied by admonitions to the U.S. for its ostensible culpability in provoking them. Meanwhile, on the Arab 'street,' truer sentiments were much more blatantly and enthusiastically displayed.

Subsequent to the attacks, the name 'Osama' saw an enormous surge in popularity among Muslim parents of newborn male children. As PLO leader Yassir Arafat made a very public display of donating blood on behalf of the victims, the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza and Ramallah openly reveled and celebrated in their streets.

Certainly, nowhere among such people was any display of anger or remorse remotely comparable to the public outcry now unfolding in response to the Danish cartoons.

Nor is the Islamic world showing a comparable degree of alarm or disapproval for the venomous and belligerent reactions to the cartoons. Any protests among Muslims of the deaths, threats of death, violence, and destruction of property are minuscule in relation to their unbridled condemnation of the cartoons.

What then can be said about the sympathies and sentiments of those presently generating so much strife? In short, they prove that they believe themselves to be granted authority ('called by Allah' if you will) to determine and establish immutable standards by which all of humanity must be governed. And to such standards, no room for flexibility or debate exists.

Europe's abandonment of the Judeo—Christian foundations of its culture during the last century has left it devoid of any firewall against the enormous encroaching pressures of militant Islam. Certainly its insipid and fanciful premises of 'social justice' and post—modernism are no match for Islamic zeal.

Now, the once—great continent is left scrambling to offer any believable reason why its institutions and culture should be immune to the prohibitions of the Islamists. And for the preservation of their future, Europeans have little more to hope for than the benevolence of an ideology that knows no such concept.

Though such social and countercultural entities have not been nearly so successful in America, it is inarguable that they are working diligently to similarly bring down the stabilizing institutions of this country's heritage. Thus it is ominously noteworthy that a major portion of the American liberal media establishment apparently remains indifferent to the threat posed by this global assertion of Islamic law.

Worse yet, many are astoundingly willing to comply with it. To date, few American newspapers have published the disputed cartoons. Yet these same individuals would immediately sound a clarion call if any Christian organization were perceived to be flexing its muscles in an attempt to similarly influence society.

In his farewell address, George Washington emphasized the importance of morality to the nation's character and stability while warning of the futility of attempting to perpetuate such things in the absence of religious principle.

So while America faces internal societal decay from a counterculture that seeks to eradicate its Judeo—Christian heritage, far more dire consequences may result. Success of the counterculture may also provide the gaping wound through which could surge a far more menacing malignancy.

Christopher G. Adamo is  frequent contributor.