Many people on the left have been steadfast about countering Islamophobia and standing up for their Islamic brothers and sisters in the wake of President Trump’s initial travel ban. However, in the stance of solidarity, it is important to remember not to take on the philosophy of “an eye for an eye.”
It is without question Islamophobia is an increasingly dire issue in the United States. A quick Google search brings forth troubling recent events like a Muslim child having her hijab snatched from her head by a substitute teacher.
With Christianity being the most common religion in the world, it can be tempting to want to reject  Christianity as a whole. However, just as it is wrong to lump radical Islam with peaceful Muslim-Americans, it is just as much a fallacy to do the same to Christians.
To be a Christian and to use those beliefs as the basis of your position in political conversations is to forfeit your credibility to those listening. Christians must endure the removal of their beliefs publicly and are then shamed for suggesting they be taken seriously in the first place.
This is not to suggest every Christian has the right answer nor their logic any more perfect than the rest, but a Muslim is less likely to be required to explain to a liberal why believing in a god is not silly.
The left takes much pride in being the protector and watchdog for Muslims against the harsh and cruel tyranny of Christians. However, they fail to see the hypocrisy in defending a person who believes in God by telling the aggressors they are stupid for believing in God.
Many would likely justify this cognitive dissonance by saying it is okay to be oppressive toward Christians because they are the ones oppressing Muslims. However, that is when the subjective snake of cultural relativism rears its ugly head. If you travel far enough to the east, you will find a society where Christians are the victims while Muslims are the tyrants. Would the beheading of Christians not justify being mean to Muslims here?
No reasonable person would consciously agree with that logic, but it is exactly the “chicken or the egg” argument which cycles through our conversations.
The bottom line is our constitution protects everyone’s freedom of religion. Regardless of what the founding fathers intended by it, we should adopt the value and strive to create an accepting society so long as there be no direct harm to anyone.
If we continue to generalize and conflate the reasonable with the unreasonable, we will always have motive to hate each other.
Whether a person chooses to believe in your beliefs, their beliefs or none at all, all are ways of explaining the world that requires some level of faith. To discriminate against one is to discriminate against them all.
-Carrington Tatum is an electronic media freshman