America is now a land of two constitutions. One Constitution is that of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. It is the one which recognizes the existence of natural rights, the fallibility of man, and the necessity of limiting his governments.

The other is the constitution of the modern liberal. It is the constitution of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. It is the one which recognizes the existence of myriad positive rights, the fallibility of man, and the necessity of regulating his freedom.

Yes, the words of both constitutions are the same, but the meanings are as different as can be. Each person in America knows which one they believe to be a better guide for the country. Some people become activists for their cause, or even go so far as to vote for candidates with similar beliefs. In recent decades, the gap between the originalist and “living and breathing” Constitution has grown wider, and the country more polarized.

A similar schism has occurred in the Islamic world. Not the classic Sunni-Shia split, but a divergence similar to what has occurred in interpreting the American Constitution: originalist versus progressive. On the one hand there is a modern Islam: secularist, peaceful, willing to go along to get along in the globalized world. You undoubtedly know a few of its adherents. On the other is the fundamentalist: violent, totalitarian, and expansionist. Similarly, there are two Korans, two jihads, two sets of beliefs. It is all about interpretation. Just as with the Constitution, each believer falls somewhere along the spectrum, but generally has only the two options to choose from when making personal and political decisions.

The problem for Americans, though, is that both groups claim the name, identity, and true meaning of Islam. Analogizing again to the Constitution, what would a foreigner think reading America’s charter for the first time? Naturally, he would take it at face value – the common meanings of the words on the page – and determine its acceptability based on his own beliefs. Accepted interpretations of the text are not his to devise. He might then seek interpretation or clarification from an American. Asking a liberal or a conservative, he would receive wildly different answers to his questions.

And so it is for an American interpreting Islam. What we have to work with is an original Islam that we know from our perspective and analysis is decidedly antithetical to the American (originalist, of course) Constitution and values. For interpretation, we have an Islam in America that tells us our interpretation is wrong, and an Islam in the Middle East that has proven our interpretation correct.

Two Islams; endless obfuscation. The secularists claim to be Islam, as do the fundamentalists. As with the Constitution, it cannot be both. Yet in the US today, it has all been boiled down to political currency and correctness versus national security.

The liberals in America tell us that the majority of Muslims in the Middle East are of the progressive variety. They tell us that they really want American-style representative secular government, and will realize this if only we are kind enough to them. The Middle Eastern culture is one that above all else seems to respect strength. The goal of winning hearts and minds must take that into account. By equivocating, appeasing, and infighting we invite their contempt. Our government continues to marginalize radicals in the Middle East. Claiming them to be marginal does not in fact make them so. They have real power and growing influence, and as we have seen are more than willing to use violence.

It is becoming overwhelmingly apparent that this attitude is one designed to attack the American originalists rather than (impossibly) bridge the gap between America and fundamentalist Islam. Whenever the radicals are offended by some minor slight, American progressives blame America for not being sensitive enough, for having too broad an understanding of our rights, for a lack of cultural understanding, for patriotism, for patriarchy, or whatever the buzzword of the day happens to be. When we respond with strength and stand up for our values they point to the peaceful secular Muslims in the West as the example of what Islam is, rather than to the fundamentalist version abroad (and at home).

However, this form of Islam, and governments adhering to it in the near east, seems to be shrinking rather than growing, as the secular and stable regimes have fallen and more nations follow the Turkish or even Iranian models of Islamist government. For example, when the Arab Spring began, we were told that we had nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, they assent to the burning of our embassies, as evidenced by their failure in their duty to defend it and statements to supporters. An act of war in all but modern times (National Review columnist and former terrorism prosecutor Andrew McCarthy poses the question, “Would they have dared storm the American embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2002?”)

It all comes back to the liberals though. They are – in typical fashion – not letting a crisis go to waste. Firstly, and most obviously, the media chose to make its priority attacking Republican candidate Mitt Romney for his rather uncontroversial statement regarding the Muslims’ actions. Absurd details about his speech’s “timing” dominated two news cycles.

Secondly, they want us to believe that these attacks were not premeditated – that they were the spontaneous reaction to an insult, and just happened to fall on the anniversary of the fundamentalists’ greatest triumph over the west. Does anyone honestly believe this? They want us to believe that radical Islam holds no malice but for a few Osamas towards the Western world, and is only capable of violence in retaliation to our actions. During the recent attack on the Cairo embassy, the chant was, “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas!”

What’s worse is that the liberals in power expect us to apologize, cower, and surrender to the threat of future violence. Is it not the responsibility of our government to defend our freedoms no matter what? Is that not the very essence of our foreign relations – to make sure our freedoms are not threatened and that our steadfast belief in them is communicated to the outside world?

Instead, the government tries to suppress the actions of Terry Jones, harasses “Sam Bacile”, and even fires on YouTube. It is the First Amendment that is attacked as harmful and outdated rather than a society that permits and even encourages violence in response to all offense. The American government’s response should have declared the burning of our embassies and murder of an ambassador intolerable, not immediately apologized. A vague notion of radicals was blamed, not the billion mainstream Osamas. But after abandoning our allies and stability in the Middle East for the sake of hope, change, the liberal alliance with progressive Islam, and its fear of shaking that alliance (thereby losing votes) by standing up to fundamentalist Islam, the Obama administration will sleep in the bed it has made, and all will suffer for it.

English writer Gilbert K. Chesterton once said, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” Would we abandon our values for the sake of tolerance? There is no denying that America was founded on a set of convictions – natural rights. Have we no longer any convictions, nor the conviction to hold onto the values that created us? The Arab Spring and now Islamist Summer and Jihadist Fall have proven that the people and states of the Middle East are not about to compromise theirs.

Noah Kantro is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at nk366@cornell.edu.