More to the point, the founders who wrote the Declaration of Independence paraphrased Saint Paul’s ministry in the 1st Century saying, “For there is not distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is over all” is rich to all who call upon Him.  Furthermore, there “is no partiality with God,” that we are all ‘sinners’ men and women.
 Moreover in Protestant Christianity is where “women” are elevated to the level of “men”. We could examine an incident in whereby Jesus was confronted with a woman that was to be executed by stoning, because she had committed adultery.The Jewish men dragged her to Jesus and was about to execute her and Jesus replied by writing on the sand and not replying with a word, and when He was done He told them whoever is without Sin may cast the first stone and the men knowing their own failures left one by one starting with the old.  Other religions do not offer the same freedom to its citizens as that of Protestant Christianity. For example Canada with its most advanced Multicultural city of Toronto has trouble with the Sharia law of the Islamic faith.
Islam is a rigid religion that does not observe equality for all and especially for women and minorities.Today Canadian women are being pulled apart with the decision of either adhering to their religion or abiding by the civic courts of Canada, which is much fairer, and balanced. Consider this story from a local paper describing the dilemma for Muslim women in Canada, “But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of Sharia are overwhelming. To reject Sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim.
” With the growing number of Muslims to more than 600,000, native Canadian Muslims have stated that many of the new immigrants have brought with them a far stricter version of Islam.”A lot of money is being poured into North America from very traditional groups from Saudi Arabia and Libya,”  they point out. Moreover, these newly arrived immigrants are not known for their tolerance of other versions of Islam nor would they be tolerant of Christianity and Judaism, or their progressive attitudes toward women. Of course it is for the Koran and the Hadith to specifically prescribe women to be subjected to something to the level of a farm animal at best, and if the women do not submit to the authority of men then “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely.
If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Koran. ”  Many of the women in Western Europe have the same negative feeling toward Islam with their strict and unfair rule for women, but after observing a few more verses we could have a better understanding as to why the women are afraid of rejecting their faith for fear of harsh punishment if left to Sharia law. Consider these two verses: “Prophet!Tell your wives and daughters and all Muslim women to draw cloaks and veils all over their bodies (screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way). That will be better.
”  So is it safe to say that Islamic women are covering themselves, because they want to feel a sense of modesty or are they afraid of the repercussions? “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”  Again, there is no misinterpreting these few verses regarding women. Canada’s population is small and the Muslim movement and migration is growing at an alarming rate, Canada in future years could have a large problem when dealing with Islam and its teachings. Immigrant women are among the most vulnerable people in Canada. Many don’t speak English, are poorly educated, and are isolated from the broader culture.
They may live there for decades without learning the language, and stay utterly dependent on their families. They have no idea of their rights under Canadian law.This is all due to their strict austerity of adhering to the Sharia law. Not only is Canada having this rising problem of dealing with a different culture which is diametrically opposed to the Western philosophy, but Germany is having the same problem with the large body of Turkish migration. Turkish women are forced into marriage with Turkish men of whom they never met and the women are kept in a small enclave that is isolated from the surrounding towns, similar to that of Canada. These women never assimilate into the mainstream community and thus are forced to abide by the rigid Sharia law of Islam.
 As for other minorities such as blacks the same could be said when observing the Koran and Hadith, “Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.”  “Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them. ”  Notwithstanding, preaching from the multicultural community, there is the notion of no tolerance for other human races. Judeo-Protestant Christianity has offered something of a far better way of life for all that wants to participate into the Melting Pot Concept.
Attitude of intolerance from Islam is the same toward other form of faiths. The last point of keeping America strong with the Melting Pot concept is the need to understand the underpinnings of the American Republic, which was adopted by our founding fathers, who had a clear and profound vision for what they wanted our federal government to be. They formulated a republican government strong enough to protect and nurture the young nation but, at the same time, one limited in scope and size so that it could not squelch states’ prerogatives or stifle their citizens’ liberty.
The overarching purpose was to prevent the concentration of power in a relative handful of institutions and individuals. They sought it fit to have checks and balances among the three branches of government. In fact, our founders researched the Old Testament in order to lay the foundation of the three branches of government. For, in the book of Isiah from the Old Testament, it says: For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King.  This of course resembles the Trinity which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They in fact, are all equal just like our three branches of government.The first stanza of the verse suggest the Judicial branch of government, whilst the second stanza suggest the Legislative branch of the government and finally the last stanza suggests the Executive branch. Moreover, the three branches of government takes their guidance from the Christian God, which could be seen here from one of our founders (Noah Webster) who admittedly stresses the necessity that “[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.
The transcendent values of the Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic. Consider the stability this provides: in a republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. However, in a democracy, if a majority of the people decide that is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.Most recently, Justice Bryer from the Supreme Court said he would seek international laws to help him decide on certain cases, while Justice Scalia and Rhenquist would seek our constitution to guide their decision and observe the constitution the way the founders and framers had envisaged it to be interpreted. These different judicial views are referred as Originalists or Constitutionalists vs. the worldview observer. An Originalist is one who interprets the constitution for what it is and the its true meaning to the law opposed to a world view observer who seeks international laws to govern their decision making.
America’s immutable principles of right and wrong were not based on the fickle manner of fluctuating feelings and emotions of the people but rather on what Montesqieu identified as the “principles that do not change. ”  Benjamin Rush one of our early founders was endorsed by Montesqieu with this saying: “[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of the law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.In the American republic, the “principles which did not change” and which were “certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community” were the principles of the Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For instance in Blackstone’s Commentaries it explained: To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine.
… If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law..
..But, with regard to matters that are… not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the…
legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.  And precisely that, the founders echoed that theme by having, All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human.
… But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God.
… Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine