In fact, Yezhova says, "the majority of states of Asia and Africa with traditionally Islamic populations conduct repressive police policies toward Islam and Islamic movements. They throw convinced, politically active Muslims into jail, they torture them, and they restrict their daily activities" in a variety of ways.

She surveys conditions in Turkey, in the Palestinian authority, and in Saudi Arabia and concludes that "as a result of pressure at all levels -- from the every day to the political-ideological -- Muslim activists are actively emigrating to Europe with its softer political climate."...

...Muslims who do go to Europe only seek to be treated fairly and to be allowed to practice their own religion in peace. They are not there as missionaries or agents seeking to impose their religion on Europeans because as the Koran insists, religion cannot be imposed but only accepted.

But Yezhova says that it is important not to equate ethnic diasporas and Muslim movements. Many of those demonstrating in France are doing so because they are convinced they have been mistreated because of their ethnicity or their race rather than because of their faith.

The most interesting part of the debate occurred, however, when we opened it up to questions. As I had requested during my introduction, most of the questions were respectful and demonstrated a commitment to rigorous intellectual debate, not the mindless slogans and ad hominem attacks that often appear in public debate on the subject. The third question, however, revealed something more pernicious.

One woman rose her hand, and instead of directing the question at our panelists, she looked straight at me. She said, "I have a question for the Federalist Society. How is it that the Federalist Society could bring someone in like this from the Alliance Defense Fund. This is a hateful organization that bashes homosexuals, blah blah blah blah...Are you going to bring in white supremacists next blah blah blah?" Then half the room broke out in applause. And everyone turned and looked at me.

"First of all," I said, "as I stated in the beginning, the Federalist Society takes no position on this issue. In fact, there is disagreement among our executive board on this issue. But our goal is to provide real debate on these issues; so we invited two the best advocates from both sides. It was our idea to invite Professor Koppelman to present his perspective too." Then I started getting a bit passionate as the irritation of the question settled in. "Mr. Ventrella's position is a view shared by a huge number of people in this country. If you disagree with him, you are free to challenge him and ask questions. But if you are not interested in open and honest intellectual debate, don't come to our events!" Then the room broke out into an even louder applause then before.