Ghost of a flea

"I have never believed that such a thing as "moderate Islam" exists, any more than I believe that "moderate Christianity" exists."

This statement is false in practice. Yes, structurally Islam may be more resistant to mutable interpretation, but humans have an blessedly amazing capacity for philosophical inconsistencies as influenced by secular culture.

Similarly: Either you believe the Bible outlaws homosexualty and eating shrimp as immoral acts or you're not a real Christian, Flea! (this is not drawing equivalency, merely data points)

Well?

As I am certain you are aware, it is the "Old Testament" which bans shrimp and "homosexuality". Christians reading the whole of the letter to the Romans - and not just the Paul's straw man opening argument - are, in my opinion, the real deal.

But then I only take a passing interest in what Paul had to say about anything in comparison with the words of, for example, Christ. Call me a crazy fundamentalist.

I agree Spengler is adopting what I assume to be a rhetorical position at odds with what may very well be his personal views. I would make the further inference, as perhaps you do, that his real point is to suggest there is no hope for a counter-reformation in the camp of the enemy. I hope he is wrong about that. It is true that up until quite recently it would have been unthinkable to be Christian and not support slavery, another social practice with Biblical precedents. Almost all Christians have changed their minds on that score... perhaps others might be convinced to do the same.

That said, I remain a pessimist on all fronts.

"As I am certain you are aware, it is the "Old Testament" which bans shrimp and "homosexuality". Christians reading the whole of the letter to the Romans - and not just the Paul's straw man opening argument - are, in my opinion, the real deal."

touche. But what to do about the Jews? (And I would love to see you make the homosexuality abrogation argument with vast swaths of fellow Christians in general agreement with you about the relative threat of Islam ... though the shrimp example always goes over well. If asked to choose between sodomy and cocktail shrimp, cocktail shrimp wins out)

"Call me a crazy fundamentalist."

You Crazy fundamentalist! (But just because you asked me to)

"I would make the further inference, as perhaps you do, that his real point is to suggest there is no hope for a counter-reformation in the camp of the enemy.... I remain a pessimist on all fronts."

I don't know - I've seen enough Iraqis who smoke, stare at Western-style singers on satellite TV and have porn downloaded on their cellphones (who knew?) to be somewhat optimistic, actually. The Anbar Awakening was accelerated by al Qaeda's psychotic brutality, to be sure, but it would have proceeded anyway, as most Muslims in Iraq don't take the Koran's worst prescriptions terribly seriously. And at least half the time, religion is an excuse rather than a direct cause of violence.

The same dissatisfaction with Muslim fundamentalism is currently playing out among the youth of Iran, and has played out in belated rejection of radicalism after many bloody years in Algeria. It's a hard lesson to learn.

The real pessimism is not whether Muslims are capable of rejecting violent fundamentalism & violent prescriptions in the Koran, which they certainly are, it's if enough of them can reject it quickly enough, as it only takes a few nuts with an agenda to fly airliners into tall buildings or deliver a bioterror agent.

All of this leads me to a few practical views:

1. Yes, there is an overly PC grace extended to Islam in the West. This grace is annoying in harmless rhetoric, but dangerous to our way of life when it leads our own media and bookstores to censor themselves like cowards. (Hitchens is fantastic on the latter)

2. Perhaps Islam is indeed inherently more prone to inspire violence; and if not immutably in scripture and structure (we'll table that debate for brevity), undoubtedly practically moreso in the present day.

3. YET - Any solution to the collusion of violent Islamic radicalism and flattening of hierarchies in destructive technology will certainly require popular rejection of radical ideology by Muslims, a hugely more effective strategy than merely a stiff upper lip by the West.

It's cultural counterinsurgency: to root out the insurgents (radicals) you have to drain the sea they swim in by co-opting co-religionists. Otherwise, resistance may become futile with the advance of easy destruction and international air travel.

Yes, I am pessimistic in this regard.

But I also perceive that the best, actually the only shot at this is broad, "market-based" assimilation.

Put it this way: the only possibly effective options are:

1. The full measures of banning the religion, which would never happen with wonderful documents like the Constitution, not to mention the impossibility of squelching religious ideas. Or ...

2. Conscious assimilation: whether Western and governance culture can be attractive enough to change the Islamic world much more than it changes us by such integration. This is not the same thing as giving PC breaks to wearing a burkha on a driver's license photo.

In this respect, I'm still willing to give 10% and mouth basic tolerance in order to obtain the other 90%. My arguments are equal parts Western ethics and simple practicality.

*Western governance and culture

Put in a vastly simpler way: I believe in saying, "You are more than welcome if you agree with and adapt to fundamental western standards of tolerance, free speech and behavior." What I disagree with is others saying, "You are not welcome because your religion makes that impossible, period." I've met enough folks that identify as Muslim and love America to know that the latter is a self-destructive oversimplification.

A number of issues...

Regarding the Jews and dietary and other restrictions. It is my understanding the Jews were called to be a nation of priests. This being the case, their Law is not something they have ever attempted to impose upon anyone else. To me this is the basic and practical difference; I do not have to worry about the inflexibility/potential for casuistry inherent in Judaism because no Jews have the slightest interest in putting a sword to my neck.

Regarding Paul and Christianity: Yes, most Christians would probably disagree with my reading of Scripture. All I can say is that most Christians - including and especially the "literalists" I have met - have not bothered to read Scripture. Greek is not that hard to pick up and it is well worth the effort. It also irritates me to no end people will decide this or that translation is divinely inspired. This is obviously an absurd assertion to make and it is made by people too lazy to bother reading the words they claim are literal and inerrant and so forth.

Not that there is any Scriptural basis for making such a claim about Scripture... but I digress.

Regarding my pessimism: I should emphasize I am rather more pessimistic about the West than I am about any of our adversaries. The Chinese in particular seem to have retained a sense of themselves. We - the West - have not. Were it not for a tiny minority of extremists in defense of liberty we would be fucked. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps.

I am cautiously optimistic about India. Perhaps in five hundred years the whole world will enjoy great food, silly pop music and hot women in saris. That is a posterity to look forward to.

When I tried to make a similar argument (not so much that "moderate Islam" doesn't exist, but that Islam has a VERY high number of adherents, including many "moderates," willing to look the other way when their extremists kill) a while back, I got parsed to death.

The fact is this: we in the West have exchanged the admittedly tarnished coin of national and cultural pride for the unsupported paper bill of sucking up to non-Western cultures in order to validate our self worth. It's only human to despise such open evidence of weakness and to desire, not to adorn the exposed throat with caresses, but to bite it out, and we should not be surprised when that's the reaction we get when we try to nice everything up.

Speaking of Jesus, isn't He the one who said "if you are lukewarm, I will spit you out"? The meek may inherit the earth, but not the mealymouthed.

John -

I saw a problem with your commentary in that thread in the implied equation of the "average muslim" with radical ideals (exacerbated by being attacked by most all of my previous readership during that period for my position). I do not think the distinctions you made were nearly effective or clear enough. And such rhetorical distinctions are everything in a debate about framing the problem. I'll table a renewed argument on the particulars, but say this:

1. In my direct experience, the average Muslim is not losing sleep over conquering the infidels, though a problematic minority of Muslims are. This raises an issue that is common among cultures; specifically:

We don't viscerally lose sleep over concepts of collateral damage and nuking vast swaths of the ME if it comes to it, as we don't place the same value on others as we do our own. Heck, when I saw a shot Iraqi cop or heard about such a death, it did not affect me in nearly the same manner as it did when it was an American. Slightly bothersome that I lacked the same empathy, but there it is.

In a similar vein, while the problem of vast portions of the Muslim world "looking the other way" is real and significant, it's not totally wacky. Put it this way: to abstractly "root for your team" when the consequences of "freedom fighters" like Osama don't come home to roost is natural in a certain mindset, magnified in immature cultures. Many of these cultures I have no problem calling inferior (overall), because ...

... the West has a much, much greater emphasis on the value of life, so our version of these nasty sentiments are watered down, but they exist every time I listen to some jackass talk about dropping a MOAB on Fallujah and killing every man, woman and child because some nuts had infested the place and killed Americans.

I'm not justifying this with moral relativism, I'm just sort of outlining it. When the reality and suffering of war and terrorism come home to roost, people get it. Otherwise, it's abstract. The question is, how do we bring that message home in the wider Islamic world the easier way.

2. The violence of Islamic radicalism began and spread like a virus from Arab Islam. In contrast, there are Islamist (read: actual political muslims!) Kurds that are as gentle as lambs. I think it's relevant to note that today's renewed radicalism is partially a cultural export, a virulent strain at odds with other trends within Islam during other periods (though admittedly not at odds with others).

3. When we place common sense Western standards on things like "average Muslims should speak out!", a. we're assuming the "average Muslim" cares beyond going to school or herding his goats, b. we're assuming it does not happen (it does, though not to the degree we'd all like - though I've seen this change a bit for the better) and c. we're not accounting for the risk of doing that in a scenario where some maniac down the street will kill you for it.

My essential premise is this: the type of sermon preached by Robert Spencer et al is incompatible with the new strategy successfully playing out in Iraq (knock on wood) and, on a wider, strategic scale, we need to integrate Muslims within the world community as best as we can. The only successful strategy I see before it comes to things like tossing nukes is global counterinsurgency.

And you don't co-opt populations of Muslims or change their preconceptions about America by painting them as an overly homogenous entity to blame for their extremists, nor lifting a leg and taking a leak on their religious identity ... which surpasses following scripture and is embedded in cultural identity as well.

(BTW - not all aspects of the last paragraph are targeted at you or your previous comments)

"The fact is this: we in the West have exchanged the admittedly tarnished coin of national and cultural pride for the unsupported paper bill of sucking up to non-Western cultures in order to validate our self worth."

We in the West? I agree with some of what you are saying, but an unfortunate number of people in the West are in love with "the Other." A spirit of defiance and love of Western values is plenty alive in large portions of the US, though the UK scares the crap out of me sometimes.

My thing is this, and maybe it's naive: deciding that self-destructive PC and relativism are wrong does not mean the best idea is to turn 180 degrees and run as fast as you can in the other direction. Basic American values of tolerance and political secularism still have benefit when applied to Islam, even if a bunch of idiots take them to a ridiculous, self-loathing extent.

"All I can say is that most Christians - including and especially the "literalists" I have met - have not bothered to read Scripture."

If I had a nickel for every Muslim who makes that claim (right or wrong) about extremists and the Koran ... well, I'd have at least $.50. (I don't want to exagerrate)

Re: "Were it not for a tiny minority of extremists in defense of liberty we would be fucked."

In our pessimism we lose sight of the fact that it may be more (including those who support the fighters) than we realize. Even a lot of the people who I disagree with on the wholesale condemnation of Islam I recognize as being staunch Americans I want in my foxholes.

"Thank God for the United States Marine Corps."

Amen to that.

btw, previous comment to andrea should read:

"I agree with some of what you are saying, AND ..."

"BUT a spirit of defiance ..."

Bill, dude, VERY well said. Well laid out and argued. Sorry for the months-old whine, but the unexpected result was well worth it--it's the missing piece from when we were talking past each other last time.

Can I call you "dude"? Just askin'.....

Thanks. Yes, you may call me dude. But only if I can call you "bro." (pronounced "brah!")

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)