Centerfield

Rob: Nice job taking one clause in the column and spinning it out of context to come up with some snarkiness.

For the record, I'm saying that we should stop apologizing for every perceived minor offense to radicals whose life purpose is to preach hatred of (and violence against) all persons with different religious beliefs.

Applebaum gives herself away by referencing Greenpeace twice in her short column. If she had said the ACLU, that might have made a lick of sense, since they have something to do with free speech. Instead, she's reaching for the most liberal group she can think of.

In the end, she's promoting the same type of Us vs. Them mentality that breeds the vitriol in the first place. Until we erase this type of thinking, we won't be able to even start fixing the damage we've done to our international goodwill.

Blockheads please note: at no point here did I condone violence.

Goodwill requires the cooperation of 2 parties - the party seeking and the party willing to grant it. Frankly I think the only thing we can do to gain the goodwill of radical islam is to slit our own throats so as to spare them the trouble.

The problem with alot of the West is that we are so riddled with self-guilt that we are afraid/ashamed to call things like they are. We should be proud of our own accomplishments.... and we shouldn't be afraid to point out that the real problem with radical islam belongs at the doorstep of.... radical islam.

Finaly, in case you hadn't noticed.... it IS Us vs Them.... They (radical Islam) won't let it be any other way. They want no part of us and they never will. Everything we hold dear is complete anathema to them. We are the devils in thier universe. They will never tolerate us... because thier entire philosophical being is based around the concept of intolerance toward divurgent views. Those who are unwilling to submit to the will of thier vision of god are to be destroyed. That is THE central theme of thier philsophical worldview. The sooner we wake up and recognize that for what it is.... the better off we'll be.
Trying to figure out how to be less offensive to them is a fools game that leads to disaster. Our very drawing of breath is offensive to them. Rather we should be PROUD that we are offensive to them..... for the very things that they find so offensive are the very definition of human dignity and human freedom.... they are the things that actualy give us value as a people and as a civilization.

In my book, if you are arguing against an US vs Them mentality you are arguing to see your grand-daughters forced into burkhas. Because that is the only way they will begin to accept us.

Steven DenBeste had something to say about this on 9/11 (I don't recommend the rest, but here's a link for the masochistic: http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/004407.html)

We were not united on 9/11 and we have not been united on any day
since. But that is not a weakness. If the people of America are ever
100% united on anything whatever, I will know that the country I
love has died.

Satorical noted:
> Blockheads please note: at no point here did I condone violence.

No, you didn't. But you did, in effect, ignore some things in order to avoid thinking about terror groups as an enemy.

You're choosing to ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists look upon themselves as a set of groups with similar strategies. Those strategies include killing and terrorizing masses of civilians as a primary aim.

Do you choose to ignore that the Democratic and Republican Parties exist, because that would be us-vs-them relationship? Of course not, because it's worth thinking in terms of those groups' existence, even it's an arbitrary grouping. You probably at least think about whom you might vote against. It's no different with terroristic Islamic groups.

Cengel,

Goodwill requires the cooperation of 2 parties - the party seeking and the party willing to grant it. Frankly I think the only thing we can do to gain the goodwill of radical islam is to slit our own throats so as to spare them the trouble.

Not quite. We can convert to Islam, and that would be a suitable alternative to slitting your own throat, as far as the radical jihadists are concerned.

Seriously, though, it's true that we need to promote goodwill and understanding, but that can't happen when that part of the world is completely closed to such understanding-- when Muslims who dare to be open and tolerant are murdered by the extremists (for whom tolerance is an affront). That will only happen when moderate (i.e., open and tolerant) Muslims come to understand that their interests and values can better co-exist with the West than with the radical jihadists who would force them to conform to their particular (and particularly intolerant) brand of Islam.

Well gosh darn it, then Greenpeace SHOULD step right up and denounce radical Islam. Also, that guy at the DMV? Bully pulpit time! Get mad, street-cart vendors! Freakouts for everyone, no matter how unrelated to the issue!

Meanwhile, here in NYC, where we were actually *attacked*, some people are still trying to figure out how to shove the radicals back into the hole they came from. Kinda like how right-wingers were marginalized in the 90s, when the country was prosperous and well-managed. Remember that?

Ok, that was a fun cheap shot. Back to your regularly-scheduled hotheadedness, red-staters. :)

Bobby,

That wouldn't actualy do it, would it? I mean it's a very specific and narrow interpretation of Islam that most of these jihadist groups seem to find acceptable right? Isn't anyone who claims to be a Muslim but isn't willing to adhere to thier specific interpretations of what that means singled out as target just as much (if not even more so) then us infidels?

I am curious as to your take on 2 things (as some-one who has a great deal of experience/exposure to this issue):

1) Do you think that these groups need/want us as targets regardless of what we do? And that even if we weren't around to oppose them, they would manufacture some target to direct themselves against?

It seems to me that without some target or enemy....and in fact a pretty strong enemy.... such groups couldn't sustain the inertia they have. After all, if there wasn't some-one for these guys to martyr themselves against how could they possibly become martyrs and attain paradise.

Note, I'm not saying that I think there is anything we could do practicaly to avoid being a target. I'm just curious as to the degree that the leaders of these groups genuinely believe they have a beef with us.... vs thier need to identify some target, whatever it is, to sustain the power of thier movements and we just happen to make a highly visable target.

2) I'm curious as to why (in your opinion) moderate Islam isn't doing more to oppose these groups..... or are they doing alot and we just aren't hearing about it from the media.

It seems to me that moderate Islam has alot more to loose from these groups then we do. After all, thier countries are getting trashed far more heavily then ours is as a result of the activities of the jihadists. Furthermore, the jihadists are doing all this in the name of thier religion not ours. In essence they are claiming they are doing in the name of the same God that the moderates believe in. I know that nothing would make me more furious then some-one who claimed to be doing something on my behalf that I fundementaly disagreed with.

What's your take on the situation of moderate Islams response?

I would encourage you all to read the actual text of the pope's message (WARNING: its long and VERY academic). My impressions after reading the text:
1) Given present state of Muslim/non-Muslim relationships it probably was unwise to cite a discussion between a muslim and non-muslim to illustrate the issue of rationality in religion. However, the point was valid: does our understanding of God's will supercede our understanding of what's right and wrong. (I wonder why he didn't use Abraham and his planned execution of his son as the example) 2)The gist of the lecture (and it was an academic lecture) was the role of reason in religion. 3) Even "non-believers" would have sympathy with his argument that we can't throw out our God-given rational minds in living out our faith. 4) Many have said this before, but it is supremely ironic that Muslims have reacted to the "perceived" slur by the Pope that Muslims, in the name of God, act violently BY ACTING VIOLENTLY. 5) Boy does Islam need a "reformation". Though to be fair, the Reformation in Christianity was against an established hierarchy. Islam has no central Church. 6) I'm waiting for a Muslim leading to come out an say"Wow, I disagree with the Pope but I'm impressed that he's read the Koran".

Cengel,

1) Do you think that these groups need/want us as targets regardless of what we do? And that even if we weren't around to oppose them, they would manufacture some target to direct themselves against?

It's tough to say. But if we start with an assumption of the Left-- that our conflict with the jihadists are largely brought on by specific elements of our foreign policy (usually some combination of our support for Israel, support for Middle Eastern dictators, exploitation of their natural resources, military presence in their country, cultural arrogance and incredible wealth, etc. etc.), and that we can end such conflict only by redressing those policies-- then that leads us directly to Osama Bin Laden himself, who essentially espoused the same argument in 2004 when he argued that it isn't America or the West that he had a problem with, but our actions overseas, and if we merely ended our presence abroad, then there would be no conflict.

It sounds nice and easy, but the only problem with this argument is that it was a deliberate lie, perhaps crafted to try and throw a bone to the Left (who, in many cases, accepted it unquestioningly). It's important to note that Osama Bin Laden is not the jihadist terrorists-- even all of Al Qaeda are not the jihadist terrorists; they are terrorists, but merely one individual and one faction of a much, much larger radical Islamist movement. And the response of the radicals to numerous events-- many completely disconnected with US foreign policy, such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh or the Mohammed cartoons-- seemingly demonstrates that they want more than just our foreign policy changed: it's aspects of our way of life that we hold fundamental to Western culture.

Moreover, the radical jihadists see Islam much like the Brezhnev Doctrine viewed Marxism-- as an inexorable, irreversible march toward destiny, and that it cannot legitimately be replaced by anything (this is why changing religions-- unlikely to do more than raise an eyebrow in the West-- is a death penalty offense in their world). So "withdrawing from their world" means the Middle East and Central Asia, to be sure, but it also includes southern Europe (including Spain) and eastern Europe, South Asia, much of the Pacific (because of Indonesia and Malaysia, and they consider the Philippines, too, which many Filipinos don't appreciate). Eventually, if Islam continues to spread, it means most of the world.

That said, my guess is that even if we completely withdrew from their part of the world and turned a blind callous eye to the massive (and violent) repression that would result against women, minorities, and homosexuals, they would still turn hostile to the West because they believe that many aspects of our way of life undermine theirs-- our free press allows different viewpoints to be expressed, including things than they consider evil; our movies demonstrate things in life that are impermissible in the Muslim world (at least publicly; behind closed doors, nature has a way breaking through cultural barriers); and so on and so on.

So I guess the simple answer is that, yes, they would still oppose us, although their strategy might encourage them to first topple the authoritarian regimes and emplace theocratic-style regimes to channel their effort, and they would probably expend an enormous amount of energy in-fighting against each other (along ethnic and sectarian lines), thereby limiting (at least somewhat and temporarily) the energy they can direct against the US.

Now that doesn't mean we can't mitigate and re-direct some of this hostility through changes in our foreign policy, but, yeah, they're not going away just because we capitulate, because-- for the radical jihadists-- victory is such a total and complete thing that it would fundamentally require us to change our society.

I think the biggest reason people might react more to what the pope said than to what radical islamists say or do is that most people who are not radical islamists believe, as I do, that radical islamists are friggin' nuts, and we have come to expect them to act the way they do.

I agree that Westerners (or whatever category works best for you to describe people who believe in liberal democracy) should unite in defense of free speech and in condemnation the kind of violence that erupts when some Westerner says something the islamists don't like. But I guess free speech works for those who might apologize for the words of the pope, too. And for those who say there should be no apologies. And so on... (Or so what?)

2) I'm curious as to why (in your opinion) moderate Islam isn't doing more to oppose these groups..... or are they doing alot and we just aren't hearing about it from the media.

They're definitely out there, but not to the extent that we need if we're going to reach a rapprochement, and getting there is a very long road, indeed.

I'm going to do everyone a disservice by even trying to answer this one, but it begins with the relatively low education level of the worldwide Muslim population-- like Catholic Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, Islam has not (yet) really had the benefit of a Reformation/Counter-Reformation and an Enlightenment that the West went through a few centuries back, and that the Pope repeatedly referenced in his address. Thus, they tend to be uneducated and unworldly, and place a greater emphasis on the opinions of their religious leaders (who tend to be the most educated members of their society, both in 18th century Spain and the contemporary Islamic world). This, by definition, gives a greater amount of power to those who wield the most radical of religious positions. Consider, for a moment, if Americans had the same low literacy rate and lack of access to the greater world, just how much more power someone like Pat Robertson might yield... And how disastrous for American society that would be. Moreover, in many respects, Islam is highly insulated from other cultures and religions-- and here the Europeans are doing the world no service by refusing/failing to integrate and assimilate their Muslim minorities-- and you get the perpetuation of the views of the most extreme elements.

The education level helps to explain why American Muslims tend to be so much more moderate than others, but there are other issues in play as well. When we were assisting with the first elections in Afghanistan, quite often the Joint Elections Management Board would try and disqualify political parties with undesirable messages, because they were vastly unpopular-- rather than simply letting their unpopularity play out by losing badly at the polls (as many eventually did). This notion that the community must vigorously prosecute the safety of all by denying individuals the freedom to make a bad choice is inherent in their dogma-- and probably reminds one of certain Western practices three hundred years ago (before Jefferson said "It does me no harm for my neighbor to believe in many gods, or no god at all").

Understanding the nature of the community itself-- what they call the umma-- is important in understanding the loyalty they feel to one another and how quickly they close ranks when criticized by outsiders. Again, this is something that all cultures and organizations share to some degree, but I'm often struck at how powerful this sentiment is in Islam. My father-- a Salvadoran immigrant-- has no problem understanding the deficiencies of Central American culture and doesn't feel the need to defend the Mara Salvatruchi and other negative things to non-Latinos; Muslims, on the other hand, have a much more difficult time doing this. The default position, if not to defend the extremists, generally tends to be to remain silent to what they do. Part of that is self-preservation, of course (the radical jihadists will kill someone for criticizing them), but much of it is the sense of loyalty to the umma.

At the current moment, it takes more than just a moderate to speak out against the extremism of the radical jihadists-- it takes an activist, and a particularly brave one at that, who is willing to risk his life in order to advance a different way to the moderates and allow them to see that the jihadists don't necessarily have to be the only way. Whether from our values or out of our interests, Americans need to understand that this conflict is one in which we can and should be involved (even if it's not kinetically) in facilitating the ascendance of the liberal activists and the emergence of a mainstream moderate umma that can co-exist with other civilizations. Right now, prematurely withdrawing from that part of the world, won't do a thing to help, and will only exacerbate things heavily.

I agree that there is some element of truth in what the Pope apparently said. And, as people noted,there is a lot of irony in committing violence in order to repudiate the canard about being violent. But the point of an apology is not to placate the radical Islamists (who can't be placated), but to avoid demonizing an entire religion based on the actions of a (admittedly relatively large) minority. I would think it's a bad idea for the Pope to make overbroad generalizations about any religion--especially given Christianity's history (obviously not recent) of war and violence. Obviously, the Islamists overreacted to his comments and they seek reasons to overreact, especially since they show little, if any, respect for other religions themselves. Nevertheless, I can't see that it makes sense to make generalizations about religions that are sure to inflame people--if for no other reason than the fact that it is sure to get people hurt. Yes, it shouldn't but it does. And the fact is, statements like that don't help to isolate the jihadists, they make them more popular.

I think Bobby's analysis is very good. Muslim culture, in most parts of the world, is very insular and has not been driven by the dynamics that transformed western religions. And, let's face it, free speech is a cultural phenomenon. Obviously, there have been many culures and movements (including in the west) that put the sanctity of the community above the abstract rights of the individual. I think we have to recognize this fundamental difference--not to say it's right but to recognize the fact that it exists. We have no reason to allow people in western countries to kill because of this, but we need to recognize that statements like the Pope's will inflame much of the world. It seems to me that the only way to change the behavior is to change the cultural and political environment and that is going to involve more engagement but also more respect for the realities of the culture.