As you know, I have mostly refrained from any direct criticism of you even when I have disagreed with you. So take that into consideration when you read what follows.
How come when Fouad Ajami says "A terrible condition afflicts the Arabs" he is not a bigot?
When he says about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "he can be forgiven the sense that he is a holy warrior on behalf of a wider Arab world that has averted its gaze from his crimes, that has given him its silent approval," he is not called names by you.
But when I have said the similar things about Arabs and Muslims, you have implied that I am a hateful Christian bigot. When I pointed out an article by Bruce Thornton about the pathologies of the so-called moderate Muslims, you mocked "The Big Bad Muslim Threat." Then you proceeded to divert attention with the tired argument that Christians have not been perfect either - as if the sins of one group absolve a totally different group from any responsibility whatsoever.
And when I failed to respond to a gratuituous anecdote about a single Muslim, you labeled me and others "unpatriotic hypocrites." (link) Of course, Stephen Malcolm Anderson had the best answer to your "Face of the Enemy? question:
"The cold, hard fact is: We don't know, and we dare not take any chances."
It seems to be your position that unless I become a certified Muslim cheer leader, I cannot criticize the Arab world, or the religion that drives its culture. Certainly, you have mocked that position when it comes to other issues. You don't countenance the idea that only women can speak to women's issues, or that blacks are the only legitimate spokespeople for racial issues. But in this instance, you seem to have a blind spot. So what gives? Of Course, as you say in this post, insisting on 100% consistency is foolish.
Maybe you are a little uncomfortable with true believers, or at least with the idea of objective truth, or perhaps there is another answer that I cannot discern from your writings. Since we have never formally met, it is hard to know and difficult to make any personal judgments.
But if really and truly believing that Christianity is the one true path to God makes me a bigot, then I suppose I am a bigot. That belief necessarily means that I believe all other religions are lies and subversions of the truth. But - and this is important - it is not necessary for me to hate those with whom I disagree. Have I prejudged the adherents of other religions to be tragically wrong? Yes. I suppose that makes me prejudiced. But does it make me a bigot? Do my beliefs inform my politics? Yes, they do. Should I therefore recuse myself from any policy discussions that might be affected by my beliefs?
I am not angry with you or with anyone else for criticizing Christianity or Christians. To me, it comes with the territory. Being criticized for my beliefs is part of the price of being a Christian. Simultaneously, I don't think I need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. I believe their religion is completely in error and affects their culture in dramatically awful ways. I also think Stephen Malcom Anderson's polytheism is sending him down a path to eternal destruction. But at least his fellow travelers are not flying airplanes into sky scrapers, or bombing grade schools.
I think that people who view our current conflict from a purely secular point of view sometimes miss the point of the war. There is a culture clash occuring, as much as secularists are loath to admit it.
If Muslims believe 1) that their religion is true, and 2) that we can have that dispute peacefully, then we can coexist in a modern democracy. But they must be willing to suffer scathing criticism without resorting to violence just as Christians suffer it in many parts of our society. For the violent proponents of Islam, there is no path to compatibility.
You have rightly pointed out that many Muslims live under some form of democracy. So I am willing to acknowledge that some of my criticism may have been off target. It is possible to create some separation between politics and religion. The separation between religion and culture is more problematic. Perhaps it is the combination of Islam with Arabism that is the threat. But there is a religious component to the threat we face, and ignoring that is a recipe for disaster.
Arabism + Islam = human ambition + supposed moral authority
This is similar to the argument monarchs once made to perpetuate their rule. They claimed a divine right to govern, when in fact it was raw ambition which drove their actions, and the moral authority of religion was used to squelch dissent.
This was the recipe for hundreds of years of conflict within the Christian world - especially when potentates argued about who truly held divine authority.
I'm pretty annoyed. I wrote a fairly lengthy response here and I show it's not here. I don't know what happened.
The short form then: I often defend Christians and Christianity from their harshest detractors. I see this as no different.
If I wanted to I could cherry-pick some bible quotes and point to some historical figures to show the basic nature of Christianity as embracing slavery, embracing tyrannical government, and more. Just for example I can site you chapter and verse if you ask where Paul states quite clearly that rebellion against rulers is forbidden, which was the basis of the Divine Right of Kings that held sway over Europe for well over a thousand years, and which caused many Christians in America to vociferously opposed the revolution in the 1770s and to fight for the King--not for love of him but because God made him their king, as Paul clearly stated to their minds. Many of them took up and left for Canada or other British territories when the rebels won, saying that these united States were satanic, evil, and would be doomed to perdition.
Cherry-picking koranic verses to make the faith look bad, and scoffing at moderate and liberal-minded muslims is, to my mind, an excellent way to vindicate the worldview of Osama Bin Laden.
It's also a great way to encourage muslims to say, "You know, Osama's right--we can never make peace with these Christian dogs, look how they tell lies about us, mock us, mock our faith!"
Fouad Ajami is speaking of his brothers. He's shaming them by pointing to how they're betraying their fellow muslims, betraying their fellow Arabs. He isn't endorsing the vicious extremists as fundamentally correct, nor endorsing the idea that America is engaged in a Christian war against Islam.
I really wish more people on the right would be trying to reach out and talk to muslims rather than scoffing and tacitly endorsing the viewpoint of the terrorists.
As you know, I have mostly refrained from any direct criticism of you even when I have disagreed with you. So take that into consideration when you read what follows.
How come when Fouad Ajami says "A terrible condition afflicts the Arabs" he is not a bigot?
When he says about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "he can be forgiven the sense that he is a holy warrior on behalf of a wider Arab world that has averted its gaze from his crimes, that has given him its silent approval," he is not called names by you.
But when I have said the similar things about Arabs and Muslims, you have implied that I am a hateful Christian bigot. When I pointed out an article by Bruce Thornton about the pathologies of the so-called moderate Muslims, you mocked "The Big Bad Muslim Threat." Then you proceeded to divert attention with the tired argument that Christians have not been perfect either - as if the sins of one group absolve a totally different group from any responsibility whatsoever.
And when I failed to respond to a gratuituous anecdote about a single Muslim, you labeled me and others "unpatriotic hypocrites." (link) Of course, Stephen Malcolm Anderson had the best answer to your "Face of the Enemy? question: It seems to be your position that unless I become a certified Muslim cheer leader, I cannot criticize the Arab world, or the religion that drives its culture. Certainly, you have mocked that position when it comes to other issues. You don't countenance the idea that only women can speak to women's issues, or that blacks are the only legitimate spokespeople for racial issues. But in this instance, you seem to have a blind spot. So what gives? Of Course, as you say in this post, insisting on 100% consistency is foolish.
Maybe you are a little uncomfortable with true believers, or at least with the idea of objective truth, or perhaps there is another answer that I cannot discern from your writings. Since we have never formally met, it is hard to know and difficult to make any personal judgments.
But if really and truly believing that Christianity is the one true path to God makes me a bigot, then I suppose I am a bigot. That belief necessarily means that I believe all other religions are lies and subversions of the truth. But - and this is important - it is not necessary for me to hate those with whom I disagree. Have I prejudged the adherents of other religions to be tragically wrong? Yes. I suppose that makes me prejudiced. But does it make me a bigot? Do my beliefs inform my politics? Yes, they do. Should I therefore recuse myself from any policy discussions that might be affected by my beliefs?
I am not angry with you or with anyone else for criticizing Christianity or Christians. To me, it comes with the territory. Being criticized for my beliefs is part of the price of being a Christian. Simultaneously, I don't think I need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. I believe their religion is completely in error and affects their culture in dramatically awful ways. I also think Stephen Malcom Anderson's polytheism is sending him down a path to eternal destruction. But at least his fellow travelers are not flying airplanes into sky scrapers, or bombing grade schools.
I think that people who view our current conflict from a purely secular point of view sometimes miss the point of the war. There is a culture clash occuring, as much as secularists are loath to admit it.
If Muslims believe 1) that their religion is true, and 2) that we can have that dispute peacefully, then we can coexist in a modern democracy. But they must be willing to suffer scathing criticism without resorting to violence just as Christians suffer it in many parts of our society. For the violent proponents of Islam, there is no path to compatibility.
You have rightly pointed out that many Muslims live under some form of democracy. So I am willing to acknowledge that some of my criticism may have been off target. It is possible to create some separation between politics and religion. The separation between religion and culture is more problematic. Perhaps it is the combination of Islam with Arabism that is the threat. But there is a religious component to the threat we face, and ignoring that is a recipe for disaster.
This is similar to the argument monarchs once made to perpetuate their rule. They claimed a divine right to govern, when in fact it was raw ambition which drove their actions, and the moral authority of religion was used to squelch dissent.
This was the recipe for hundreds of years of conflict within the Christian world - especially when potentates argued about who truly held divine authority.
The short form then: I often defend Christians and Christianity from their harshest detractors. I see this as no different.
If I wanted to I could cherry-pick some bible quotes and point to some historical figures to show the basic nature of Christianity as embracing slavery, embracing tyrannical government, and more. Just for example I can site you chapter and verse if you ask where Paul states quite clearly that rebellion against rulers is forbidden, which was the basis of the Divine Right of Kings that held sway over Europe for well over a thousand years, and which caused many Christians in America to vociferously opposed the revolution in the 1770s and to fight for the King--not for love of him but because God made him their king, as Paul clearly stated to their minds. Many of them took up and left for Canada or other British territories when the rebels won, saying that these united States were satanic, evil, and would be doomed to perdition.
Cherry-picking koranic verses to make the faith look bad, and scoffing at moderate and liberal-minded muslims is, to my mind, an excellent way to vindicate the worldview of Osama Bin Laden.
It's also a great way to encourage muslims to say, "You know, Osama's right--we can never make peace with these Christian dogs, look how they tell lies about us, mock us, mock our faith!"
Fouad Ajami is speaking of his brothers. He's shaming them by pointing to how they're betraying their fellow muslims, betraying their fellow Arabs. He isn't endorsing the vicious extremists as fundamentally correct, nor endorsing the idea that America is engaged in a Christian war against Islam.
I really wish more people on the right would be trying to reach out and talk to muslims rather than scoffing and tacitly endorsing the viewpoint of the terrorists.