 |
|
|
| January 17, 2007 |
|
| Dear Concerned Citizen, |
by tothesource |
|
tothesource: Following 9/11 a vocal minority became open critics of "American colonialism" and its attempt to control the Middle East through oil, Israel, and military might.
Now you've joined the blame America first crowd, except with a big twist. You argue in The Enemy at Home: the Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 that America's cultural decadence is to blame. Abortion, divorce, feminism, gay marriage, and explicit sexual content replacing religious expression in the public square all repulse traditional Muslims. You contend that since the Khomeini revolution in Iran, omnipresent American decadence has turned traditional Muslims into radicalized Islamicists, willing to do whatever it takes to halt the spread of this agenda to their homeland.
Last week Nancy Pelosi became the first female speaker of the House of Representatives, partially as a result of voter concern over Bush's handling of the Iraq war, indicating that many Americans seem to be tilting toward the argument that it is American power that is partially to blame for Islamic terrorism.
Aren't you swimming against the political tide on this? Besides, why did you politicize this? Islamic radicals are repulsed by secularism, which can be found in both parties.
Dinesh D'Souza: The role of the cultural left in laying the seeds of 9/11 is a completely ignored aspect of the war on terror debate. The cultural left is not the same as the Democratic Party, although it is the dominant intellectual and activist influence in that party. There are Republicans too who belong to the cultural left, or are at least on the same wavelength on social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
tts: Is the cultural left solely responsible for 9/11?
D'Souza: Various members of the cultural left have famously blamed 9/11 on the U.S. military, the oil industry, American colonialism. What I am saying is that the cultural left bears some blame as well. Here’s why.
The cultural left has fostered a decadent American culture that angers and repulses traditional societies, especially those in the Islamic world. It is waging a global campaign to undermine the traditional family and to promote secular values in non-Western cultures. This has provoked a violent reaction from Muslims who believe their most cherished values are under assault. The cultural left has emboldened the Bin Ladens of the world to attack us in the firm conviction that "America deserves it" and that they can do so with relative impunity. So when radicals say of 9/11, "We made them do this to us," in a sense they're right. It's not America that's to blame. But their actions and their America are increasingly responsible for fostering anti-Americanism in general, and 9/11 in particular.
Here in America we recognize that there is a difference between American popular culture and the way that Americans actually live. But my mother, sitting in her living room in Bombay, sees some of the stuff on American TV or hears the lyrics to American songs and she says, "What a bunch of perverts these Americans are." To much of the world, American popular culture is America. It's American culture that is spreading into every nook and cranny of the world. Nobody is listening to German music or watching French movies. That's why the Islamic radicals focus on America. That's why we are their Great Satan. American culture is invading their world. They fear that if they allow in the values that America is exporting, this will have the effect of undermining their religion, their family structure, their social stability, and the innocence of their children. To a degree, they are right. It's important to remember how outrageous and offensive much of this agenda is to the traditional cultures of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The family there is not a unit of self-expression, it is the basic unit of survival.
tts: Many Americans believe Islam is caught up in a Constantinian vision to conquer and convert by force.
D'Souza: There is no "inherent conquering spirit" in Islam, any more than there is one in Christianity. Yes, early Islam did conquer a great deal of territory and early Christianity didn't. But that's because Christianity began in defeat, with the early Christians harassed and persecuted, while Islam began with success, with the prophet Muhammad becoming the ruler of a large domain. So Islam began to spread through force and conquest, but this is no different than the Roman empire which, let us remember, also carried Christianity to the far corners of Europe. Since the founding period there have been several Islamic empires: the Umayyad, the Abassid, the Mughal, the Ottoman, and so on. All have behaved like conventional dynasties, sometimes imperialist, usually valuing stability over everything else.
Despite the Koran's call to "slay the infidels" this has never been read as a mandate to forcibly convert or kill non-Muslims. No Muslim empire ever did that. The Mughals ruled northern India for 200 years. They could have killed the Hindus. They could have forcibly converted them all. They did none of this. Similarly under the Ottomans there were Jews and Christians who went to synagogue and church. The Ottomans gave them relative autonomy over their own communities. If you go to Istanbul today you can see these Jewish and Christian churches. These were not built after the secular Ataturk regime. They were built during the Ottoman period. There is a great deal of nonsense being said today about how Islam is the problem and how Islam leads to terrorism. But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism dates back around 25 years, to the Khomeini revolution. The reasonable question to ask is what is it about Islam today that has made it an incubator of fanaticism? Why has traditional Islam become such a fertile recruiting pool for radical Islam?
tts: OK. Why has it?
D'Souza: The Islamic world is divided into traditional Muslims and radical Muslims. The traditional Muslims are the ones who have practiced Islam in the way it has been practiced since the days of Muhammad. The Islamic radicals are a new force that has gained power in the last few decades. My point is that we cannot win the war on terror without driving a wedge between these two groups. The reason is that the radical Muslims are recruiting from the pool of traditional Muslims. So no matter how many radicals America captures or kills, it's no use if twice as many traditional Muslims join the radical camp. What unites the radical and the traditional Muslims is not merely opposition to American values or culture, but a deep conviction that their religion is threatened. This is their unifying slogan: "Islam is under attack." What differentiates the two groups is that the radicals want to fight a jihad against America, using any means necessary, including terrorism, while the traditionalists would prefer to find a different approach.
tts: What should America do?
D'Souza: We should show them the other America, which is conservative and traditional America. When Muslims look at America, all they see is Hollywood and family breakdown. They don't see the Americans who work hard, look after their families, and go to church. If traditional Muslims understood that there is a part of America that shares its traditional values, and that there are Americans who are working hard to combat the depravities of American society, then this would go a long way to diminish their attraction to radical and terrorist strategies. They will see, for the first time, that they have potential allies in Americans who share their respect for traditional values, and who have no problem with Muslims living by those values in their own countries.
Attacks on Islam, the religion, or on the founder of the religion are going to have the effect of alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them into the radical camp. The radicals are going to say, "See, we've always told you that Islam is the West's real target. That's what they want to get rid of." So it's very imprudent for us to blame Islam as a whole, even if Islam is to blame. But as a matter of fact Islam is not to blame. Remember that Islam has been around for 1300 years. It's absurd to blame the prophet Muhammad or the Koran for something that's quite recent.
tts: Is democracy in the Middle East a pipe dream?
There is nothing in Islam that is incompatible with democracy. The Koran says that Muslim society should be under the sovereignty of God, but this is no different than what our Declaration of Independence says. Surveys by the Pew Research Center and other groups show that the vast majority of traditional Muslims support democracy. And of course most Muslims in the world today do live under democratic governments—in Indonesia, in Malaysia, in Bangladesh, in India, and in Turkey.
Now Iraq is a difficult experiment to see if democracy can work in the Middle East. I'd like to see it work, because right now Muslims in the region have a sad choice between Islamic tyranny (such as Iran) and secular tyranny (such as Syria, Jordan or Egypt). If democracy succeeds in Iraq, it provides an alternative to both Islamic tyranny and secular tyranny. Now history is against us, because there has never been a Muslim democracy in the Middle East. And the Islamic radicals are scared, because they don't want a pro-American democracy in the region. So they are fighting desperately to topple the elected government. Even the secular dictators who are allied with us aren't too excited about democracy succeeding in Iraq, because it may give ideas to traditional Muslims in their countries. Despite all this, I think it can work and I'd like to see it work.
tts: What should Christians do?
D'Souza: My advice would be to stress that while the three Abrahamic religions of the world—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—have important differences in theology, they also have great areas of common ground. All three are monotheistic, and believe in one God. Despite differences in theology, the three religions are quite similar in morality. A traditional Jew or Christian has more in common with a traditional Muslim than either of them has with a radical secularist. I would like to see a global alliance of monotheism to fight this secular agenda. Establishing this alliance would give Christians opportunities to address the real problems we have with the Muslim approach to religious freedom and other issues.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Response to Why Do Teachers Teach?:
I enjoyed this article very much, by and large. I am a Christian, and a psychologist who teaches at a Christian college, so the comments made pertain directly to the misconceptions that students often come with--particularly the misconception that science and faith must be diametrically opposed. However, I was a bit dismayed at the quick slam at Freud expressed in the article. Don't misunderstand me: I am not in agreement with most of Freud's theories, and I know his background and attitudes toward religion generally. (I am not even a clinician--I am a research psychologist.) However, that was not at issue in the article; rather, he was described as unscientific. I think that that label is somewhat unfair, and that better examples could have been found.
Freud has some qualities that I think are deserving of respect: He showed brilliant use of induction, for one thing, and he has not gone out of vogue as the author suggests;, in fact, in some circles he is enjoying a comeback. Moreover, his theories about the unconscious, though scoffed at for decades by some schools of psychology, anticipated work now being done in social cognition that suggest that he wasn't "all wet," even if he didn't have the technology to test some of his assertions--and even if some of those assertions are untestable. Finally, I might point out that for better or worse, Freud's view of human nature was a far cry closer to the biblical view than many other psychological theories that are popular today.
- Dr. Cynthia S. Symons
Professor of Psychology
Houghton College
I believe the biblical way to express the relationship between faith and reason is that faith is not believed in the irrational. It is belief in the unseen. In 2Corinthians 5:7, Paul asserts that we walk by faith, not by sight. He does not say that we walk by faith, not by reason. As the intelligent design movement is demonstrating, the Biblical worldview is far more rational (supported by empirical evidence and reason) than any of the other options.
- Paul Brownback
First definitions of the terms "religion," and "faith," from the "Merriam Webster Online" dictionary, and the definition of "God" from me .
Religion: 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Faith: 2b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
God: The explanation for existence.
Religion as "a system of beliefs" includes theistic and atheistic beliefs.
I think that existence exists, that there is an explanation for existence, and that the human being is not the explanation, nor the reason, for existence.
I think that there is evidence that existence exists.
I do not know, nor does anyone know, the explanation for existence, but I have faith that there is an explanation for existence. Therefore, I believe in "God."
I think that God has no greater concern for the human being than for a dolphin, a dog, an ant, an ocean, the earth, or the universe.
Theistic religion needs to elevate the human being to a one to one relationship with God in order to give the human being more than just life on earth, namely an "afterlife," or Heaven.
Take afterlife out of theistic religion and religion becomes a set of beliefs about the moral and ethical conduct of human beings during their life on earth.
Theistic religion provides believers in a deity with answers to questions that have plagued human beings from their beginning.
Namely: Who am I? Why am I here? What happens to me when I die? Where am I going when I die?
Are the supernatural answers provided by theistic religion, reasonable or must they be accepted on faith?
So far, brains, rationality, religion, science, reason, faith, and God, have not provided answers to everyone's satisfaction.
Dr. Wiker, and others, "have a brain," so the inquiry will continue.
Religiously,
- Norman Henry
That had to have been one of the most retarded articles I've ever read.people can have faith in all kinds of different things and for the most part these faiths seem to be exempt from the ruthless scrutiny that real science is.Unproveable supernatural forces can't be factored into science.we have to be humble enough to sometimes say we just don't know.I'm not sure if we can have faith in gravity or faith in the sun rising again in the morning.I have trust in the scientific method because it has proven itself over and over again.
As an afterthought have you ever given any thought to ridiculing young earth creationism.Faith in a 6000 year old earth seems to slip under the radar.When do the principles of science aply and when do they not.
- m.m. sherbrooke pq.
Reason: Drawing inferences or conclusions from facts
Faith: A belief in the absence of evidence
Wiker thesis is wrong from his first (and only) basis when he says that
science advances through a faith in an intelligible order. This is wrong by
definition.
The entire article is pap from a pulpit.
Wilker is a 'fellow" at the Discovery Institute, a totally discredited bunch
who propagate "intellegent design'. - N. F. |
|
|
|
|
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
