For many Western liberals - and even some conservatives - the war on terror is a clash of opposed fundamentalisms: Christianity vs. Islamic fundamentalism. And the solution? Promote secularism both here in America and throughout the Muslim world. This means urging our Muslim allies in Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere to get rid of Muslim laws and have secular laws. It means closing down the Muslim schools and replacing them with secular schools. It means encouraging secular programs on radio and TV.

Not only is this diagnosis of the problem wrong, but the solutions proposed are actually fueling Muslim rage and making future terrorist attacks against us more likely. The reason is that, from the point of view of Islamic radicals, America is not hated because it is Christian. Rather, America is hated because it is secular, what Osama bin Laden has called "the leading power of the unbelievers." So by promoting secularism, we are corroborating the charge of radical Muslims that we are the enemies of their religion, and this also alienates traditional Muslims and pushes them into the radical camp.

It is time to revisit some common assumptions. Many Americans consider Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists as essentially equivalent, "kindred spirits," in the words of the late novelist William Styron. Al Gore finds in President Bush "the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia." In her book The Mighty and the Almighty, Madeleine Albright frets that "hard-liners can find in the Koran and the Bible justifications for endless conflict."

In this view, Christian and Muslim religious fanatics are once again fighting each other, as they have done in the past. As Jim Wallis puts it in his book God's Politics, there is a close parallel between Islam's holy war against the West and George Bush's holy war against Islamic terrorism. From this perspective, the best solution is for America to stand up for the principles of secularism and oppose both Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.

This view of the war is founded, however, on a superficial understanding of bin Laden's rhetoric declaring a religious war of civilizations. Bin Laden does speak of the world as being divided into a "region of faith" and a "region of infidelity." And at times he defines the clash as one between Muslims and the "crusaders."

But the context of bin Laden's arguments clearly shows that he is not speaking of a religious war between Islam and Christianity. In the same videotaped remarks in which he posits these conflicts, he praises Christianity. In one statement, he observes that Islam respects the prophets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam "without distinguishing among them."

In the classical Muslim understanding, there is a fundamental distinction between Jews and Christians, on the one hand, and polytheists and atheists on the other. According to Islam, Judaism and Christianity are incomplete but genuine revelations. As monotheists, Jews and Christians have historically been entitled to Muslim respect and even protection. In every Islamic empire, from the Umayyad to the Abbasid to the Ottoman, Jews and Christians were permitted to practice their religion, and in no Muslim regime has it ever been considered legitimate to systematically kill them.

By contrast, polytheists and atheists have always been anathema to Islam. The Koran says, "Fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them." These passages, which bin Laden frequently quotes, do not refer to Christians, because Christians are not considered pagans or idolaters. Rather, they refer to those, like the Bedouins of ancient Arabia, who worship many gods or no god. Muslims are commanded to fight these unbelievers, especially when they threaten the House of Islam.

Muslim radicals could repudiate the entire Islamic tradition and argue that Christians and Jews are no different from atheists and deserve the same treatment. But this claim would undoubtedly alienate traditional Muslims. Sheikh Sayyed Muhammad Tantawi, head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, recently argued the traditional view that "Islam has never been and will never be at war with Christianity."

For bin Laden to declare war against Christianity would divide even the radical Muslim camp. The influential radical Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi has said that Muslims "believe in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Our Islamic faith is not complete without them."

Islamic radicals such as bin Laden make their case against America and the West not on the grounds that these cultures are Christian, but on the grounds that they have abandoned Christianity. In his May 2006 letter to President Bush, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faulted America not for being Christian, but for not being Christian enough. Many years earlier, the radical theoretician Sayyid Qutb made the same point: The main reason for the West's moral decay is that in the modern era, "religious convictions are no more than a matter of antiquarian interest."

Other Muslim radicals today echo these arguments. The influential Pakistani scholar Khurshid Ahmad, leader of the Islamic Assembly of Students, or Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba, argues: "Had Western culture been based on Christianity, on morality, on faith, the language and modus operandi of the contact and conflict would have been different. But that is not the case. The choice is between the divine principle and a secular materialistic culture."

Even though Christianity has eroded, Muslim radicals contend that the ancient crusading spirit now infuses the pagan culture of the West. When bin Laden calls America a crusader state, he means that America is on a vicious international campaign to impose its atheist system of government and its pagan values on Muslims. How? By supporting secular dictators in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And by exporting a secular culture that undermines the traditional values of Islam.

In this way, bin Laden argues that America is hell-bent on destroying the Muslim religion. The rallying cry of Islamic radicalism is that "Islam is under attack." In a 1998 declaration, bin Laden called on Muslims to "launch attacks against the armies of the American devils" and to kill Americans, whom he identified as the "helpers of Satan." In a 2003 sermon, he praised the Sept. 11 hijackers and compared the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center to the idols in the Kaaba that the Prophet Muhammad destroyed in the year 630 upon his victorious return to Mecca.

Thus, the popular notion that the war against terrorism is a battle of two opposed forms of religious fundamentalism is false. This is not why the Islamic radicals are fighting against America. From the perspective of bin Laden and his allies, the war is between the Muslim-led forces of monotheism and morality against the America-led forces of atheism and immorality. Secularism, not Christianity is responsible for producing a blowback of Muslim rage.

Tens of thousands of anti-abortion activists marched on Washington D.C. this past Monday to mark the 34th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

While aborting a child remains legal, a California Legislator moves to criminalize spanking a child.

Do we really need to say the obvious, that any culture that allows doctors to kill near-birth children but bans spanking is more than a little bit confused on the question of fundamental human dignity.

“Assemblywoman Lieber has stated that her reason for introducing the bill is to ban ‘beating’ children. There is a distinct, obvious difference between beating and spanking,” explained Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “Beating is abuse generated by anger and frustration—it is already illegal to beat children. Spanking is a form of discipline used by loving parents who want to teach their children obedience and respect. Assemblywoman Lieber is mistaken if she equates beating with spanking—they are completely different.”

Christian Newswire

Sundance Film Festival debuts two films that confirm we no longer have to worry about the slippery moral slope. We’ve hit bottom!

12 year old Dakota Fanning 'raped' in new film

"Prosecutors in Wilmington, N.C., 'are aware' of a scene for the movie 'Hounddog' in which the character played by 12-year-old actress Dakota Fanning reportedly is violently raped, and say if an investigation is launched, authorities could consider sexual exploitation charges.

The scene, widely reported on the Internet, is in the movie where Fanning plays the role of a "precocious, troubled girl (who) finds safe haven in the music and movement of Elvis Presley," according to Blue Line Radio, which monitors child-abuse allegations.

World Net Daily News

Sundance film features bestiality!

"I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."
Director Robinson Devor

Zoo is another film premiering at this year's Sundance Film Festival that pushes the moral envelope. The film is based on the story of a recent bestiality episode in Washington state that resulted in the death of one of the three men or "zoos" (those who like to have sex with animals--in this case a horse) involved. There is, as it turns out, no law against bestiality in Washington. Some have described the result in typical Hollywoodeze such as "lyrical" and "poetic" with the director, Robinson Devor , quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying, "I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it." He adds that he is not trying to be polemical about the subject but offers his ethical opinion on bestiality: "It happens, so it's part of who we are."

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.