Responses to Is Islam the Problem?:

Dinesh D’Souza will respond to your substantive letters regarding Is Islam the Problem? in next week’s email. Stay tuned!

I disagree with your main thesis. Radical Islam is a revitalization movement that attempts to forge a large segmented of previously disenfranchised peoples (mostly Arabs) into a new sense of purpose and identity. It comes as a response to the modern era, the depolarization of the world between West and communism, and the diminishing of the Arab peoples. Islam romanticizes the Arab ideal. Since it perpetuates Arab culture, many see it as a form of "Arabicism." Modern radicals are doing the same thing that the early caliphates did when they swept through the Middle East. In fact, the radicals embody Koranic Islam and its early history better than the traditional ones or their secular counterparts. The radicals are effective at recruiting adherents because they make that argument. Evangelicals use the same principle when they invoke the New Testament example and argue for the supremacy of the Scriptures in all matters of faith and practice. Islam pushes for shar'ia because the Koran requires it. Plus, it is almost impossible to be a faithful Muslim in a land that does not establish it. Shar'ia Islamicizes the society so that one's participation in it will cause him or her to adhere to the external trappings of Islam. Jews and Christians are allowed to live at peace in Dar al-Islam provided they live as subjugated people and abide by the restrictions that Islam places on them. In the long run, Islam believes that the establishment of Islamic law will convert the society and its people to Islam. Regardless, adherents of other faiths who live under Islamic law cannot practice their faith freely or evangelize. Attempts to secularize or evangelize the Arab world have not worked because Arab culture and Islam are inseparable. Muslim people have responded to radical contextualization that allows them to become followers of Jesus without "converting" to Christianity. Also, power encounter ministries have proven to be an effective means to evangelize Muslim people in societies where evangelism is permitted. In closing, Koranic Islam is not a neutral religion that can coexist with secular governments because it seeks to impose itself and its law on every segment of society. Throughout history, peace with Islam has come in one of two ways; subjugating or being subjugated. Until Western governments are willing to face the challenge of Islam by waging a full war against its ideals and its radical proponents, they will continue to lose. Their rules of engagement do not work because they are based on erroneous suppositions.  - William Payne, Ph.D.

 I must respectfully disagree with your claim that the Muslim religion is peaceful.  It may not be politically shrewd to press the violence in Islam but anyone who objectively reads the Koran or the history of Islam will see it is filled with violence. I agree that it was no more violent than some later forms of Christianity but it was overwhelmingly more violent than Christianity prior to Constantine. There is absolutely no comparison between the peaceful nature of Christ and Muhammad. Christ told his disciples to put away their swords. Muhammad was a warrior and founded an empire from Spain to India. Jesus healed his enemies. Muhammad slaughtered and tortured many of his enemies. On one occasion he slaughtered 600 Jews and enslaved their wives and children. You cited the statement of the Koran that "there is no compulsion in religion" but that reflected the period when Muhammad was a persecuted minority--not when he took power after his flight to Medina. You cited peaceful situations under Islam. Yes, after forcibly taking power Infidels were often allowed to live peacefully as long as they paid the Jizza--protection tax. However, they also were often enslaved and their children taken to be educated as Muslims. They were also restricted and repressed to pressure them into Islam.  If Islam is such a peaceful religion, where did all of those extremists come from? They quote the Koran as the authority for their extremism. They were doing it long before the present crisis. It came from the Koran and their culture. They believe that Allah gave them every bit of land they have ever had and it belongs to them in perpetuity. They want to restore their empire. Being politically clever may avoid some confrontations with Muslims but there are some other side effects that you are not recognizing. One is that it results in our own people being so passive that they blame ourselves for the conflict. The fact is that it is their own fanaticism driving this and failure to meet that with overwhelming strength is doomed to failure. These fellows are not playing by the nice rules that some of our naive people think we should. I agree that most Muslims simply want to live peaceful lives but no matter how you cut it, the violent culture and religion is going to create a strong militancy among them wherever they become strong. A violent group of extremists will always manipulate those seeds into violence. We are in for a long struggle and playing "let's pretend" is not going to avoid that. In God We Trust. -  A. Ralph Johnson

I appreciate the sentiment of the article on the difference between radical, fundamentalist Islam and the more liberal, especially Western, somewhat second-generation Islamic movement. When the Islamic world together stands against it’s radicals I will give credibility to the statements of the few that have gone public. It is very difficult, otherwise, for me to look at the aggressive push of the Islamic world in Europe, Indonesia, India (alongside the Hindus) and Africa without drawing a very different conclusion. Lawrence Rae  Senior Pastor

I just finished reading "Is Islam the Problem." Dinesh D'Souza's balance of historical awareness, hard socio-political realism, and sympathetic insight was a breath of fresh air in an atmosphere that only seems to grow more clouded with hysteria every day.  I would like to suggest, however, that there might be a third clash of civilizations at work as well. In the West there is the additional culture-collision between the decaying remnants of a worn out and discredited (but currently resurgent) Modernism (read: omni-competent rationalism, materialism, determinism, secularism, dehumanization, etc.), and an emergent "something else" vaguely lumped together under the heading "Postmodern" for lack of a better term. Again, thank you!  - Leonard Busch

In your current article by Dinesh D'Souza, the point is made that the Koran states that the sword is permitted in correcting pagans, that this did not include Jews or Christians. I disagree with this statement. From the very beginning if the Islamic movement Jews and Christians have been targeted for 'the sword'. For the most part, these two groups were tolerated IF they were able to pay hefty fines for not being of Islam, and in virtually every case they were considered second class citizens who were not allowed to vote, hold office, etc., and were required to live in ghettoes.  Thank you,  - Christopher

There are 130 verses or over dealing with the infidel. Infidels are Chistians,Jews,Hindus,Pagans,Secular Thinkers,Atheists,and also Humanist.  - J. M.

I have been a reader of to the source for quite some time. While I have not always agreed with the opinions expressed in the columns, I have always appreciated having another perspective in attempting to understand the complex issues that we face in the twenty-first century. I want to express my particular appreciation for Dinesh D’Souza’s article entitled, “Is Islam the Problem?” I found it a welcome change from the unfortunate rhetoric that we are usually presented with in our culture regarding Islam. As a Christian enrolled in a Master of Divinity program at a seminary, I recently had the opportunity to visit the Middle East, specifically Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. I wanted to see for myself, if indeed, Islam was the problem. What I found on my three-week trip was supported by Mr. D’Souza’s article—I found that there were many more traditional Muslims in those countries, even in Syria, a purported terrorist state, than I thought, and I found that, even as Americans, we were welcomed everywhere we went, including mosques. People frequently approached us on the street, saying things like, “We are not all terrorists,” and many, upon finding out that our group was from the states would comment that they, too, had friends or family living in the U.S. This is not to diminish, of course, the impact that a smaller but vocal minority of radical Muslims can have on political and social situations everywhere, but only to say that while many Muslims we met on the trip may have disagreed with the U.S.’s foreign policy, for example, on Iraq, they by no means desired to destroy the U.S. or hurt anyone. Also important to note is that the people who live in the countries of the Middle East are not synonymous with their governments! The people were eager to talk with us and to show us hospitality while we were there, and I found everyone that we met on the trip to have similar hopes and dreams to those of people expressed in the United States: they want be able to have homes, go to work and school, and live in peace like most of us in America do.  Furthermore, I appreciated Mr. D’Souza’s comments on the history of tolerance of Muhammad and the Koran with regard to Judaism and particularly to Christianity. This insight, too, was confirmed by my trip, where I found that many of the holy sites of Judaism and Christianity had been protected historically by the governments of countries I visited because of Mohammad’s influence. In fact, many of Islam’s revered sites had been built on the same sites as some of the Jewish and Christian sacred places, preserving the holiness of the spot—as we were frequently told throughout our trip, in the Middle East, “the holy remains holy.”  Finally, Mr. D’Souza’s statements regarding the violent history of Christianity as well as in the formation of nation states such as the Roman Empire, Israel, America and of course, many others, remind us of a past that many seem willing to sweep under the rug. His insights are a wake up call that we must all be vigilant and forge bonds of dialogue and understanding with peoples of every faith and creed—that is the only way to drive out fanaticism of any kind and establish lasting and true peace.  Sincerely,  - Beth Parlier

In reply to your Sept. 21st. letter I must conclude that your remarks on Islam were almost from beginning to end a jumble of ill conceived ideas totally lacking in a knowledge of reality or history.  It is untrue that Christianity (though at a later time in it's history than Islam) converted by the sword. While this was and is part of the teaching of the Qur'an, it was never part of Christian doctrine and what is taken by modern liberal interests as conquest was at least initially attempts to repatriate Christians taken and used as slaves combined with attempts( which became corrupted by personal ambition) to recapture the Holy Land from unfriendly hands. Richard Myers

As a Defender of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, boldly and  brilliantly, from the obscure Medieval text. The very act radiated a  brilliance for which we can all be proud. Canadian Catholic soldiers,  whose lives are jeopardized in Afghanistan as you read this, will draw  new strength from these bold Papal readings!  - Stephen Volk

I don''t think radical Islam is such a mystery. Suppose a foreign army occupied the United States, justified by a pack of lies. Suppose they set up checkpoints manned by frightened arrogant teenagers that wantonly shot anyone who came near, or who didn't understand the orders shouted at them in a foreign language. Suppose this occupier seized and protected government ministreis having to do with looting wealth and controlling the population - the Oil and Interior Ministries in Iraq - and watched benignly as mobs trashed and looted everything in the country, the Capitol, Independence Hall, Civil War battlefields, and every other cultural icon, and the occupiers tank treads crunched underfoot places like Lexington and Concord, or the gravesite at Arlington, as American tanks did to 6000 year-old pottery in Babylon.  Suppose this occupier issued orders privatizing the American economy for the convenience of its corporations, so they could loot it at their pleasure (Bremer's Order 39), installed one of their intelligence assets and a convicted felon as our President, and divided governance on the basis of whether people were Baptists or Roman Catholics. Suppose further that it recruited militias of young black kids from South Central LA to patrol white neighborhoods and gangs of rural white supremacists to patrol black neighborhoods.  What sort of festive reception would such an occupier receive in the United States of America? In this country, where without any such provocations we have all sorts of "Christians" wanting to kill the Muslims for Jesus, do you think all this might arouse a little radical "Christian" opposition to this occupying force? - P. A.

Your article ignores the fact that the Pope was, in fact, challenging Islam to respond to a 14th century accusation that was true then and, among Islamists, still true today. Is violent, forced conversion to the Muslim faith (which is widely practiced in Sudan and clearly a desired approach by many other radical Muslims today) acceptable and legitimate as a true understanding of Islam or not? It is a fair question and one that is worthy of a reasoned answer from reasonable people. As one well-respected blogger put it, "(The Islamists) haven't been insulted, they've been exposed, and they don't like it."  As an aside, most (but not all) radical Islamists do not consider Christianity to be a montheistic religion. They believe that Jesus was a Muslim and that his teachings were corrupted into a Trinitarian polytheism that blasphemes the truth of Allah even today. Irani President Ahmadinejad's UN speech was very clear on this point . . . at least to the Muslim (Shia) audience he was primarily speaking to.  In any case, I am still waiting for a reasonable Muslim to answer to the Pope's enqiry. Sincerely, - Bird of Paradise

It is not true, as you state, that modern Israel was founded by the sword. The State of Israel was founded in 1948 by a vote and declaration of the United Nations, after six millions Jews had perished in Europe during the Holocaust. For nearly a century, though, Jews had been buying up land and settling in Israel, not conquering it by the sword. It is true that they were violently attacked after the U.N. declaration, but the fighting that ensued was to defend the right to existence granted by the U.N. and not to found the state.  - Kelsey Haskett

In the medieval period, Islamic tolerance contrasts favorably with Christian intolerance.  Islam is indeed tolerant until it achieves it goal of becoming the majority and in power. Then it becomes very intolerant. Look at Sudia Arabia, Jews are not even allowed in the country. It is a crime to carry a Bible. There are NO PLACES of worship other than Islam. Conversion to another religion is a death sentence. This is true fundamental Islam. What the West wants to do is to change Islam into secular religion much as Christianity has become in the West. That is not Islam. In true Islam there is no "separation between church and state". In true Islam, the religious leaders are the political leaders. That is why we are failing in our "War on Terrorism". We are not fighting a political enemy but a religious ideology. In the fifteenth century, Jews were attending synagogues in Muslim regimes while Christian rulers in Spain gave them three choices: leave the country, convert to Christianity, or be killed!  In almost all cases where Christianity has incorporated violence and intolerance, it is where there was no "separation between church and state". When the Pope was wielding political power over the kings and people, yes there were atrocities. The state of Israel too, to take a more recent example, was founded by the sword.  I strongly disagree. In all cases where there were wars and violence in Israel it was because of outside threats to the very existence of Israel. Israel was only given about 14% of the land originally promised to it by the United Nations because Great Britian (as the executor) parceled out the land to the various Arab factions as a concession to gain favor. - C. R.

You wrote "Christian rulers... here it is:  In the fifteenth century, Jews were attending synagogues in Muslim regimes while Christian rulers in Spain gave them three choices: leave the country, convert to Christianity, or be killed! The Pope made no mention of this in his speech.”  Why should the Holy Father mention this? It was not the church who insitgated this! It was not by order of the Pope that these atrocities occurred. It was by the greed of the so called Christian, but actually rather secular thinking rulers of Spain, not the Vatican, that these events happened. The Holy Father cannot nor has ever pretended to be able to force anyone to do anything so you can't state that the rulers were compelled by the Pope or by Christianity to act as they did. No, these were errors or men committed by erroneous men who did not speak in the name of Rome nor of Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, words of violence flowed from both the mouth and the pen of Mohammed.  Therein lies the BIG difference.  Sincerely,  - Gabriel Espinosa

Mr. D'Souza,  You should read the Qur'an before you say it doesn't apply instructions to kill to Christians and Jews. It most certainly does. "Pagans" are not the only targets in the Qur'an. Additionally, the Mohammedan doctrine of abrogation relegates the ayat stating there is no compulsion in religion to insignificance because it was stated by Muhammad earlier in his "ministry." Earlier "revelations" are superceded by later ones (like where Muslims are told to attack those who disagree with Muhammad). Mohammedans are merely following their founder's strategy of requesting tolerance when in the minority, then are quite willing to stomp on those who disagree when they reach the point of ascendancy (look up: dhimmitude). Just because Islam hasn't at all times everywhere countered opposition with the sword doesn't mean it isn't part and parcel of the religion. When they do, they are indeed following their founder's example, which you deny in the last paragraph. Mohammedan armies practically wiped out Christianity in the Mediterranean basin early in its history (this comprised the first "Crusade"), beginning with Mohammad, and continuing with the caliphs (with short-lived exceptions).  Have there been "enlightened" rulers who left the non-Mohammedans among them alone? Certainly. But to do the reverse is not counter to Muhammad's own example left for them. As (so-called) Christianity used the sword to further its cause? How many martyrs did Rome burn at the stake? How many Anabaptists did the Reformers kill? Plenty. But in all of these cases, they did so contrary to Christ's example.  - Keith Snyder

I love your articles and I read, collect them, and often quote them in my messages on Sunday morning, but this recent article on Muslum violence reveals an ignorance of church history. The article was fine up to the point where you say Muslim violence is a phenomena of only the last 25 years. Where in the world did you get this idea?  Go back in history and study the periods between the fifth and tenth century. How do you think Islam spread across Palestine, up into Turkey, across southern Europe and even reached as far as France and Spain? It was all done by the sword. Look up Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours in France in 732. If he hadn't resisted Islam at that time we might all be speaking Arabic today. The Muslims took North Africa by the sword and took territory that remains in Muslum hands even today.  In fact, history reveals that the primary tool of evangelism in Islam is the sword, and in numerous Muslim countries today the faithful are discouraged from converting to Christianity on pain of death. In fact many Muslim countries have the death penalty on their law books for anyone who converts away from Islam.  I think you do an injustice to the truth when you try to portray Muslim violence as a recent phenomena.  If I am going to continue to receive and respect your articles, I would want to see a little more attention paid to scholarship and historical research.  Pastor and Church History Teacher  - Rev. George S. Johnston

Islam is indeed a religion of the sword; the pagans were killed or converted, the people of the book were to submit, convert or pay a tax. Jihad has always been a path for Muslims. I am aware of all the nuances flung around about Jihad; but in the main resort to arms is the final stance. There was a time when Islamic civilization (Moors, etc) was top notch. Think of Spain under occupation for example. But it later became more violent as it confronted Christianity and its own internal divisions, Shia, Sunni, etc.  The pope’s article was not an attack on Islam from my perspective. Is it not true that Islam is a violent religion? The facts speak for themselves; and not just the actual violence, but the connivance and open support for radicalism by the so called moderates. While I certainly agree that we should not disparage others’ religion, we all live in a world where differences and discussions and dislike are all in the mix of dialogue. If one side is to be held hostage by the other because they will resort to the bullet then there can be no dialogue; and sooner or later the violent will seek to take over, as we see happening in Europe. I was reminded today of this fact when a radio programmer was interviewing a Muslim leader from England. When asked what can be done to prevent the youths from joining radical groups, among the answers was that the British government should not support sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq. In other words, this leader said that the politics of the government are contributory to Islamic violence. That means that in a western country where large numbers of Muslims immigrants settle, that that country cannot have its own views which may be against Islam or there will be riots, etc. The country is then de facto a Muslim country by their presence.  This is arrogance. Our own people who do not like the government’s policies resort to the courts, campaigning, or votes; some may resort to violence, but these are dealt with according to the law. This is what Muslims must learn if they wish to live in our countries. If they cannot agree with us then they must return from the lands whence they came, either due to being persecuted or for a better life in the west. If we allow ourselves to be taken hostage by Muslims then our lands will only become like theirs. I am aware that Christianity did do some horrible things in the past. But we all know that this is not what Christianity is all about. We can read it ourselves in the Scriptures. It is different with Islam. Islam started with violence from Medina to Mecca to all Arabia and beyond. It is time Muslims sit down and talk about their violence and stand side by side with us in combating their violence, and ours if it surfaces. - Ron Henderson

When evaluating Islam let us keep in mind that Hagar, the mother of the founding father of Islam, is told explicitly by God that her son, Ishmael will be a "wild beast of a man" (Genesis 16:12). It is clear that at least a portion of Ishmael’s lineage has held true to God's prediction.  - G. S.

When it comes to Islam, I cannot get past the fact that no one is allowed to criticize it and if they do, they apparently deserve death. You write, “How can traditional Muslims be expected to show any sympathy toward assaults on their most sacred beliefs and the founder of their way of life?”, but Christians endure that every day and are expected to just take it in the name of freedom of speech. If we dare object, we then are accused of ‘hating’ whoever did the criticizing. We don’t respond by calling for someone to be condemned to hell or to die when we are criticized. Why is it ok for Muslims to do so? - Michelle Fowler

I found D’Souza’s essay to be very unenlightening and littered with historical simplifications that are misleading. Even worse he inaccurately paraphrases what Pope Benedict said. This is simply sloppy and a disservice to your poor readers. For example: “But is what the Pope said true? Is Islam, in fact, a religion of the sword that cannot be integrated into a modern world that values reason, tolerance, and pluralism?”  This is NOT what the pope said and D’Souza is verging on bald dishonesty with his stupid paraphrase of the pope’s words, quotations and the entire theme of the pope’s comments. His brief essay would have been much more interesting if he had actually taken the time to read the pope’s words – instead he only seems to have “read about Pope Benedict quoting a Byzantine emperor.” Sincerely,  - Matthew Book

Your article has a few errors that you should be made aware of. First it is interesting that you would mention the forced conversions of the 15th century. Christianity is not forced. The proper statement is that Catholicism is just like Islam and is seeking to have their Kingdom of this world, not so much by violence today but by diplomacy as your article demonstrates. The question that you should consider for taming islam is why not employ the same methods that tamed Catholicism? To say that we should limit our liberty of speech to stop the moving of moderate muslims into radical muslims is absolutely detestable. Our American forefathers shed their blood, risked and lost their lives and fortunes that we might have the liberty to spread Christ's Gospel. To spit on their blood and to trod under foot the blessed gospel of Christ is utter shamefulness. What Muslims need is fearless faithful face to face Bible preaching that exposes their sins and calls them to Repent and trust Christ and let God do the rest. And as Esther said, if I perish I perish. That is what Luther did and countless others to bring down the terrorism of the sword of Catholicism's European Inquisitions, crusades and countless corruptions and look at the effect. In Christ,  - Timothy J. Spitsbergen

You have obviously lived in a different Muslim country than I did. You also must read a different history book than I read and a different interpretation of the Muslim’s Holy Qur’an in order to come to the conclusion that you have arrived at. Data does not permit me to concur with your strange analysis, some of your applications maybe but not your strange interpretation of the aforementioned. - HD Medina

How do you figure that Israel was founded by the sword? It was founded legally by the United Nations and then defended by the sword.  - Brian Sauder

I rated the article good, but excellent it was not. The extreme weaknesses I found were the neglecting to include that if Christians were allowed to live and not accept Islam, they were made Dhimmis or second rate people who had no rights...except to live and not die. Frankly that is not living, nor is it tollerant, it was servitude with a vengence...having to admit that Islam was the victor. It also seemed to me to be putting a spin on the circumstances that Christians were allowed to practice their faith throughout the historical Muslim empires. It is much like the denial of the holocaust.  To state that Islamic terrorism is a recent invention of the last 25 years is to ignore Islamic expansion across North Africa, Spain to the battle of Tours, France, with Charles Martel. The conquest of Asia Minor, the Balkans and the defeat of Suleman in Vienna, Austria, etc, etc. Sadly, Islam started badly, with the killing of the Jewish tribes in Yuthrub who had befriended Mohammed, who later renamed it Medina. I am aware of the difference of the so-called Meccan and Medinan passages of the Koran. But somehow I fail to understand how Muslim history from its founder onward to the murder of the early Caliphs, etc, can be ignored and call it a religion of peace. Thanks for listening,  - Dr. Earl Parvin

Great article. Your argument is clear and convincing. Thank you.  - B. M.

Mr. D’Souza,  This article may well be the silliest thing that you’ve written since your famously simplistic assertion that kids in the developing world wearing blue jeans constituted prima facie evidence of their wanting to become American. - Rob Corzine

Appeasement and a "can't we all just get along" attitude only emboldens them. This is not 25 years ago. We now live in a post 9-11 world and we'd better be able to make the hard decisions while we can still make any decision at all.  - R. H.

I have read your articles over the past few years and have found them entertaining and informative. This article seems different. You seem to be defending Islam -- a radical religion from the start until today. The Koran teaches death and intolerance in several places. All of the Caliphs ruled ruthlessly. To compare Christianity to Islam -- as far as conquest is unfair, since the Crusades and other Christian violent movements were not what we as Evangelical Christians would favor or endorse, but, were more political in nature.  What is your point? Are you saying that Christianity is as intolerant Islam? And, Islam is as tolerant as Christianity?  May I remind you all of the World Wars -- were not started by Christians -- but, pagan beliefs and pagan teachings.  I am very confused about your article.  Sincerely, - Rev. Richard Valkanet

I don't know who Dinesh d'Sousa is.  But I do know the she or he is brilliant!! Thank you for your wonderful articles.  - Doug Griffin  Canada

Yes! - M. F.

Responses to other tothesource articles:

Dear Dr. Wiker:  I have been enjoying your series on The Secular Revolution. I have forwarded some of the articles to a friend who is suffering through the secularist program as a graduate student at Cornell University.  I must object, however, to your sidebar on Edward O. Wilson. I believe you are both uncharitable and inaccurate in your depiction of Dr. Wilson as a calculating, Machiavellian secularist. I have read his autobiography, Naturalist, as well as bits of his other books, and your one-dimensional description of him is simply not consistent with the real person that comes through in his own life and works. I hope your depiction of him is based in sincere ignorance, rather than a calculated (Machiavellian?) hostility to his beliefs.  There is as much disagreement among the major proponents of biological evolutionary theory as there is between them and creationists. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin stand on one side of this divide, while E.O. Wilson stands on the other. Gould and Lewontin believe in evolution only up to a point - the point where it comes into conflict with their prior commitment to leftist politics. Because their politics require them to deny the existence of human nature, they limit the operation of evolution to our physical bodies, rejecting sociobiology. Wilson, by contrast, does not place such arbitrary limits on the workings of evolution, but takes it to its logical conclusion. I think you could accurately depict Gould and Lewontin as manipulative, Machiavellian secularists. Like all Marxists, they were hostile to religion, whether overtly or covertly. They viciously attacked Wilson, their fellow Harvard faculty member, because he was not on board with their socio-political agenda. They also attacked his science because it conflicted with their ideology. In short, Wilson has never been a participant in the secularist conspiracy, and he has paid in the professional arena for his non-participation.  In his autobiography, Wilson's respect - perhaps even sympathy - for religion came through clearly. It's almost as if he lamented having outgrown his Christian upbringing. In some ways he seems to misunderstand religion, but I think that's only because he still has an immature understanding of religion, not having practiced it as an adult.  And in that book he described himself *not* as an avowed atheist, but as a deist, like his heroes of the Enlightenment era. When Wilson proposes "an alliance . . . forged in an atmosphere of mutual respect" to save the environment, I have no doubt he is sincere about the mutual respect. We should not fear that he is trying to subvert and manipulate our religious values. Rather, we should respond positively to his appeal, framing our Christian environmentalist stance explicitly in terms of the Incarnation. A grown-up presentation of Christianity applied to Wilson's sincere concern for the environment might even bring him back into the Christian fold.  Grace and peace,  - Bruce A. Lawrence Beltsville, Maryland

Dr. Wiker responded to this same critique last week:

Dr. Wiker's response: First, some clarity about our piece on Machiavelli. The focus was not on Machiavelli’s atheism, but on Machiavelli’s use of Christianity for his own secular ends. That was also our focus on E. O. Wilson as well, and I stand by our calling Wilson’s plea a form of “soft Machiavellianism” insofar as he (like Stephen Jay Gould before him) seems to be extending a friendly hand, not because he is really friendly, but simply because he needs a political hand. He says as much in the very words we quoted. If we didn’t live in a democracy where “fundamentalist” votes counted, then he wouldn’t need to count on fundamentalist votes to promote the protection of the environment.

We did not say that promoting the protection of the environment is a bad thing. In fact, Christians are required to do so because they view their position in regard to creation as one of stewardship. Nor did we take up an analysis of Wilson’s evolutionary claims in particular, although I would have been happy to do so. Our sole focus was his admitted desire to reach out to Evangelical Christians only because he needs them politically, even though he quite obviously believes Christianity to be untenable superstition left over from a pre-scientific age. If the members of Wicca happened to be a significant voting majority, or devotees of astrology had considerable political clout, Wilson would seemingly be reaching out to them as well. This is to follow Machiavelli, not in his ruthlessness, but in his advice for non-believers to use believers for political ends.

I read with great interest your article on the political use of religion. There are a few observations that I would like to make. While it is always tempting to blame someone--or something—else for your problems, it usually does not help discover truth. In this instance, secularists are blamed exclusively for using religion as a means to control the masses politically. That is a great US vs. THEM idea that rallies the conservative base, but I don’t believe that it holds water. To begin, Machiavelli was not introducing something radically new into politics or religion. He simply applied what was already happening in the church/state political structure that was functioning at that time in Europe to the secularist political structure he was proposing. Religion, as Marx so adequately noted, has always served as an opiate to the masses, getting them to do what the government wants or at least keeping them quiet so there is little interference. Now let us muddy the water a little. Sometimes this alliance between religion and politics is not a bad thing, such as when Moses and King David invoked the name of God in order to establish communities that obeyed God. In other instances religion was used in an almost benign way such as the way Rome accepted (and used) all religions, so long as Caesar was acknowledged as Lord and Savior. These two examples, of course, predate secularism. More recently, Hitler found that religion and religious language was a useful tool to gain the confidence and loyalty of most Christians in Germany. Hitler may in fact be a nice test case proving your point. However, he simply stands in a long line of rulers who used religion to further their political agendas, being a secularist or not. Finally, religion and religious language is being used in the political arena today to directly justify war and indirectly to justify torture and “collateral damage” (the killing of noncombatants like women and children). And this from an administration that wears its Christianity on it shirt sleeve. I think Machiavelli would be proud.  Shalom,  - Todd Lehman  Pastor Zion Mennonite Church  Hubbard, OR