What’s Wrong with the World

I'm sorry, but the whole idea that the doctrine of the jihad is a misinterpretation of the Koran is baloney. So Jasser is engaging in wishful thinking. Robert Spencer has refuted that idea in multiple ways and on multiple occasions. Jihad is an intrinsic part of Islam and always has been.

The reason that only an uncomfortably modernized Islam is compatible with the American way of life is _because_ jihad and the suppression of the infidel are so integral to Islam. Thus one has to engage in something like modernistic demythologizations of Scripture to end up with a peaceful Islam.

If I were a mere pragmatist, I suppose I would wish Jasser well in his project, because if it worked, it would give us fewer terrorists.

But I'm too honest to wish that. And let's face it: If the safety of the world from Muslim terrorists depends on convincing Muslims of ahistorical baloney about their own religion, we're not very safe, because non-dumb Muslims will always be vulnerable to being converted back to historic Islam.

The problem with Jasser's project, it sounds like to me, is not chiefly one having to do with generic issues of religion and government but rather one having to do with his _own_ religion. Really, nothing will get us away from the hard-edged nature of particular facts. Since not all religions are created equal, not all religions are equally a danger to public order, etc. Hence, separation of mosque and state could be a very useful doctrine if so radical and total a _change_ in the religion could be brought about, while the "wall of separation" as presently applied to Christianity is doing a lot of harm.

If psychic compartmentalization is what it takes to let American Muslims feel at home in America and at peace with their Levantine heritages, then let them. There are plenty of Muslim immigrants who came here expressly to get away from their frothing-at-the-mouth coreligionists back home. But there will always be the disaffected ones, who find focus and purpose in the ancient call of Jihad. Various schemes have been broached on how to de-fang them. Someone once said that we needed to somehow water down Islam, to "Islamic equivalents Hans Kung in a trojan horse." I doubt any such will ever prove a lasting counterweight to The Prophet's own inexorable call.

I once attended a Q&A session at my church with emissaries of a local mosque. The moderator was put tough questions by the congregation, and her oily deflection of them set off warning bells in my mind. Lying to infidels is allowed to advance Islam, under some Islamic traditions.

I guess the best that we can hope for is to hold on, resist violent jihad and creeping sharia, and just hope for Salafist Burnout someday.

"And he shall be a wild @#!*% of a man, and his hand shall be raised against every man, and every man's hand shall be raised against him."

Many American academics who are adherents to Islam are really Deists. Orthodox Muslims are Theists. Some Muslims I have met in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Thailand are really Deists. My wife tells me the same is true in Burma and Turkey. These so called secular Muslims, many of whom are Deists, pose less of a threat to the social fabric of America then to the Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists that have immigrated in droves. They are much less of a threat to America's social fabric then our home grown secular humanists.

I'm strongly inclined to agree with what the Sanity Inspector says here:

If psychic compartmentalization is what it takes to let American Muslims feel at home in America and at peace with their Levantine heritages, then let them.

and here

I doubt any such will ever prove a lasting counterweight to The Prophet's own inexorable call.

Dr. Jassar is a naive naif. Islam has always been a brutal, warlike faith. To ask Muslims to give that up would be like asking Catholics to give up the mass. Jihad is a pillar of Islam, like the mass is to Catholicism.

Indeed. Expecting Moslems to give jihadic violence and war-waging is expecting Moslems to stop being Moslems.

... to give [up] ...

One of the primary tasks we set for Muslim youths in our Muslim Liberty Project is to think and write about how a conversation would evolve about religion, law, and the state if the Prophet Muhammad had ever been able to sit with our Founding Fathers. Would Muhammad accept the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in a Muslim-majority nation? Would he accept one law and a secular state?

Dr. Jasser is right - there has to be a wedge between government and religion in our own thinking. The danger the Islamists pose is not a religious one - it is a political one. Their belief in a strictly theocratic state IS the danger - because all states are tyrannical and a religious state is tyrannical to any and all who venture outside the sovereign religion. This is the danger our founders sought to defuse with the first amendment.

While I agree with the notion that the state is a separate entity with a separate authority than the church, I don’t think that it is necessary for achieving this to have a militantly (or even benignly) secular state that cannot even recognize one religion as the religion of its vast majority (always avoiding compulsion as stated above). Our Constitution prevented Congress from making a federal-established religion, because most of the states ALREADY had established religions – the first Amendment Establishment clause does not stand opposed to established religion.

The problem with this is that everything the government does in this regard will be under the force of compulsion. How do you have a government established religion without compulsion? You'd have to create exception laws for 'minority' religions - like the laws that 'allow' Christianity in Muslim counties (so long as there is no proselytizing).

On the flip side, a 'secular' state is also tyrannical (as we are now seeing).

The answer then is not a secular state - nor is it a religious state. The answer is a free state.

The purely free state would be completely indifferent to religious beliefs - allowing all, condemning none. That is what's required for true religious liberty. A lot more can be done for the cause of religious liberty by wiping laws off the books than by writing new laws!

It sounds to me like that is what Dr. Jasser is advocating - and I support that.

Lydia, I myself doubt Dr. Jasser's first thesis, that Islam and the Qur'an is rightly interpreted consistently with reason - for the main reason that I don't think Muhammad's insights were divinely inspired, so there was nothing to ensure that the "revealed" thought and basic reality actually match up. Hence it is fundamentally dubious that everything in the book is consistent with reason.

If that doubt pans out, and if one insists on taking out of the book a wholly reasonable body of thought, then one is likely to arrive at some kind of whole that is not really representative of Muhammad's insights. This approach to interpreting the book would result in something a great deal like what the typical liberal Christians do with the Bible, including the ones who manage to wash away the passages that call homosexuality an abomination, and the ones that tell us to put adulterers to death: "the Bible can't really mean that, 'cause it isn't reasonable (according to my infinite wisdom, of course), so that language is outdated and figurative anyway."

Thomas Y, can you clarify what you mean by distinguishing between Deists and Theists? I can't quite figure out what you're getting at.

Stephen Dalton, I am inclined to agree that Jasser is engaging in at least some degree of wishful thinking: if so many Muslims DON'T speak out against the military jihad interpretation of Islam, how is he so darn certain that Islam really is to be interpreted differently? Given that there is no authoritative body, it's every man for himself, isn't it? In which case, if 80% of Muslims opt for the publicly common version, then it is more true to say that Islam is violent than that it is fundamentally peaceful.

On the other hand, there's a fair amount of speculation in that hypothetical, and you don't offer to add any actual data to the issue. What we need are facts - actual hard data on what kinds of interpretations are out there, who holds which ones, etc. Do you have any specifics?

Ilion, you may be right, but back it up, please. We need an argument that is capable of distinguishing between CLAIMS of the "right" interpretation of Islam, something that is at least a close stand-in for some kind of core, representative, authoritative meaning. Maybe something like what Lewis did in Mere Christianity.

Robert Spencer has refuted that idea in multiple ways and on multiple occasions. Jihad is an intrinsic part of Islam and always has been.

Lydia, I have read a good portion of Spencer's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam", and while it does a pretty decent job, within the space of a few chapters, of showing violence is really in the Qur'an and can be legitimately interpreted as promoting jihad, he doesn't really present a fulsome argument that this is the ONLY legitimate way of reading it. Maybe he does elsewhere. On the other hand, on the Jihad Watch site, he says this:

Q: Are you deliberately ignoring more liberal schools of thought in Islam? RS: Certainly not. Any Muslim individual or group who works for genuine reform of the Islamic doctrines, theological tenets and laws that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence, is to be commended. But this reform must be undertaken honestly and thoroughly, confronting the texts of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira that are used to justify violence against unbelievers, and decisively rejecting Qur'anic literalism. Not all self-proclaimed moderates are truly moderate: many deny that these elements of Islam exist at all -- hardly a promising platform for reform. It is important to make proper distinctions and speak honestly about the roots of the terrorist threat.

Well, Dr. Jasser IS committed to a genuine reform of Islamic thought, and does just what Spencer points to in his book: he does take on some of the passages that the Islamists use to justify jihad against the West. He present arguments that most of the problem passages are in the hadiths rather than in the Qur'an itself, and are therefore of secondary value in understanding God's intent. And he presents arguments about how the Qur'anic texts are supposed to be interpreted without a mindless literalness. I suspect that Spencer and Jasser would have an engaging and productive exchange.

So, although I have doubts about just how widespread is Dr. Jasser's way of looking at Islam, it would be nice to know whether his reading of it has a reasonable connection to what might be "representative" Islam, or has purely mythical relationship to it.

The problem with this is that everything the government does in this regard will be under the force of compulsion. How do you have a government established religion without compulsion?

Chucky, we have been down this road before, and I am going to warn you one last time: your claim that the state is EITHER ABSOLUTELY INDIFFERENT TO RELIGION IN ALL WAYS or engages in religious compulsion, with no room for any other possibility, is offensive because in saying so you directly ignore repeated explanations to the contrary. Arguments and examples to the contrary have been given through many discussions here, and you not only don't answer them adequately, you don't even engage them seriously. So, here it is: either MAKE AN ARGUMENT that engages the points made and examples given, or SHUT UP.

Argument: there is a difference between recognition of a specific religion, and compulsion to observe it. In recognition, the state provides encouragement for people who belong to that religion to keep up their observance of it. That is not to compel others to observe it.

Example: Christmas is an official government holiday. Having it so promotes Christianity. But that compels nothing. No non-Christian is required to do anything in observance of Christmas.

Robert Spencer's comments about moderate reinterpretations of Islam are always somewhat at odds with what he himself knows to be the case regarding the verses of the Koran, the doctrine of abrogation, and the intimate connection of jihad with the entire history of Islam. In essence, Spencer would like people like Jasser to succeed, and that for practical reasons. However, when Spencer calls for this to be done "honestly," to a large extent he undermines the probable success of the entire enterprise. Spencer himself makes this evident when he repeatedly calls for moderate Muslims to *repudiate* certain verses in the Koran and the hadith (and by the way, the hadith have from auld lang syne been authoritative in Islam and cannot simply be tossed aside as irrelevant) rather than simply to pretend that they don't mean what they say.

Just to make things even more complicated, Spencer has *most unfortunately* (I say with sorrow) been flirting with the "Mohammed never existed" thesis recently. I cannot stress too strongly how regrettable this is; it may force us to start referring to the "early Spencer" and the "later Spencer."

Yeah, I wonder whether what Spencer is doing is promoting a liberalizing method of interpreting Islam so as to weaken it and untether it from its origins, and be damned to whether that is authentic. I would say, go for it, and if that weakens Islam as such (to be disassociated from its roots), well that's a good thing too because Islam isn't really the true religion anyway. But one hesitates to recommend to Muslims a model of approaching their religion that one would be forced to decry if applied to Christianity - glass houses and all that. I am sure there is a way through the mine-field here, but I am not sure what it is.

I have no idea what Spencer can be thinking with the "Muhammad never existed" notion. Seems bizarre to say the least.

"...if one insists on taking out of the book [Koran] a wholly reasonable body of thought, then one is likely to arrive at some kind of whole that is not really representative of Muhammad's insights."

"Thomas Y, can you clarify what you mean by distinguishing between Deists and Theists?"

In the Middle East things are more complicated. Many nations in the Middle East had historically achieved an accommodation between Muslims, Jews and Christians. The Ba'ath Party sought to create a reasonable secular society in an Islamic framework. Michael Aflaq, one of the principle founders of the Ba'ath Party was an Orthodox Christian. In the west we think of the Ba'ath as a Arab Nationalist and Socialist movement. In the west Ba'athism is known for its pan-Arabism and anti-Zionism. Within the Arab world, Ba'athism is known for its third way to Socialism that rejects dialectical materialism. Within the Arab world, Ba'athism is known for its anti-imperialism. Arabs understand the Ba'athisms anti-Zionism as part of Ba'athism anti-imperialism.

Under Saddam in Iraq, Christians, made up roughly 10% of the population. Under the democracy that replaced Saddam many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq. In Egypt under Mubarak, Coptic Christians were probably more then 10% of the population. Under Islamist Democracy, Christians in Eygpt are subject to increased persecution.

Syria has been led by a Neo-Ba'athist government since Hafez al-Assad took power. He was a member of a Shia twelver sect the Alawi, but was in reality a secular Muslim who was tolerant of Syrian Christians. I fear what will happen to the Christian and Alawi minorities in Syria when the Neo-Ba'athist al-Assad regime is overthrown.

As American foriegn policy under Presidents Bush and Obama have promoted democracy in the Middle East. The unintended consequences to Christians have been devastating.

Thomas, do you know whether the people poised to take over Syria are Islamist or not?

Tony,

I too have long been hopefully intrigued by Dr. Jasser's project, but I also have to admit I have been heavily influenced in a more pessimistic direction by writers like Spencer and Andy McCarthy (and Martin Kramer and the folks at the Middle East Forum, etc.) who make a very persuasive case that the majority of Muslims in the world take their lead from the traditional scholars in places like Al Azhar University in Cairo who hold the odious views of jihad and the like that we are all committed to oppose.

My personal view is that Jasser will ultimately find an audience for his views of Islam in the East in places like Indonesia. Yes, I'm aware that "the religion of peace" is busy making life miserable for Christians even there, but in much smaller numbers relative to the population and there is a history of a more casual and less crazed Islam that I believe should be encouraged.

Finally, related to Syria, that country's fascinating patchwork of ethnicities and religions is broken down wonderfully in this map:

http://zoom.it/ApDO

Meanwhile, as for what emerges from Syria's bloody civil war (and what happens to their Christians) here is a good link (with others embedded):

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/rebels-in-northern-syria-begin-erecting-new-state-a-848069.html#spRedirectedFrom=www

If you do a search for Jihad Watch references to Jasser, you get quite a few hits. Just FYI.

Chucky, we have been down this road before, and I am going to warn you one last time: your claim that the state is EITHER ABSOLUTELY INDIFFERENT TO RELIGION IN ALL WAYS or engages in religious compulsion, with no room for any other possibility, is offensive because in saying so you directly ignore repeated explanations to the contrary.

Offensive? Oh please. If that is how you judge what is offensive, there is a whole lot that is offensive here. You could also lighten up on the shouting.

I could lighten up on the shouting if you would pay attention once in a while. The shouting was quite intentional: this site is for intelligent, engaged, rational conversation. When you ignore what the other person says and simply repeat your theory as if nobody has addressed it, you are not engaged in a conversation.

Are the Muslims who are poised to take over Syria Isalmist? The opposition to al-Assad is a mixed bag, not at all united, and includes Sunni Islamists. Many non Alawi Shia have rallied to al-Assad because they fear the consequences of Jihadic Sunni control of the Syrian government. The Al-Azhar vision of Islam may not be as much of a immediate threat to the civil liberties of Christians, Druze, Alawi, & Baha'is as is the Wahhabi vision of Islam; but both are a threat to religious minorities.

The idea that Islam has accomodated Christians and Jews is something of a doubful proposition. There have been brief periods but even then the relationship seems to have been move "you get to be second class citizens and not semi-slaves we barely tolerate." When Muslims are in charge, not secular "Muslims," you are going to end up with persecution of any Christians and Jews who don't tow the Koranic line of submission.

The argument that most Muslims in the US have formed their own interpretation is unconvincing. While quite a few of the older, first generation Muslims did want to escape the rigid Islam of their homelands, more recent immigrants and later generations are or are moving towards the more traditional Islamic thought. Partly this have been due to overseas money encouraging the move. The other part is that it's impossible to come up with Islamic interpretation that doesn't lead to Muslim physical dominance over other religions. How many here would take it seriously if a KKK member said he had a way to make KKK members follow a non-violent race relations path that allowed blacks and whites to live together? On top of that, we place our only hope of solving the KKK problem on people who say they can accomplish this task. How many KKK members would we allow to immigrate to this country if they had overseas groups?

BTW, maybe he should go to Dearborn where some Christian demonstrators were pelted with bottles and other items by a Muslim mob. The Arab festival up there is just a perfect example of Islamic tolerance.

Sorry, but Islam is incompatible with the West and needs to be explicitly rejected and removed.

Islam there, Western civilization HERE.

That's what freedom of association and real 'diversity' look like.

Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for Everyone!!!

NO WAY.

Chucky, we have been down this road before, and I am going to warn you one last time: your claim that the state is EITHER ABSOLUTELY INDIFFERENT TO RELIGION IN ALL WAYS or engages in religious compulsion, with no room for any other possibility, is offensive because in saying so you directly ignore repeated explanations to the contrary.

Thanks for the warning (and the lesson in tyranny). Didn't I also say that a secular state is tyrannical? Why would I say that? (Think about what I actually say - not your "oh he's a libertarian so he thinks this" strawmen.) Sure there are aspects on the fringe of the government's sphere of influence that are not technically 'tyrannical', but at its core all government is 'under threat of force' (i.e. compulsion). So my point is more about the nature of government than it is about the fringe aspects of it.

Arguments and examples to the contrary have been given through many discussions here, and you not only don't answer them adequately, you don't even engage them seriously. So, here it is: either MAKE AN ARGUMENT that engages the points made and examples given, or SHUT UP.

I've answered your arguments more than adequately (to my thinking anyway) numerous times. What you generally do is ignore my strongest arguments and instead use your caricature of "libertarianism" and give one of your stock anti-libertarian arguments instead (then yell at me when I'm not swayed by it).

For instance, one of my strongest statements above was this: "A lot more can be done for the cause of religious liberty by wiping laws off the books than by writing new laws!" That is my argument at its essence - that the government sphere of influence needs to shrink. That religion is under the sphere of personal choice and is an area for religious institutions (not government) to govern behavior. I've continually emphasized the role of the church vs the role of the state in my arguments.

I also correlated my views to Dr. Jasser's. He seems to be arguing along the same lines - that Islam should get out of the government business - that the states should not be subservient to the mosques.

You've ignored a lot of what I say.

Argument: there is a difference between recognition of a specific religion, and compulsion to observe it. In recognition, the state provides encouragement for people who belong to that religion to keep up their observance of it. That is not to compel others to observe it. Example: Christmas is an official government holiday. Having it so promotes Christianity. But that compels nothing. No non-Christian is required to do anything in observance of Christmas.

That is a fine example. How would you feel if the government decided to make Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha national holidays? Would that offend you in any way? Remember - there's no compulsion! It "just" promotes Islam!

Here's the question: Why should government promote any religion?

I could lighten up on the shouting if you would pay attention once in a while. The shouting was quite intentional: this site is for intelligent, engaged, rational conversation. When you ignore what the other person says and simply repeat your theory as if nobody has addressed it, you are not engaged in a conversation.

And please stop treating me like a child.

What I think Dr. Jasser is arguing for theologically is parallel to what Christians and Jews have done with the OT commands for violence - a re-interpretation with a less literal bent.

We Christians have the teachings of Jesus and the NT to base our interpretation on (that those commands were for that time and that covenant and that we are under a whole new covenant now) so we have a firm theological basis for re-interpreting those texts.

Modern Jews OTOH, are a more interesting case. They are still under those laws - yet they have adapted to modern society. They no longer offer animal sacrifices, they no longer stone adulterers, etc. One needs to ask - what was the process through which they came to this? Was it all because of the destruction of the temple? What happened? And can Islam walk the same path?

I think Dr. Jasser is to be applauded for his efforts to take Islam down the road well traveled by the other major world religions. I hope his vision catches on.

Are the Muslims who are poised to take over Syria Isalmist? The opposition to al-Assad is a mixed bag, not at all united, and includes Sunni Islamists.

It's an Iranian proxy war; I've been reading of the Iranian regime's support of Assad for years. It naturally a regional war too.

Here's an article by Fouad Ajami detailing the politics of it.

He has just now received a promise of more aid from Russia, that usual helper of disgusting Middle Eastern regimes opposed to Western practices. I don’t know to what extent the newcomers are in tight with certain terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, as is the Assad regime. Maybe little, from what I can tell.

The rebels include known al-Qaida groups and their sympathizers. The rebels have ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Christians, including 50,000 Christians from the city of Homs. They have car bombed churches.

Why side with them?

For what it is worth, Putin has made a verbal pledge to the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to protect Christians in the Middle East (an historic role of Russia before she was turned to atheism by Western interests).

You will see no such pledge from the U.S. State Department. U.S. domestic policy is turning anti-Christian. Why trust its foreign policy? The establishment's enemies are not ours. In some cases, its enemies are us.

American interventionism has resulted in chaos and destruction. Russia is increasingly the conservative power on the scene.

Chucky, the only reason I am going to respond to your complaint is because you attempted to relate your constant refrain to Dr. Jasser's thesis. And I can see responding to that. But before I get there:

ME:

MAKE AN ARGUMENT

Chucky (for convenience, I am going to number your statements):

(1) Sure there are aspects on the fringe of the government's sphere of influence that are not technically 'tyrannical', but at its core all government is 'under threat of force' (i.e. compulsion). (2) So my point is more about the nature of government than it is about the fringe aspects of it.

(3) For instance, one of my strongest statements above was this: "A lot more can be done for the cause of religious liberty by wiping laws off the books than by writing new laws!" (4) That is my argument at its essence - that the government sphere of influence needs to shrink. (5) That religion is under the sphere of personal choice and is an area for religious institutions (not government) to govern behavior. (6) I've continually emphasized the role of the church vs the role of the state in my arguments.

(7) That is a fine example. (8) How would you feel if the government decided to make Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha national holidays? (9)Would that offend you in any way? Remember - there's no compulsion! It "just" promotes Islam!

There, I have quoted you at length. Now, let's examine the arguments you made....
.....
......
.......
Wait, let's go back, and try to locate an argument.
...
....
.....
Well, that's difficult, there doesn't seem to be one. That's the problem here. Let's see: (1) just states a claim of a distinction about "fringe" and "core" without identifying any principles that distinguish them, and simply CLAIMS that core is always by way of compulsion, without support. That's not arguing, that's simply declaring a thesis. (2) clarifies what your point is about, without providing any further support that it is true.

(3) is prescriptive, what would be better, without providing any basis for showing why it is better that way. (By the way, I might actually agree with the claim, I might prefer to see a lot of the laws written off the books. But without a basis for the claim, and thus a principle for it, we can't tell.) (4) is again a thesis, without support. You simply state what you want, not why it's the right thing to have happen. (5) is a very over-generalized and confused restatement of the core area of disagreement between us, not a clarification at all, much less a foundation or support for your angle being better than mine. (6) simply identifies the history of your comments: you talk about A and B having separate roles. Nowhere do you use anything to SUPPORT those comments to show their truth.

(7) is OK. (8) is just a rhetorical question, and a failed one at that. You presumably think that I would object heartily to the government making Eid Al-Fitr a national holiday. I am perfectly fine with a government of a people whose whole culture has for a great many generations rested on a religion that includes Eid Al-Fitr making it national holiday. Good for them. (9) is another rhetorical question, resting on the failed #8.

So, there we have it.

Let's review what an "argument" is. It is a series of statements that start with premises (2 or more) that provide the logical, rational basis for proving the truth of a later statement. They are arranged in such a way that the truth of the premises leads automatically to the truth of the conclusion. The ideal form of argument is to start with premises that both parties have already agreed are true. If you can't do that with all the premises, then you attempt to state ones that you THINK the other party would probably agree with, based on prior discussion. If you can't do _that_, then you identify the unagreed premises as assumptions, and acknowledge that the argument thus needs more work but is a beginning.

The closest you have come to a premise of an argument is number 5.

That religion is under the sphere of personal choice and is an area for religious institutions (not government) to govern behavior.

But of course, this is precisely a premise that I have repeatedly rejected, especially in the form you attempt to lay it down. Since you nowhere actually attempt to support that thesis with any foundation that I have shown you I accept, or probably would accept because it is consistent with other things I have said, what you are doing is not pursuing an argument with me, but simply making claims. There is absolutely nothing in your comments that consists of premises that constitute an agreed starting position, nor any development through several steps to a conclusion that logically follows of necessity.

Kevin, I am having trouble with your 50,000 figure. Since the total number of deaths for the whole uprising for all of Syria seems to be a long way short of 50,000, I assume you mean that 50,000 Christians have been forced to flee. Well, I don't know much about it, but the evidence seems to be a bit contradictory. There are claims that it was the rebels, and other claims that it was the Syrian army. See here, for example:

http://syrian-christian.org/ethnic-cleansing-of-christians-in-syria-facts-and-propaganda/

Admittedly, I don't know anything about the "Syrian Christians for Democracy", but it seems somewhat unlikely that either Assad or Islamist Jihadis would bother concocting a fictitious "christian" group, as if they actually cared what Syrian Christians think. Possible, but not terribly likely.

You will see no such pledge from the U.S. State Department. U.S. domestic policy is turning anti-Christian. Why trust its foreign policy? The establishment's enemies are not ours. In some cases, its enemies are us.

American interventionism has resulted in chaos and destruction. Russia is increasingly the conservative power on the scene.

I would certainly acknowledge problems with the US State Dept, but it is misguided to suggest --if you are-- that the US has caused the mess in Syria. There is a measure of truth in it, because the US military defeated the forces Assad sent to Iraq allied with Al Queda that poured in after the invasion. The Americans deposed Saddam, and Assad wanted his own people to see the Americans get beaten as a lesson for what would happen to them if they tried to depose him. But they prevailed and now he's on the receiving end because of it. So the US was an immediate cause in some sense, as it was supposed to be. But the idea that the US created the mess that has no peaceful solution is not so. A solution without violence is not on the table for any number of regimes in this area, and never was, and pretending that supporting Assad or not supporting his enemies will be a better outcome would be troubling.

The problem with those who see the problems with the actors of violent revolutions is that what they say or imply is that we should prop up corrupt and oppressive regimes to keep order. This is Realpolitik, also known as the "realist" school of foreign policy. Those opposed to this think that avoiding violent revolution is a fool's errand. Of all the alleged complaints that were supposed to justify 9/11, the only one that was actually true was the complaint that we supported the regimes that oppresses them. That complaint was actually true. The "stability" of these Western supported oppressive regimes allowed actors that would normally be involved in a civil war to direct their violence outward to West. Let them fight each other and hash out their differences because there is no alternative.

But in a nutshell, you have to choose sides. When you say "Why side with them?", the error is to suppose that the opposition is monolithic. It isn't. It is a proxy war. No revolution succeeds without outside help, and if you don't want to get your hands dirty you're just going to ensure that the worst actors have the most influence.

What I think Dr. Jasser is arguing for theologically is parallel to what Christians and Jews have done with the OT commands for violence - a re-interpretation with a less literal bent.

We Christians have the teachings of Jesus and the NT to base our interpretation on (that those commands were for that time and that covenant and that we are under a whole new covenant now) so we have a firm theological basis for re-interpreting those texts.

Chucky, you have a very interesting point here. It is actually just spot on with what I think needs to be considered.

If a person were to glancingly examine Christianity in the year 1500, and Islam in the year 2012, and compare them side by side, there would not be an obvious hands-down difference between them as to which one promotes religious liberty (or toleration) as a basic tenet. We modern Western Christians like to think that Christianity is fundamentally more open to religious freedom, but the data on the ground in the year 1500 would have supported that view only with difficulty. Just as an example, Isabel of Spain in 1490 or so expelled all the Jews from Spain, on 3 months notice. (Decree of Alhambra, I think). There has been a heck of a lot of development of doctrine over the last 500 years in Christianity.

Now, I am perfectly fine with the notion that Christian doctrine develops over time: Cardinal Newman wrote on the topic lucidly and compellingly. Without changing the body of doctrine in any point essentially, later formulations of it can explain things that earlier would have looked like they were problems. As a result, it is readily possible that earlier practices within Christendom were not securely in line with the fuller (later) statement of Christian doctrine. Christianity doesn't pretend that practice in the political arena defines doctrinal content.

However, one distinguishing feature to the notion of Christian doctrine developing (while remaining still essentially one and the same Christian Church, the body of Christ), as compared to Judaism or Islam, is that the Church has a specific internal entity that has the role of spokesman and guide for the maintenance of the purity of doctrine. The magisterial role of the hierarchy, especially the papal office, is a functional entity that has no like in the other two.

The consequence is interesting: while right-thinking Christians rightly abhor the thought that the Church should, as a whole, simply change doctrines, dropping an old doctrine that no longer fits nicely and picking up an opposed one, an office of magisterial teacher provides a way to permit development without fear of losing the heart of Christianity. However, if a Muslim takes an interpretation of his Qur'an that nobody else ever proposed, he has no basis for thinking that this constitutes "legitimate development" other than his wishes and hopes and best insight: personal perspective. It seems like it would be just as lucid to refer to such an interpretation as changing the meaning of Islam as it would be to call it "correcting" the interpretations.

This is Jasser's problem. He can say that the "true" Islam is not the one the Jihadists claim, but he has little evidence to support that in terms of "what Muslims believe". The outspoken Muslims, the ones who speak clearly about the matter, making distinctions and clarifications and so on, are mainly the imams and the legal scholars, and by and large these are pretty solidly in favor of the traditional teaching of violence against the West. If he claims that these people are unrepresentative of the vast majority of Muslims "in the mosque" who are silent, well, since they are silent he has a tough time proving it. In the absence of a magisterial body, "what Islam is" cannot be separated out from "what most Muslims say", and apparently the ones who speak are mainly, traditionally, fine with violence for suppressing other religions.

On the other hand, if Jasser is providing a truly new idea of Islam that is untraditional, he can hope all he wants for it to overcome the violent versions, but he cannot present his position as if it were somehow normative of Islam right now.

So, let's assume that the second is true - Jasser is presenting a new, liberal Islam that can get along with democracy and pluralism. Should we applaud this and support him? Well, of course we would rather Muslims believe in peace and tolerance than in violence and tyranny. Sure. But there is more to it than that. If the force behind his interpretive approach is something like "all religious books and revelations and religions should be reduced to the level (for public purposes) of superstition, so that nobody's religion can constitute a basis for getting hot under the collar", much like the secularists believe, then maybe that's not so good. Admittedly, that's a bit exaggerated, but it isn't really all that far off from the official interpretive method of quite a large number of liberal Christian groups. Jesus Seminar, for example. I am not sure I want to go around saying "the right interpretive method for Islam is the one used by freaky liberal Christians who can't be bothered to consider whether Christ actually rising from the dead is important."

I said "The problem with those who see the problems with the actors of violent revolutions", I meant to point out the problem with those who only point out the problems. These folks told us about the problems of the Shah of Iran, which led to his ouster that ushered in a disastrous Pan-Islamic party headed by Khomeini. But Assad is nothing close to the Shah in political outlook, and had been assisted by the Pan-Islamic Khomeini in Iran and their Hezbollah for years now. The idea that we can't support those who are closest to us politically and morally because politics is messy and the actors aren't pure is just misguided. There are better and worse outcomes. The loss of Assad would be a devastating blow to Iran, and that is reason enough to want him gone. Iran has an apocalyptic theology that it truly believes, and it has stated over and over again that it wants the total destruction of Israel. This is a regional war, and a proxy war, and this is nothing new for those who have been paying attention at all.

The thing that would interest me in this context is the warfare among Christian sects of the 17th century. For example the thirty years war, at least in the religious part. The majority of those who killed each other shared what we'd call orthodox Christian beliefs such as as Jesus' deity, the Trinity, and the origins of man. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about this period to consider possible analogies to the present situation among Muslims, but I think it is a shame to ignore our own history in this debate.

Tony:

Let's review what an "argument" is.

Thanks for defining "argument" for me. I'll see what I can do.

Argument 1.
Premise #1: Jasser is fighting what he calls “political Islam”. He states “If we inoculate them [Muslim youth] with the ideas of liberty and freedom they can never be taken over by the supremacism of political Islam.”

Premise #2: This stance is compatible with the quasi-libertarian view on the role of government and the role of religion I have been advocating for.

Premise #3: You and many others here don't support that view - you think that religion should have a more prominent role in government.

Conclusion: Dr. Jasser is advocating for something many of you won't support - not because he's wrong but because you want religion to have more say in government.

Argument 2.
Premise #1: I believe you want this [the above] because you see the dangers of a strictly secular state (one that wants to marginalize religion and force its people into a secular mindset.)

Premise #2: You see my views as supportive of that sort of state.

Premise #3: I do not support that sort of state. I support an indifferent state that says nothing on religious views pro or con but leaves all such things to the private sphere.

Conclusion: You are mistaken in your criticism of my views on those grounds.

However, one distinguishing feature to the notion of Christian doctrine developing (while remaining still essentially one and the same Christian Church, the body of Christ), as compared to Judaism or Islam, is that the Church has a specific internal entity that has the role of spokesman and guide for the maintenance of the purity of doctrine. The magisterial role of the hierarchy, especially the papal office, is a functional entity that has no like in the other two.

Argument 1.
Premise #1: The doctrine of the supremacy of the new covenant over the old is stated quite plainly throughout the NT.

Premise #2: The NT is the basis for Christian doctrine.

Conclusion: I don't see the papacy as a factor.

Argument 2.
Premise #1: The Jews do not have any clear doctrinal basis for reinterpreting the OT less literally.

Premise #2: They have done so anyway.

Conclusion: If they can do it, so can Islam.

Premise #3: You and many others here don't support that view - you think that religion should have a more prominent role in government.

Actually, I have not really been arguing here about Jasser's idea of what the role of government toward religion ought to be. I am pretty much in agreement with your Premise #1, to the extent I have considered it. What I have been arguing is really Jasser's theological view of how to go about locating THE correct interpretation of Islam, on the grounds that it sounds a lot like liberal Protestants who basically eviscerate the Bible. And on a semantic question of how we are to describe whether "Islam advocates violence" is a question that can be answered solely from doctrinal claims of "official" Islam, or can be answered by the practices of Muslims in the aggregate. So, no, I don't agree with your premise #3. Not in THIS context. Maybe in another thread.

Premise #3: I do not support that sort of state. I support an indifferent state that says nothing on religious views pro or con but leaves all such things to the private sphere.

Conclusion: You are mistaken in your criticism of my views on those grounds.

I will ask that you take your second argument to other threads where the issue is actually on point, unless or until we raise this issue here _directly_. It is not a proper part of this discussion. However, I will (just for future reference) point out one place where I disagree.

I take issue with this premise 3, on the following grounds: (1) It is literally impossible for a state to be really and truly indifferent (to say nothing) about any, every, and all religious views. States can try to be indifferent on a great many aspects of religious stuff, but there is always and ineradicably a measure of some religious view or other creeping in beneath the level you happen to be paying attention to. (2) Even if it were possible for a state to really be totally neutral and simply not say anything about religion, I think it probable that I could present circumstances where you would want the state to come down on one side rather than remain indifferent. I am not giving an argument for these, just pointing out where I differ.

Premise #1: The doctrine of the supremacy of the new covenant over the old is stated quite plainly throughout the NT.

Premise #2: The NT is the basis for Christian doctrine.

This is based on a theological point of view about how to interpret the Bible. It so happens that this POV is at odds with the standard Catholic interpretation, which is that the NT covenant replaces the old, but that this does not unravel the doctrinal principles established in the old: the OT was intended by God as preparation, framework, and partial explanation for the coming of Christ and His New Covenant. That preparation and framework is not "replaced", as it helps establish the full meaning of the new covenant. In any case, praxis does not *define* doctrine, it only sheds light on it.

Mr. Jasser needs to meditate on the following: 'You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.'

Tony,
The problem with Premise 3 is not exactly that some religious view would somehow creep up while we are not paying attention, like a snake in grass.

The problem is that an 'indifferent' state is itself a metaphysical position in itself. It embodies a metaphysics or Law, no less and no more than any other State with a dominant religion (eg India), a State with completing religions (eg USA), a State with an established religion (eg UK),or a theocracy
(eg Iran).

The aggressiveness of an indifferent state, say Norway or Sweden in promoting its metaphysics is hardly libertarian.

Argument 2. Premise #1: The Jews do not have any clear doctrinal basis for reinterpreting the OT less literally.

Premise #2: They have done so anyway.

Conclusion: If they can do it, so can Islam.

This doesn't necessarily follow. It assumes the "all religions are the same" theory. In some areas they are but that doesn't mean that because Judaism did X, Islam can also do X. It is the same as arguing:

1. Usain Bolt and I are both human beings who both run.
2. Usain Bolt runs the 100m in under 10 seconds.
Therefore
3. If I want to, I can run the 100m in under 10 seconds.

Obviously, this is a false argument because the ability to run 100m is conditioned on more than just being human and able to run. Likewise, Judaism and Islam are religions, but just because one radically changed in a significant manner doesn't mean the other will. Your argument ignores that the Jewish state was crushed by the Romans, large numbers of Jews killed and dispersed, and Jews barred from Jerusalem for a significant period of time. The Romans literally destroyed their religion.

So, Argument 2 would have some validity if you want to raze Mecca and Medina, force Muslims to live only in a few countries (the same psychological impact as the Jewish diaspora), and make them pariahs in the rest of the world.

Plus, whatever we say about the bloodthirstiness of Joshua and other OT books, their conquest is narrowly applicable to a little strip of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea! Judaism _never_ proceeded to spread to other peoples by conquest, and there has never in the religion at all been any such notion as bringing the whole world into the "House of X [the religion]." In fact, _conversion_ of the heathen is not that big of a deal in Judaism, in contrast to the Great Commission, which was a new thing in Christianity. So even historically the issue is not one of a prima facie meaning in the bloodthirsty passages of the OT, "Make holy war until you have conquered those who don't believe in God over all the earth" and then we have to do some kind of fancy dance to reinterpret them. The only OT passages I know of that refer to the whole earth worshiping God are messianic and/or eschatological (usually both), and were always taken to be so.

Tony:

What I have been arguing is really Jasser's theological view of how to go about locating THE correct interpretation of Islam, on the grounds that it sounds a lot like liberal Protestants who basically eviscerate the Bible. And on a semantic question of how we are to describe whether "Islam advocates violence" is a question that can be answered solely from doctrinal claims of "official" Islam, or can be answered by the practices of Muslims in the aggregate.

The problem, as I see it, is literalism. The Koran openly teaches violent overthrow of other religions - there's no getting around that. Muslims who follow a literal interpretation of the Koran must engage in a literal holy jihad (violence against the enemies of Allah). Given both of these facts, I believe that Islam needs to be eviscerated from literalism in order to become a true "religion of peace".

Now while I agree that there are stark differences between Islam and Judaism, both religions do have specific commands from God to violently overthrow his enemies. The fact that those commands pertain to a "strip of land" does not prevent an interpretation that infers from them that "it is the will of God that we kill his enemies". In fact that interpretation has been used throughout Christian history in times of war and against various heretics. So I still believe that Islam can follow the lead of the Judeo/Christian faiths and make it out of the 7th century - given enough outcry from within against literalism.

So I still believe that Islam can follow the lead of the Judeo/Christian faiths and make it out of the 7th century - given enough outcry from within against literalism.

Christianity didn't change on the heretic front until after some brutal religious wars. Judaism didn't change until after the Romans did what the Romans did best. Neither changed until external events forced a reevaluation. Islam won't change until it faces an external existential crisis. It almost did with the breakup of the Ottoman empire and European colonialism. But, it was too gentle. Right now Islam is on the rise and it's on the rise because it is returning to its literalism. What it will take to permanently break it will be severely bloody.

Neither changed until external events forced a reevaluation. Islam won't change until it faces an external existential crisis.

I think that's right, although I would modify it to say "a major existential crisis." Because I think there is something of an existential crisis now in trying to explain the relative backwardness of the lands where it dominates, but it is of the type of internal questioning that causes a doubling down that we've seen with radical Islam. I think that is human nature, of course encouraged by the insecurity of the West that its values are true and worth defending.

The fact that those commands pertain to a "strip of land" does not prevent an interpretation that infers from them that "it is the will of God that we kill his enemies". In fact that interpretation has been used throughout Christian history in times of war and against various heretics.

Chucky, you appear to have a decidedly strained view of what to take out of the Bible's passages as "literal interpretation". For example, where God tells the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites, his command is about a specific group of people, it is not a generic, timeless "kill my enemies". There are lots and lots of God's enemies in the Bible that he pointedly did NOT have the Jews kill. The literal interpretation, then, would be "God wanted those Israelites in 1400 BC to kill those people living in Canaan in 1400 BC. It's particular, and nothing that God said at the time suggested it was a general prescription.

And, so far as I can recall, there are no significant Christian leaders who have led men to war against either other religious groups or against heretics merely on account of their being "enemies of God": there is always an additional criterion, such as that they are attempting to subvert the true faith of believers (for example), or they are destroying the peaceful Christian communities of X region. After all, due to sin we are ALL enemies of God, and nothing manifests God's mercy more than the fact that He sent his only Son to die in our place, while we were still enemies of His.

Judaism didn't change until after the Romans did what the Romans did best.

But...what they didn't "change" from was resisting occupation by foreign powers. Not trying to conquer outside. And actually, the Bar Kochba rebellion happened after the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70, so it took a while even for the Romans. But it's just really a poor analogy anyway. Judaism was never a religion of general conquest. Really never.

Christianity didn't change on the heretic front until after some brutal religious wars

That's covering a lot of historical ground. For example, the 30 Years' War ended things right where they began--with the monarch choosing the religion of his country and plenty of oppression of religious minorities going on within a given jurisdiction. The English gradually gave Parliament more and more power, a process that took about 500 years until Parliament was really more powerful than the king, eventually Parliament decided that it a) wanted to kick out Charles II with dubious legality and b) wanted more religious toleration among Protestants and didn't really want to persecute Catholics all *that* much, just some. And the concept of religious toleration spread from there to eventually (after another hundred and fifty years or so) fully encompass the Catholics. Hardly an existential crisis, much less a case of external events forcing anything on anybody. And even that summary doesn't do the complicated history justice, I hasten to add.

But the 30 Years' War didn't "end things right where they began" in a whole bunch of ways. I think there were some pretty massive changes that are relevant and widely subscribed to, but I don't think we need to quibble over that.

At the highest level of generality, what happened in Western culture chronologically is this:

Religious wars -> Mid 17th century -> No religious wars

I don't see how any amount of historical complexity can wave away the fact that this is begging for an explanation. Now I can see how one could deny it was the devastating bloodshed that degraded the desire to fight religious wars. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was the Enlightenment. Maybe it was both and other political development besides, but we can't just say it was complex so no cause need be searched for. What was the role of secularism in ending the violence and which of the aforementioned events advanced that?

Now the major problem with Islam as I see it for the wider world is that Mohammed didn't ask for a coin and say "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". How can a religion not distinguish between what it isn't? Even if there were no idea of jihad this is a stickier issue, and it also raises the problem of how a coercive regime can be peaceful. So I think that Chris is right that Islam won't change until it faces an external existential crisis, and, as I mentioned or hinted, it surely won't be some discrete event and in fact a crisis has been underway for some time (which has spawned the post 9/11 terrorism). Now whether the crisis reaches a tipping point of massive violence with modern weaponry before some process of rationalization akin to our Enlightenment (I don't even assume Islam could survive this intact) I don't know. But I think it is worthwhile to seek analogies from Christian history, and I think they are there.

What about the War of the Spanish Succession? That's post-mid-17th century. And it was a biggie and just sort of carried on all the Spanish-English-everybody-else hatred that had been going on before.

William of William and Mary showed religious toleration at home partly *because* he wanted to continue carrying out wars abroad, wars which were by no means without their religious angle. He was a very war-like king.

The Siege of Vienna was in 1683. In the war between the Austrians and the Turks an on-going problem was that the Protestants under Austrian rule (I believe they were Hungarians) sided with the Turks and fought against the Austrians. So one can even regard that as a Protestant-Catholic religious fight.

As a general rule, as we moved into the 1700's the wars took on a more explicitly political and less clearly religious tenor, but this wasn't really abrupt. The English had been fighting the French when both were Catholic (in the Hundred Years' War), and throughout the 1700's the English fought the French over territorial issues without a super-conspicuous religious aspect. Though the exile of the Catholic Canadian Acadians in the mid-1700's was indeed carried out along specifically religious lines, precisely because the English did not trust the Catholic Acadians not to aid the French. Overall, though, it was just the old story of England fights France. Ho-hum. None of this really shows to me a powerful pattern of some sharp line dividing the period of religious wars from no religious wars.

But it's just really a poor analogy anyway. Judaism was never a religion of general conquest. Really never.

The argument isn't that Judaism is a religion of general conquest. It is that Judaism significantly changed what it meant to be a Jew. In 3 to 4 generations, the Romans forced the Jews into a type of crisis that forced those changes.

As a general rule, as we moved into the 1700's the wars took on a more explicitly political and less clearly religious tenor, but this wasn't really abrupt.

History rarely has abrupt stopping points. The general trend though was that European wars based on Christian sects were dying out by the mid-17th century. Why? As Mark pointed out, there could be multiple explanations beyond the idea that Christians realized that forcing religion on others was not Christian. Again, it goes to the theory that outside forces, bloody and costly wars, caused a crisis that Christianity needed to address.

Neither of these explanations say that Judaism or Christianity are inherently violent or teach violence in the manner that is ingrained in Islam. I think the explanations though highlight that Islam isn't going to change because someone declares Muslims have been reading the religious texts wrong centuries. It is going to take something a lot bigger than that.

The general trend though was that European wars based on Christian sects were dying out by the mid-17th century.

I'm sorry, but I just completely and utterly disagree. If anything one could say that such intra-Christian religious wars reached an especially great _height_ by the mid-17th century. Heck, the 30 Years' War only ended in 1648. And the English Civil War ended in the 1640's not because of anything remotely like "dying out," nor because the nature of sectarian Christianity was changed by some existential event, nor because of horror at bloodshed, but more simply because the Puritans won that particular conflict: Oliver Cromwell and the New Model Army stomped everybody else in the kingdom and then he ruled like a potentate, which involved turning his attention to burning Catholic Irishmen to death in towers. William of Orange had a lot of trouble with fighting the Irish late in the century, and that _definitely_ had religious overtones, because James II's (I should have said James II not Charles II above, my bad) forces were based in Ireland. And don't you know that the '15 and the '45 in the 1700's, the Scottish Jacobite rebellions, were related to religion, because the English refused to have a Catholic king, and both the Old Pretender and the Young Pretender were Catholic? I mean, I'm sorry, but this whole view of European history just will not wash.

Does anyone here think that a literal bloodthirsty Islam might just collapse under its own weight?

From what I've gathered, at least from recent history (think pre 9-11 Taliban Afghanistan), wherever Islamists have come to power, the average Joe Muslim feels the oppression of literalism every day. Just living their lives becomes a constant guessing game about whether the religious police will find some fault in their seemingly benign everyday routines. And, since most real reform is the result of a backlash against oppression, you'd think that an underground 'liberty movement' would thrive in such an environment (at least until the West gets involved and gives them a common enemy!)

So I think Dr. Jasser's movement - while insignificant at the moment - might be the seed of something bigger once more Muslims have to live under the oppression of a literalist Islam.

In 3 to 4 generations, the Romans forced the Jews into a type of crisis that forced those changes.

Actually, there is some argument that at least a significant portion of the change had to do with the Jews willingly and consciously deciding to distance themselves theologically from them pesky upstart Christians. They chose to emphasize those elements of Judaism that highlighted things that the Christians didn't highlight, precisely because the Christians didn't. The Romans entered into this only because the Romans were already persecuting Christians by then, and the Jews didn't want to get caught in the cross fire, as it were.

Until Jesus came and the Jews rejected Jesus, the Judaism was the one true religion in this world. The Romans would not have succeeded in causing the Judaism to become deformed from its true essence, alone, any more than they succeeded in 165 BC with Judas Maccabees. The external cause can only be an instigating occasion of the change, it cannot be the full and complete cause - the adherents to the religion must themselves consent to repudiate their former doctrines in order to change the religion.

I just don't see the force of your objections Lydia. I see no reason whatever to expect anything abrupt, and many reasons to think we shouldn't expect this. Nor is it reasonable to expect religious events (other than the historical events at the birth of Christianity such as the Incarnation and Resurrection) not to have large political components to them.

It isn't normal for folks to not expect explanations when changes occur, and this still applies to slow gradual ones every bit as much. The only difference is that in the latter case the explanation sought must be more complex. More dangerous and speculative as almost all historical matters such as this are, but normal people make this attempt as a matter of course in their studies. In fact, I'd even argue that it is likely impossible for those actively interested in history not to have some possible explanations in mind, however loosely one might appropriately hold them.

But anyway, it seemed to me you wished to shoot down the idea that there even could be analogies here, and that's why I've hinted that it is not likely fruitful to quibble over the details. I confess I don't know this history well enough anyway, but the real issue is that the historical details would only matter in discussions among those who accept that similarities would, even must, exist to begin with. None of this requires accepting Islam as a true religion, or equating it with Christianity beyond thinking that all religions share social and political aspects, and that because of this we can see in history some parallels in development trajectory involving their spread and contraction according to events.

The Romans would not have succeeded in causing the Judaism to become deformed from its true essence, alone, any more than they succeeded in 165 BC with Judas Maccabees.

There I'm not sure I agree, Tony. (It was the Greeks with Judas Maccabeus, btw.) The Jewish religion was strongly centered on the temple, on temple worship and sacrifice. By destroying the temple and Jerusalem (very nearly, though not quite "not one stone left on another") as well as so thoroughly killing and enslaving the inhabitants of the entire region, destroying the priestly class, the Romans did a darned good job of making it impossible for Judaism to rise again in its normal, Pentateuchal form. They literally had nowhere to revive the sacrificial system. It looks as though even the records of the lineages may have been destroyed, which was a big deal. All in all, the Roman treatment of Judea in 70 made the Babylonian Conquest look mild by comparison, and there was no Cyrus 50 years later to issue a decree for a return. Nor is it clear that a return would have been possible in terms of reconstituting the Aaronic priesthood.

Mark, the force of my objection is just simply that I don't think Christianity was changed into a more peaceful form by any crisis that Christianity was "forced to address." History just bumbled on, ideas changed gradually, nations kept fighting. Wars continued. Heck, if they'd been moved to toleration because of a "crisis" of bloody intra-Christian wars, it seems a little strange that they celebrated this new understanding, which was occasioned by a crisis, which was occasioned by bloody religious wars, by continuing to have just as bloody wars with other Christian nations and people groups for another hundred and fifty years, at which point everything calmed down for a while in no small part because Britannia ruled the waves! I just don't think the existential crisis model works well for Christianity and the increasing peacefulness of Europe, Britain, and the West.

From what I've gathered, at least from recent history (think pre 9-11 Taliban Afghanistan), wherever Islamists have come to power, the average Joe Muslim feels the oppression of literalism every day.

I think this is true. Some folks think this is all voluntary, but it isn't. Coercion is a part of it. They are honor cultures, and this is a part of it too. Justice isn't the goal, order is. This is not a new story. The West came out of the old world but the Arabic lands did not, and now the West is the haves and the Muslim countries are the humiliated have nots. There culture is backwards and someone other than themselves must be at fault. Anyway, in honor cultures you need some to apply the order to others. There are those on the top to enforce the social hierarchy over those farther down the food chain. Those on the top like it, while those farther down less so in degrees according to their place in the order. And anger is directed at Israel rather than their own oppressive leaders because you don't get thrown in jail for expressing anger at them. What an evil mess.

Does anyone here think that a literal bloodthirsty Islam might just collapse under its own weight?

Well it could unless they get nukes, and then the have-nots will get even with us. But otherwise, the problem with thinking this will happen is that their grievance feeds into our guilt and insecurity about the West's values. That is why it is likely, though I desperately hope not, that the value question for us will only be resolved by the moral clarity of a violent act against us. Resolved for a time, on this view, so the cycle likely repeats with Western guilt and insecurity.

Mark, the force of my objection is just simply that I don't think Christianity was changed into a more peaceful form by any crisis that Christianity was "forced to address." History just bumbled on, ideas changed gradually, nations kept fighting. Wars continued.

I think you're importing more than is warranted into what "existential crisis" might mean. People go through "existential crisis" brought on by nothing more than normal aging over long periods of time, as one example. But no matter. I can't speak for Chris, but to me the only necessary part of his expression about "existential crisis" is the idea that Christianity is affected by external events. In fact he used the word "external" originally. You say "ideas changed gradually." How did they change, and why? I think we can know something about that. I think we do. If that is so it follows I'd want to try to trace the understanding of the Church of itself, and I'd expect other religions to also be affected by external events in analogous ways. To what degree do you think Christianity has been affected by their experience in the world? To what extent do you think others might be?

And as far the idea that "Christianity was changed into a more peaceful form," I'm not sure what you mean by "peaceful form." I'd never say that because it is dangerously vague and suspicious sounding. But it is undeniable that Christendom is more peaceful now than it was. Could this have nothing to do with the Christians occupying it? Even if the change took 500 years, is there nothing that we say about the change other than that it was slow? Explanations are what we seek. In fact you must be explaining something by positing the slowness. But what? I'm perfectly happy to drop this, but that's why I see your view as an anti-theory rather than just skepticism about the possibility of an explanation.

Oh, I myself don't particularly think Christianity qua religion had a bad, war-like form, so I wasn't meaning to endorse that by the phrase "a more peaceful form." I merely used that as part of a super-brief summary of a view (which I took to be Chris's) that I didn't find persuasive. My own view is that for a long time Christian nations fought among themselves because of a lot of different things. Sometimes religion, sometimes not, as the case might be.

My own view is that for a long time Christian nations fought among themselves because of a lot of different things. Sometimes religion, sometimes not, as the case might be.

And my view only adds to this that they stopped fighting among themselves for a reason that we can know some things about, and do.

I meant for the word reason to be plural of course.

And my view only adds to this that they stopped fighting among themselves for a reason that we can know some things about, and do.

Do you mean we stopped fighting among ourselves after the Napoleonic wars, or after the Mexican-American war, or after the Crimean War, or the wars of Italian revolution, or Franco-Prussian War, or the Spanish-American war, or World War 1, or the American-European intervention in Russia, or WW2? Which TIME that we stopped fighting each other are you referring to?

Tony, doesn't the context answer that?

Or were you asking Lydia since "they stopped fighting" were her words?

Lydia:

My own view is that for a long time Christian nations fought among themselves because of a lot of different things. Sometimes religion, sometimes not, as the case might be.

And my view only adds to this that they stopped fighting among themselves for a reason that we can know some things about, and do.

Posted by Mark | August 8, 2012 12:52 AM

??

Mark:

Well it could unless they get nukes, and then the have-nots will get even with us.

Pakistan already has nukes - and they are not threatening us with them. In fact, they have not threatened even their chief rival - India (to a point where the world took notice anyway). So it is not Islam that will bring nukes down on our heads. I think a lot of the bluster being put forth by Iran has more to do with the constant pressure we are putting on them. We have fairly harsh sanctions in place. We have them surrounded militarily - having invaded two neighboring countries. We also have a history of intervening in their politics. Plus we openly back Israel's war-like talk. I think that, given all that, it is understandable why they would rattle their sabers and play war-games in the region. That would be the case even if they weren't a Muslim nation.

But otherwise, the problem with thinking this will happen is that their grievance feeds into our guilt and insecurity about the West's values. That is why it is likely, though I desperately hope not, that the value question for us will only be resolved by the moral clarity of a violent act against us. Resolved for a time, on this view, so the cycle likely repeats with Western guilt and insecurity.

Well, America has done some pretty despicable things in the middle east. We can't whitewash our own history and delude ourselves into thinking "they hate us because we're free". This is the fallacy of the neo-con explanation for 9/11. Al Qaeda told us why they attacked us - because we stationed soldiers in Saudi Arabia. We turned it around and made it all about Islam. (I'd argue to sell the American public on a series of wars that further enriched the American war business, but I can tell I'm getting too far out there now and most of you are probably rolling your eyes - or they're turning red!)

Al Qaeda told us why they attacked us - because we stationed soldiers in Saudi Arabia.

Chucky, do you always believe what mass-murdering religious zealots tell you, or only when it plays into your political narrative?

Or were you asking Lydia since "they stopped fighting" were her words?

Mark, I just used a search function on this entire thread. As far as I can tell, I said instead, repeatedly, that Christian (or "Christian") nations kept fighting each other.

I'm terribly sorry Lydia. I replied before rushing to work early this morning. When I read your statement that "for a long time Christian nations fought among themselves" I thought the tense of the grammar implied non-continuation, and in my recollection I mistakenly confused what was actually my paraphrase for your words. So yes, you definitely earlier had said the fighting among Christian nation has never stopped, and I see now that I read too much into the grammar of your later statement. I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

Chucky, do you always believe what mass-murdering religious zealots tell you, or only when it plays into your political narrative?

I originally believed the Bush administration's story that "they hate us because we're free". I totally supported the war in Afghanistan because we were "going after the ones who knocked those towers down!" Then, later, I was absolutely behind the Iraq war because "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction". I remember wanting to yell out the window at the war protesters: "hope you like mustard gas!" In short, I bought it hook, line and sinker. Then slowly it started to unravel for me. It was only later that I even found out what Al Qaeda said. Nobody was trumpeting those statements around in the media at the time. It was also interesting that the Bush administration secretly withdrew our remaining troops out of Saudi Arabia immediately after 9/11 (so apparently they believed those "mass-murdering religious zealots" too!)

Ok Mark, thanks for clarifying, and fixing your mistake.

I corrected it, but I have no idea what the statement "the Christian nations kept fighting each other" even means so I can't imagine how that helps any of us.

It was also interesting that the Bush administration secretly withdrew our remaining troops out of Saudi Arabia immediately after 9/11 (so apparently they believed those "mass-murdering religious zealots" too!)

Um, no. They were withdrawn after the Iraq invasion because they were no longer needed, and it was announced.

And Chucky, your conversion happens in every war. It's called war weariness. It is always the case that people decide they want out after it was more difficult than they thought. And your bizarre conspiracy theories to cover it aren't new either. It is the same as it ever was.

Mark:

Um, no. They were withdrawn after the Iraq invasion because they were no longer needed, and it was announced.

The rest is right. From your link:

Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina) — many Muslims were upset at the permanent military presence. The continued presence of US troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist attacks and the Khobar Towers bombing. The date of the 1998 United States embassy bombings was eight years to the day (August 7) that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia".
Opinion polls conducted by Gallup from 2006–2008, find that many in Muslim majority countries strongly object to U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. 52% of Saudis agreed that removing military bases from Saudi Arabia would very significantly improve their opinion of United States. Also 60% of Egyptians, 39% of Jordanians, 40% of Syrians and Palestinians, 55% of Tunisians, 13% of Iranians, 29% of Turks, 40% of Lebanese, 30% of Algerians gave that opinion too.
The U.S. has rejected the characterization of its presence as an "occupation", noting that the government of Saudi Arabia consented to the presence of troops. Many in the U.S., the Arab world and elsewhere saw the presence of U.S. troops as supporting the House of Saud, the rule of which is controversial.
Withdrawal
On April 29, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would be withdrawing US troops from the country stating that the Iraq War no longer required the support. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had earlier said that the continuing US presence in the kingdom was putting American lives in danger. The announcement came one day after the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) was shifted from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
The move was controversial, as some said that it was a needless contingent that only enraged Muslim populations, while others said that the United States were caving to the demands of Osama bin Laden.

And Chucky, your conversion happens in every war. It's called war weariness. It is always the case that people decide they want out after it was more difficult than they thought. And your bizarre conspiracy theories to cover it aren't new either. It is the same as it ever was.

Yeah that's it. You've got me pegged. My "conversion" has nothing to do with facts - it's all conspiracy theories fueled by war-weariness.

You actually have no clue what processes I went through to get to the place I'm at right now. That you assume I'm such a gullible fool is pretty insulting actually.

Since the basic (almost the entire) reason we had troops sitting in Saudi Arabia was to take care of the no-fly zone, once we had invaded Iraq there was no further need of that particular installation. If (a) you don't need men there, and (b) having them there is causing political problems and putting people at risk, the natural thing to do is get them out. Doesn't all that much matter whether (b) even partly conflates with the terrorist preference, not really. So I fail to see why that issue could be significant in worrying about the stance of the war.

Mark, even if war weariness does happen in many wars, it doesn't follow that that's what happened to Chucky. I agree with you that the turn of public sentiment was based on irrational fears and such. But even so there is a LOT of reason to be less than satisfied with the war, including parts of how Bush chose to prosecute it (including allowing in thousands of foreign terrorists to pose as "insurgents"). So, even though I don't side with the people who claim the war was clearly wrong from the start, nor with the (different) people who say that if we had known the pre-war facts properly that Bush knew we would have known clearly that it was wrong from the start, still there is room for reasonable disagreement about just how much we can say with moral conviction about it.

Tony:

Mark, even if war weariness does happen in many wars, it doesn't follow that that's what happened to Chucky.

I agree with you that the turn of public sentiment was based on irrational fears and such.

If you want a lesson in pro-war propaganda, go back and listen to all the speeches made in Congress - even by Democrats - during the ramp-up to the war in Iraq. It's absolutely astounding to me how the entire nation was led down a fictitious path. Then, look at the things being said now about Iran and Syria, and the things recently said about Libya and Egypt. Then go back to Viet Nam. You'll begin to see a pattern. We seem to constantly need an enemy. The evils of these nations are always over-hyped - and by virtually every mainstream (i.e. corporate owned) media outlet. You never seem to hear the other side except from obscure alternative media sites (which adds to the "conspiracy theory" justification for disbelief).

Take the current situation in Iran for example:

First, we have consistently been told that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the map". We have the video, with the clear translation, of Ahmadinejad saying it. But that translation has been disputed. Juan Cole says that Ahmadinejad was quoting from a "decades-old speech" by Ayatollah Khomeini, and he says this about it:

The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope– that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.
Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

Now - lest you think that Cole is some pro-Iranian Islamist - he later says this:

I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies.

Second, we do not ever consider whether our sanctions against Iran are an act of war against a sovereign nation. Sanctions are analogous to a naval blockade in that we are trying to stop goods and services from entering the country. Even though we may feel they are justified, from the Iranian perspective they are an overt act of hostility.

Third, consider the number and location of our military bases in the region. We effectively have Iran surrounded. Think about what our reaction would be if a nation that was openly hostile to us had military bases in Mexico and Canada. We never seem to try to see things from the perspective of the nations we oppose. Then imagine what it would be like if that nation was going around the world trying to get other nations to join with it in trade sanctions against us.

Fourth, we are told that Iran is a "step away from nukes" and is "a threat to the US". Think about this. This is a country that - though rich in oil reserves - cannot even refine its own gasoline. There was an article in a recent issue of The New American magazine outlining the difficulties a nation faces in getting from energy-grade nuclear material to weapons-grade nuclear material - as well as the enormous task of creating a working atomic weapon. You'd be surprised at how much is actually involved and how far Iran is from that goal.

But even so there is a LOT of reason to be less than satisfied with the war, including parts of how Bush chose to prosecute it (including allowing in thousands of foreign terrorists to pose as "insurgents").

See, I didn't know that. It only adds to my convictions though.

So, even though I don't side with the people who claim the war was clearly wrong from the start, nor with the (different) people who say that if we had known the pre-war facts properly that Bush knew we would have known clearly that it was wrong from the start, still there is room for reasonable disagreement about just how much we can say with moral conviction about it.

One thing we can say for a fact was that it was an undeclared war. In fact all wars since WWII have been undeclared. There is something different about these undeclared wars in that they seem to be undefined as well. They end up being open ended - with no clear objective. I don't know if this is a consequence of their being undeclared, but it is a troubling pattern nonetheless.

I forgot the link to the Juan Cole article (it's actually about Christopher Hitchens but the Ahmadinejad quote figures prominently and is discussed several paragraphs in):
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

Yeah, every crazy, war-mongering thing Johnny Ahmadinejad says is _always_ mis-translated. Honestly, Chucky, that whole approach is _so_ wearisome. We just don't understand. And, no, I'm sorry, but saying one is opposed to everything Johnny stands for just ain't enough. _Of course_ he's threatening that "regime" that is "occupying Jerusalem." To say that he isn't and doesn't and hasn't won't pass the laugh test. Which doesn't stop leftists and paleo-leftists from saying it, unfortunately. And which also doesn't tell us exactly what to do about Johnny. But leftists and paleo-leftists are so terrified that someone here in America is defending war against that they are continually telling us we're misinterpreting Johnny. I saw one leftist on Facebook the other day saying that we couldn't really know what A. was saying unless we personally know the language he speaks! And meanwhile, he implied, since there's nothing really to be afraid of from his empty saber-rattling, that it is somehow a sign of political bias and unreliability even to _report_ what he says. These are the kinds of people you appear to be hanging around with on foreign policy. It's really not the way to find out the truth.

Well Lydia, what IS the truth? Tell me what he's saying and how you know about it. I'd be interested to know your sources and where they got their information as well.

I know that the USA and Israel often talk publicly about using military force against Iran. That's undisputed.

And I'm surprised that you give no credence to the argument that understanding the language someone is speaking helps one to know what they mean. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

To be honest, your response is full of emotion but lacks real substance - and that's out of character for you.

That's funny because I've come to believe that the pro-war sentiment was based on irrational fears and such - at least I know that was the case with me. I fully believed that Saddam had those weapons and that he was ready to hand them off to terrorists who would use them against us.

That's funny, because I always considered the ENTIRE discussion taking place in 2002 to Feb 2003 to be an exercise in futility dealing with left-sided irrationality. The Gulf war ended in 1990 with the US agreeing to stop bombing and stop the invasion if Saddam met certain requirements. Such an agreement is a contract: I will do THIS if you do THAT. Throughout the course of the 1990s he repeatedly reneged on his commitments, and we probably should have gone back to war AT LEAST 5 DIFFERENT TIMES in that period. In addition to major failures, he continually had his Republican Guard units do things like "test the waters" on the no-fly zones by lighting up missile radars, and in some cases sending out missiles to shoot down our jets - so the supposed "cease-fire" or cold war was really more like a "luke warm" war anyway. The UN passed 16 resolutions against him because of his failures. These facts are all attested to by the Clinton Administration.

WE SHOULD HAVE ENFORCED THE CEASE FIRE CONTRACT ON HIM LONG BEFORE 2003.

Then, in the later 1990s, we allowed the oil-for-food program to go into effect, with supposedly strict rules making sure the oil money only went for food and medicine, not for military supplies or even general machinery. And France and Russia gave him forbidden supplies, and top UN people knowingly looked the other way - thus vitiating the entire scope of UN oversight of the whole regional conflict.

In spite of all that, we still had those head-in-the-sand liberals say in 2002 "but why, Daddy, why should we fight this thug, this liar, this international murderer, this man who abrogates every agreement written, who tried to steal a country to his south, who steals food from his own people and turns it into weapons, who shoots at our planes? And why must we do so without the support of the UN, Daddy? Why can't we just go along with our head in the sand like we have been doing?" Bush and his idiot cronies made a mistake, a political one: they let the public debate be framed by the liberal questioner's mind set, and constructed ADDITIONAL reasons beyond the obvious ones. Needless to say, the additional ones were not quite the best ones - because they let the liberals take the best ones off the table before the discussion even got started. Duh! Stupid!

Stop worrying about the WMDs and the terrorists - that was all a stupid side show. The real reason we hit Iraq in 2003 was he made a contract with us and he broke it. You can't keep doing "business" in a world of tough guys if you don't stand up to contract-breakers and force them to comply with their contracts. And that's a just cause for war.

One thing we can say for a fact was that it was an undeclared war. In fact all wars since WWII have been undeclared. There is something different about these undeclared wars in that they seem to be undefined as well. They end up being open ended - with no clear objective. I don't know if this is a consequence of their being undeclared, but it is a troubling pattern nonetheless.

Congress collectively defected in its responsibility, and has done so repeatedly on the subject of war for the last 50 years. It should have had the courage to either declare war or tell the President they are not going to declare war and he can't go to war. For Iraq, they basically gave him carte blanche, and gave him the authority to decide. Certainly nothing Bush did in starting and continuing to be at war violated any Congressional powers - they GAVE him a green light if he wanted it.

Although I agree that open-ended wars are typically wretched, from at least Vietnam on through Bosnia and Iraq, the legitimate objectives were difficult to state in cold hard facts. (Let's not forget the 2 wars we did NOT get into, that we might have - the Rwanda genocide, and the Sudan genocide / religious war). But part of that open-ended sense you have is the feeling, (mentioned in the other thread about war) that demanding absolute unconditional surrender was, perhaps, not the best way to win wars. Well, that implies something of a negotiable stance about when our achievement is "good enough."

If you have to personally speak every language of every foreign leader in the world in order to have any justified belief about what he is saying, we might as well just give up on knowing anything about foreign affairs. Wildly exaggerated skepticism is a pretty good sign of something else epistemically wrong in a person's approach to a particular subject.

Needless to say, the additional ones were not quite the best ones...

That's one way to describe lies, however not the best way.

Stop worrying about the WMDs and the terrorists - that was all a stupid side show.

Well, I'm glad we went to war based on a stupid side show. I'm sure that fits the definition of a just war.

Stop worrying about the WMDs and the terrorists - that was all a stupid side show. The real reason we hit Iraq in 2003 was he made a contract with us and he broke it.

Tony, your account of the Iraq War (the 2nd one) is exactly right. The first war, the cold war and no-fly zone and related action, and the second one resulting in his overthrow should be seen together. It was really one long war. And that is why there were ~50,000 troops in Saudi before the 2nd war.

My problem with it was that it was not reasonable to think Saddam would ever do anything other than brutalize his own people. The end of the first Gulf war was actually shameful. Bush 1 encouraged the Shiites to rise up and then ordered the army to stand by and watch as he broke the deal within days and massacred the Shiites. They should have at least shot down a couple of his choppers strafing the public and said "hey, try again on your interpretation of our agreement." But the failures of the first led to the second war.

Well, I'm glad we went to war based on a stupid side show. I'm sure that fits the definition of a just war.

Step2, you didn't even try to read the comment. I said we DIDN'T go to war based on the sideshow. The real reason was elsewhere. And the real reason does fit the definition of just war, at least ius ad bellum. Doesn't imply anything about ius in bello, though.

Step2, you didn't even try to read the comment. I said we DIDN'T go to war based on the sideshow.

I recognized you were writing a different history from what actually happened, so I corrected it. Just because the war could have had justified reasons doesn't mean those were the reasons that motivated public support, it was the "stupid side show" that caused the change in public perception.

Well there were a lot of stated reasons for going to war that Congress endorsed in its declaration, including humanitarian.

The Bush administration emphasized the weapons, but I think that was a mistake. Not just in hindsight either. Among all these reasons, you have to emphasize some over others in public debate, and they just thought it was the most urgent compelling. But I think the other reasons were sufficient and more compelling.

Every major intelligence agency thought he had them. I know Tony knows this, but for others no one lied. They were shocked they weren't there. But the crazy and under-appreciated fact is that Saddam's own generals thought they had them. It's an Arabic honor-culture. It is incredible to the modern Western mind that a guy would fabricate the bomb programs re-creation and lie to his own generals about having atomic weapons. It is comical in a way. Now I think the CIA tends to be pretty feckless and poor at their jobs, though notwithstanding the honest hard work of many fine individuals. But seriously, did any Western agency actually entertain that a leader might lie that he *did* have the bomb? Could they have been expected to? Well, maybe now. Normally you lie that don't have them, but lie that you do? The mind reels. Saddam was a nutjob in a Mel Brooksian farce but he actually did brutalize millions.

But anyone who thinks that if the Bush administration hadn't emphasized weapons that the critics would play it any differently has another thing coming. Blair in fact didn't emphasize weapons and did emphasize other issues, especially the humanitarian. But the British public was even more brutal to him for his trouble for being wiser. So it goes. That's why I chalked it up to "war weariness."

But seriously, did any Western agency actually entertain that a leader might lie that he *did* have the bomb?

I take it you have never heard of Valerie Plame.

I recognized you were writing a different history from what actually happened, so I corrected it.

No, Step2, you just don't know your history. When we first started to talk about maybe going into Iraq, in 2002 or so, there was a HUGE sigh of "well, it's about time" from patriots of both Dems and Repub stripes. Because they knew that we had allowed a grotesque stretching of the principle of forbearance from a wayward head of government. That was before we got dug into a gritty debate about whether there were WMDs and terrorist connections. Maybe you didn't know about this huge sigh of relief of patience waiting coming to an end because, well, because the stuff you read in the left-lib media isn't written by patriots? The ones who wouldn't be caught dead writing about the luke-warm war, and the actual details of Saddam's faithlessness for over a decade.

Tony,

I fully supported the war - not just for the reason I cited (WMDs) but for all the reasons you stated as well (the WMDs just being the most pressing issue in my opinion at the time.)

I have since come to believe that we were never justified for going into Iraq - even in 1990.

Why must we always inject ourselves into regional wars anyway? Allies? Economic interests? I don't see it. There are plenty of countries with their own armies in the region who could have sufficiently taken care of Saddam. Iraq is none of our business and it continues to be none of our business. Oil? Does anybody really believe that an entity sitting on the 2nd richest oil reserves in the world would not sell oil to the world's largest oil consumer? The oil was never in jeopardy.

I am sick and tired of this notion that we are the world's policeman and have to put down "evil" (evil that we have often supported both financially and militarily) wherever it suits the corporate interests in this country. This country's foreign policy mirrors its domestic policy - centrally planned mayhem on all fronts. You cannot plan what you don't understand. And if there's anything we don't understand - it's the middle east! We intervened in the middle east in Iran to install the Shah - deposing a popularly elected ruler - and thus alienating the populace of Iran to our own detriment. We've both supported Al Qaeda and opposed them. We've both supported Saddam and opposed him. We've both supported Qaddafi and opposed him. We've both supported Mubarak and opposed him. We've both supported Musharraf and opposed him. Our foreign policy is totally schizophrenic. And, it has not made us any safer - we've only succeeded in stirring up hornets nests all over the world. It's time to roll back the empire. We like to portray ourselves as innocent victims and suppose that the whole world wants to attack us and kill us for our goodness. Meanwhile we completely alienate populations with our overbearing ways. It's a lose-lose.

I agree that our foreign policy has been crazy. And you won't get any argument from me about disgust at our supporting the overthrow of the Iranian government in favor of the Shah. I totally don't understand that one at all, it seems incredibly out of character for Eisenhower. Or maybe I just don't understand anything about Eisenhower.

But there is a huge difference between actually instigating an uprising to overthrow an elected government, and pushing Saddam back from his attempt to steal Kuwait. Maybe it isn't finally a good idea for us to have alliances of any sort in the Middle East, but that's a position that is impossible to prove definitively - there is no way of knowing globally _and_for_the_future to what extent having foreign ties is helpful or not (as distinct from having such ties and then screwing them up with stupid schizophrenic decisions). Given that we did and do have such alliances, acting on them is appropriate. Even if removing Saddam from Kuwait wasn't prudent because it wasn't our battle to fight, that doesn't make our stepping in an unjust war on our part.

Well, the consequences of our actions are indisputable. In virtually every middle eastern country in which we have "meddled", the fate of Christians has worsened. This is just one metric, but it is telling. It is the law of unintended consequences in action.

This has been my revelation - that foreign affairs (like markets) are best left to sort themselves out. We hear a constant refrain from the media to "do something" about any and all perceived problems (and by "do something" we mean for the government to take action). However, in the majority of cases where the government takes action to rectify a problem: e.g. low-wage housing, student loans, medical expenses, and of course foreign policy, the action the government takes only worsens the problem. I could easily see the wisdom of this domestically, but it wasn't as easy for me to come to this view on foreign policy - given my intense pro-war sentiment - but I am more convinced each day that it is the wise choice.