Replies

I disagree strongly with this line of argument. Here's why;

First, you have to actually believe that Islam is a religion, which any objective view of it would not bear out. Islam is more of a societal system (in this regard it bears a striking resemblance to communism and fascism) where the individual is discounted in favor of the "over all" good. It's adherents believe that peace and equality cannot be achieved unless everyone on the planet follows the same rules, and if you don't, you must be destroyed. Utterly. Where it differs from communism and fascism is that it replaces the primacy of the state and it's apparatus with a religious veneer, i.e. this is the undisputable word of God.

Secondly, you must redefine your idea of just what constitutes a "fundamentalist state". Here in this country, for all the church going and talk of morality, we're currently debating the issue of homosexual marriage. In a fundamentalist state, there would be no debate, there would be mass deportations, concentration camps and finally, mass executions of homosexuals. A fundamentalist state does not allow freedom, especially where freedom is a danger to an established order or contradicts dogma. We do not live in a fundamentalist state in those terms.

Finally,the issues with Islam vs. The West, or America in particular, have very little to do with religion. In this case, religion is simply a propaganda tool. The real issues have to do with opposing viewpoints of life: the freedom of an individual, protected by law, and in cooperation with his fellow man, versus the dictates of an established, unquestionable order claiming it's authority from an unquestionable source. Here in the West, the people have the power, in the Middle East, power is reserved to the few, and by decree of the Almighty, no less.

This struggle is between haves and have nots, and the have nots cannot comprehend that it is their own system, their own shortsightedness, that keeps them in the position they are in. The haves in this case have freedom, economic power and technology that makes life easier and gives them the ability to better their world. The have nots have a 7th century ideology that never evolved to adapt to a changing world. Islam never had an Enlightenment, a Reformation or a Renaissance.

When someone cannot come to terms with their own failures, and accept blame or responsibility for them honestly, then one does things like bomb pizzerias and ram airliners into office towers, because it must be someone else's fault that you live in such a terrible way. Especially when God and your Imam tell you that things are just the way they're supposed to be. And God cannot be wrong.

In psychology, I believe this phenomena is called "transferrance". Just another way of saying that a murder is merely an extroverted suicide. The problem is that the "extroverted suicides" of 9/11 came from a country that believes in everything you don't, and because of it, has the means to fight back. God may be great, but God was never on the receiving end of a thermobaric bomb.

In the end, Communism fell, Fascism fell, and Islam will too. They all collapsed under their own weight and because they never realized that human nature trumps any system of thought or dogma. If you doubt that, ask yourself just why millions of Muslims break with Islamic law to live amongst us infidels.

I think half of the difference you see between what I wrote:

It is a religious war.

and what you write is just my unusual use of the word 'religion'. The other half is a genuine difference.

First let me restate my position, in more neutral terms.

On the one hand we have the people with faith in a Supreme Spirit, from whom flows all that we are, and whose teachings it is our highest duty to seek out and follow.

On the other hand we have the "Heaven on Earth" world view, frequently used by would be tyrants to justify all manner of power grabs, for "the good of the children" and other such pablums.

In short, the believers versus the secularists.

In your terms, the believers hold a religion, the secularists oppose religions. That is an entirely reasonable use of the word 'religion.'

I was using 'religion' in a broader sense. Both Christianity and secularism are religions in that sense. They are alternative foundations for ones spiritual outlook.

It would be as if I were saying that both democracy and anarchy were forms of government.

When I examine the efforts by leftists to stamp out any reference to Christianity from public life, I find it makes most sense to me if I view it as an effort to make 'secularism' the state established religion (contrary to the Constitution, which prohibits any state established religion).

So I am in agreement with you that Islam is not what we ordinarily mean by a religion - it is, or has been hijacked by, a virulent anti-religion. I am undecided as to whether there is a legitimate, moral religion hiding in Islam somewhere. Either way, the Islam that is visible now is an anti-religion.

When I said this was a religious war, I didn't mean between two religions, as your would use the word. Rather it is a war between the religious and the anti-religious.

Where I would disagree more fundamentally is in response to your comments such as:

This struggle is between haves and have nots

The leaders, shakers, financiers, apologists and often even suicide bombers of the terrorists (and communists, nazis and 'rats) aren't poverty stricken. Well, not a poverty of money and material goods anyway.

What they lack is faith. They are spiritually impoverished. They are not seeking to find the Truth as spoken by a Higher Being, but rather seeking to establish their own man-made visions (delusions) on Earth.

This is not a war of the material rich versus poor. It is a war of the spiritual seekers with the spiritual bankrupt.