Replies

With "Islamism," we encounter an ideology that goes not against, but with the grain of the society on which it preys, and makes its appeal to that society's ancient aspirations. Mr Harris is hardly alone in noticing that, but nearly alone in explaining coherently why we Western children of the Enlightenment, and especially his fellow American liberal individualists and exceptionalists, are peculiarly ill-equipped to defend against it.

I keep thinking about the old saying in politics that you can't beat something with nothing.

That is true in other spheres of life as well.

The challenge of Islamism is not primarily military or even political but moral and religious. The Islamists are acting according to a vision of the future which resonates with a large number of people throughout the world. It promises not just a return to the earthly glory of the Caliphate, but ultimately eternal glory with God.

The only way to beat such a vision is with a stronger, more compelling one. Material prosperity is not enough. (Most of the 9-11 conspirators were well-off, not poor.) A limp-wristed agnosticism will not do.

We in the West must provide people an alternative religious vision, one that will offers a better world here and hereafter. Undoubtedly, this will require a revival of our moribund faith in the God of the Old and New Testaments.

When Ann Coulter wrote that to defeat the Islamists, "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," she may have been right in part. Few of use desire to invade or kill anyone. But a conversion to Christianity may be exactly what is called for.