Religion of Peace?
By Donny1123 Comments (62) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Why is that the U.S has gone to such great pains to continue to refer to Islam as the Religion of peace. The “Top Ten List” Written by Don Feder of Human Events has an interesting and poignant position on the facts of this question. http://www.humanevents.com/lists.php?id=16561 It is my proposition that we need to fully recognize, as a people, the true threat that we face. It is not the tools of violence that are used by terrorists. Car bombs, hijackings, civilian murder and massacres are all horrible activities that terrorists use to effect change. The true threat though, are the people that believe in the system of beliefs and values that support this type of activity. Islam has not shown itself to be a religion of peace nor have the Muslims that practice Islam shown they are interested in true peace and equality.
The List of 10 items that Feder states and supports are controversial and “politically incorrect”. I think that Don Feder has a good point. I wish he would have referenced the Koran more but I think his article was more for discussion than a position paper to be the basis for legislation. I think one of the most important quotes from a contemporary Muslim is listed in Item 10.
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” – Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
This is a registered lobby with the United State government. This is a lobbying group whose entire goal is to supplant the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not to mention subvert the democratic process and the ability of Congress to pass laws and the President to faithfully defend and execute the Constitution and laws of the United States. The reason that Muslim terrorists need to be defeated and Islam, as laid out in the Koran, correctly identified as a threat to the U. S. and the West is because it is currently the most dangerous belief system to our way of life. Can other peoples use the same methods as Muslims are doing right now? Yes. But none of them are currently engaged in armed conflict with us and hold in their hearts a desire to dominate and subjugate us as a people. Muslims do.
The belief that a majority of Muslims do not agree with Osama Bin Laden and the expansionist and violent beliefs he and his supporters hold is so far not supported by empirical evidence or reliable religious text from the Koran. The only evidence seen so far is luke warm condemnations of suicide bombings. However, that is immediately coupled with negations of responsibility and blame on the victims of terrorist attacks.
The U.S. and her allies are under assault from Islamic forces. We need to be honest and candid about our enemies and allies. Without knowing the true landscape of the war we cannot hope to prevail.
come from Mosques (see the British experience), and we hear next to no condemnation from so-called mainstream adherants of Islam, what conclusions are we to draw.
Have you noted the percentages of Muslims who call themselves "Muslim" first and a citizen of their country second or lower? Have you seen the approval levels of Hezbollah and Hamas and AQ among Muslims? Have you noted the lack of outrage by people like CAIR over the highjacking (pun intended) of their religion by violent fruitcakes? Have you spent any time looking for condemnation of suicide bombers who routinely murder Israeli civilians by adherants of the Religion of Peace?
I could go on, but my head is starting to hurt. Islam is not a Religion of Peace. It's most prominent practitioners are thugs and murderers or people who are willing and happy to enable them. Until the so-called "mainstream" Muslims stand up and reject terrorism and terrorists, the ARE the problem and they ARE the enemy.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
You go fight your genocidal war against Muslims, and leave us to the War on Terror. Please don't let anyone confuse our wars. Please.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Neil, sometimes I think you have no stomach for certain truths.
You make the same error the liberals make. You don't want to be at war with a religion. You find it a terrible idea. So you simply decide that we aren't.
I got news for you. It's not up to you. So far it's been up to Islam and it seems to me Islam made it's mind up a few missing buildings and planes ago.
You don't want to admit that most terrorists so far would have been netted if airport security were allowed to select people for screening based on their appearance or RACE, and you don't want to admit that Islam is at the heart of this war.
Reality will continue to be distasteful in spite of your objections, and we will continue to fight a battle against mostly middle eastern Muslims. Why you can't accept who the enemy is, well that's just beyond me.
Sorry, but I think you're making the mistake. I think you're far too glib in your declaration that a group of people is the enemy, merely because they didn't denounce the enemy TO YOUR LIKING.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Yes, that's the reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that we are being attacked IN THE NAME of Islam.
Oh, but I forgot. There's some muslims who issue press releases about not liking terrorism. So let's all pretend Islam has nothing to do with it.
Good plan.
Shall homosexuals feel threatened by all Christians, just because a few freakos attack them in the name of Christianity?
I think it's absurd that you're taking UBL's word for it on what Islam is all about.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
How much more absurd that you boil down the last decade of evidence as merely Usama's "word". Just who do we have incarcerated in Gitmo? Who exactly rioted over the Mohammed cartoons? Who, precisely, is calling for the destruction of the west.
What's absurd is that a religious group is literally attacking you, and you are a wilting flower about mentioning their religion.
If not supporting an insane holy war, perverting the US into a tool for some medieval religious grudge, makes me a wilting flower, then I'll wear that label proudly.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Yes, well, wear it proudly. Meanwhile, back here in reality, we adults know that recognizing the religion at the heart of the attacks against you, and screening at security on obvious factors, is not the same thing as calling for genocide or medieval holy wars.
Mere mention of race or religion at this site and you're ready to name everyone Hitler.
In the War on Terror, we kill terrorists. If you're naming ALL MUSLIMS the enemy, then you're calling for us to kill ALL MUSLIMS, no?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Well, this may be a shocker, but I disagree with that hysterical analysis. I said nothing of ALL MUSLIMS. I said ISLAM is at the heart of this war, and so it is. Even though Neil doesn't like it. You see, it wasn't up to ME either.
And this is but a continuance of our fight the other day about airport security. The same hysterical emotions that have you on about "genocide" are what prevent you from accepting that it is purely logical for screeners to be more suspicious of people who appear to be middle eastern or muslim.
The "good" kind of Islam, if it doesn't WANT to be at war with the entire rest of the planet, should probably DO something about that. But in the meanwhile, I'm not going to tiptoe around saying that Islam is at the heart of this war just because it makes people feel icky.
So like Abdul Azziz what's his face, you're giving the Muslims a final chance to dance to your tune, or you'll blow their brains out?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You aren't interested in what I'm saying. You want me to agree Islam has nothing to do with it, or I'm Hitler.
At least I know the rules now.
If you are going to threaten peaceful, innocent people with lines like this:
The "good" kind of Islam, if it doesn't WANT to be at war with the entire rest of the planet, should probably DO something about that.
Then the least you can do is stand by what you just said. Be like Anakin Skywalker: Use your hate, use your anger, and just let loose. After all, the sand people children didn't stand up to the kidnappers, did they?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I didn't threaten anyone, and certainly not any peaceful innocent people. Frankly, your accusations are becoming tiresome. I think you ought to take them back since they are FALSE.
The good kind of Islam SHOULD do something about it. Do you disagree?
Don't tell me what I think, Neil, you not only haven't got the foggiest clue, you've made not the slightest effort to figure it out.
YOU don't want to admit that Islam is the driving force behind Islamofascism, and that's YOUR failing. Your further failure is in character. A character that compels you to demand from each person who recognizes the most common threads among terrorists to repeatedly defend the fact that they are not in favor of genocide.
I'm sick of your false choice. I don't have to decide between ignoring the obvious or avoiding genocide. I can accept the obvious and NOT be in favor of genocide, just like millions of other people worldwide. You can take your fake choice and stick it.
absentee
I should have stopped when I said I should have. I apologize to you and more importantly to the readers for carrying this on as long as I have.
But no, I won't join your crusade. Not now, not ever.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I don't have a crusade, buddy, and I'm pretty tired of repeating it. Bail out on this discussion of you will, but I'm not going to quietly accept the evil titles you've conferred on me today, and I won't forget them either.
You did what any proud liberal would do, and it's not the first time for you. You brandish genocide and racism like talismans, the end of all debate. The one magic word that makes the person disagreeing with you totally immaterial, a waste of time.
It is you who is on a crusade. A false tolerance crusade that will get you know where and depends utterly on ignorance of facts.
I don't accept your hollow apology. You can keep it and your Nazi accusations wherever you see fit.
I aplogized for dragging this on, but here's one more: I hope you have a frank exchange of views about Islam with a Muslim Marine fresh from Afghanistan someday.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
When I was in the Marine Corps I had a Muslim Staff Sergeant. We had many talks, about religion, yes, about Islam, definitely. Example number 1000 of how you don't know what you're talking about when you make assumptions about me. Any other advice?
You keep pretending that I've made some declaration you are debating. I just looked back through this exchange again. The only declarations that have been made have been made by you. I have only reported facts.
Islam is at the heart of this war. FACT.
Most of the terrorists we face are young, male, middle eastern in either origin or descent, and Muslim. FACT.
I have only said it's a fact we have to deal with whether we like or not. The fact that you think dealing with it means genocide speaks more about you than it does about me.
Thank you. You just proved my point.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I didn't admit anything. Your arbitrary claim is simply a sad little attempt at a debate ploy. You expose yourself by your reply. You can't deal with the fact that the War on Terror is focused on radical Islam and Jihadis because of their focus on us, so you've simply decided that recognition of that fact makes one a genocidal maniac. So during the war in Europe, if someone said we were at war with Germany, it means they wanted to kill all Germans everywhere. So go on, go tell socrates, and marcus, and Donny and many others, tell them they want to kill all muslims. Tell them they are genocidal maniacs and fascists. Call them Nazis.
Where is the strenght of YOUR convictions, I wonder?
I can go all night.
absentee
Re: You find it a terrible idea.
Neil finds this a terrible idea because it is. Why trade a small number of enemies (certainly no more than 50,000 max) who are not very popular with their own people for two billion enemies?
Re: So far it's been up to Islam and it seems to me Islam made it's mind up a few missing buildings and planes ago.
Someone has been sipping Lefty Lemonade, the kind that makes you believe in group guilt. Your logic is the exact same logic that radical feminists use when they claim that all men are guilty of rape because some men are; the same logic that the Racial Grievance Industry employs when they imply that the KKK is representative of all white people and we should be doing perpetual penance for slavery anyways; the same logic that extremist seclarists use when they point to the tiny Christian Reconstruction movement and say that all Christians are suspect of its traitorous aims.
9-11 and its attendant horors were not authored by "Islam"; they were authored by Osama bin Laden and his band of psychopaths.
For a lovely world, one I'd love to live in every bit as much as you. I'm just not sure what has you so convinced of it.
"who are not very popular with their own people" Love it to be the case, not so convinced of it. Did you see the NGC special, "Triple Cross: Bin Laden's Spy in America"? Ali Mohamed is replayed over and over making a point in videotaped discussion. That the task of converting the world to Islam, by force when necessary, is his obligation. Not his choice, his obligation. Fundamentalist Islam requires bloodshed on its behalf. There is a moderate Islam, but I have seen this debate a hundred times at Redstate. Who says moderate is dominant? Hey, please convince me, I'd rather not be raising two children into the time of worldwide bloodshed. But I'm not going to be an optimist in lieu of being a realist, if you see what I mean.
As for group guilt, your analogies are extremely flawed. With regard to men and white people it's obvious, since there is no inherent philosophy, organization, set of rules, religious imperative or any other unifying theme to create a group the way a religion is. As for the analogy with Christians or other religious groups, you've got the same problem as above. We're not talking about a renegade philosophy. We're talking about philosophy directly from the Koran. Says you it's an isolated group. Says I, prove it.
But I think you should strongly reconsider declaring war on the entire Muslim world. Because if you do, at the very least you'll shatter the Republican unity on the war.
And then the terrorists really will have won.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The dichotomy Muslims face is the Koran talks about such ignominious actions as conversion by sword. That is just plain fact and not really subject to other interpretation. So to say they are the religion of peace is specious, political speech.
The choice is for individuals to make. Do you adhere to the tenets of a religion that presents such principles, ignore them, abandon them or work for the greater good of humanity? It is an existential non sequitur stating that one adheres to a religion of peace, yet in modus operandi ignore or otherwise refuse proliferation of life.
That is why organizations such as CAIR are purely political fronts for a fallacious and unprincipled “religion”. They seek to further their parochial goals through exploitation of democratic process and populace ignorance. This is inexcusable since those truly devoted to peace are not betrayed by such disreputable action.
Accordingly, I prefer not to indict a whole people based on their choices, since I do not know their individual intent. However, I will also not excuse the ill intentioned actions or converse lack thereof amongst Islam adherents. People must be responsible for there own actions and if those actions intend to defeat humanity, through action or inaction, we will rightly terminate their longevity.
This is the argument many of our citizens do not understand today. If they started to comprehend the basis of this situation, there would be less consternation about our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
I am not sure who the last post referred to and therefore wanted to further clarify.
First, I am not suggesting we declare war on the entire religion albeit there are many flaws in their principles. In fact, what I have suggested is some good people may exist amongst their populace.
However, the terrorists can indeed be identified by a common bond in Islam. To not admit this would be injudicious. Accordingly, to call them holistically the religion of peace is somewhat misleading. That type of designation would more aptly fit a religion such as Christianity, which teaches tolerance, love for one’s enemies, etc.
This euphemism is well intended but does not appropriately describe the thought our President is trying to portray. As you have correctly stated Neil, we can not, nor should not be at war with all of Islam. However, we should make it inconceivable to use this as a premise to attack or otherwise subjugate democratic principles and freedoms. If in order to achieve this an entire religion is promulgated as suspect, so be it. Until there is sufficient proof to disprove this operative theme, it should endure.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
The reply is to the whole general idea that we need to declare Islam the enemy ideology. That just can't end well, were our government foolish enough actually to take it on as a policy.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You mentioned Islam. As far as Neil is concerned, you're cleaning your gun and looking for Muslim children to execute and eat.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Is that you keep on claiming I advocate genocide. That's called lying.
Your position isn't even logical. When we were at war with Germany, if I were to say Germany was the enemy, would I have to spend the rest of my life trying to convince you I didn't advocate the extinction of all Germans?
Have the courage of YOUR convictions Neil. Tell Marcus exactly what you think of his opinion. You think it makes him Hitler.
If you have a problem with my conduct here, us the RS contact form. Following me around onto other discussions and lying about me isn't helping your cause.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I don't have a cause and I'm not stalking you. You told Marcus it wasn't direct at him. At whom, then, I wonder.
and respect your right to disagree. However, as a neutral arbitrator, I believe a cease and desist is in order and best interest of all parties.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Since he already moved the discussion to email, all that's left is his coming after me here, which I expect to dissipate.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You accuse me of genocide, then think you can pretend at being the bigger man by not answering my defense. This is not over by a longshot. The moment you can't take the heat, I expect you'll go running to tattle but, in the meantime, I'll drag this out to eternity.
I don't advocate genocide, nor did I, nor did I imply anything close to it. Your hysterical reaction then, and your current pouting diffidence don't change who I am, or what I said. And I'm certainly not going to sit here and take it.
And it's not just for me. You've set a bar that can't go unanswered. As far as you are concerned, there's no difference between being Hitler and recognizing Islam as integral to this worldwide struggle. That's a bar that's going to leave a LOT of redstate labeled as Hitler. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds your point of view intolerable.
If this was seen as intrusive. My intention was only to make a helpful suggestion.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
It's not intrusive. And anyway, what you should be apologizing for is being a racist, genocidal fascist.
You can't hide the fact that your accusations are unfounded and indefensible under this affected veneer of indifference. The evidence of your dishonesty is still here for everyone to see. When will you admit what you've done? And apologize honestly for the aspersions you have cast on so many of us today?
Knowing you, no time soon.
when it becomes more obvious that Americans are losing patience with and respect for their faith. They have to realize it will only get worse for them if something is not done.
As I understand it, American Muslims have been cooperating; one of the key reasons there haven't been any
This is in sharp contrast with European countries. Why? Assimilation. A second generation Muslim in America is an American, while a fifth generation Turk in Germany is still a Turk. Multiculturalism has shown itself to be a European form of Apartheid, while the American model of aopt, adapt, and assimilate has proven once again that it works.
I know this is going to sound rather niave, but as the son of an immigrantI beleive that the American melting pot has always made us stronger, and continues to do so. America's not going to loose a war against terrorists, but we can't win a war against a religion without loosing what it means to be Americans.
That Being Said... it's an idiotic mistake to pretend that Muslims simply want to be treated with the same level tolerance and respect that's accorded to Christians and Jews. We're not talking about a conflict between Presbyterians and Methodists here. There are some fundamental differences between Islam and the other major religions, first among those being the fact that the Koran demands that Islam be the dominiant religion in the world, and exhorts Muslims to shed blood to accomplish that goal. This is a very difficult concept for most Americans to accept, because religions tolerance is such an automatic response, and assumes that all religions are equal and tolerant. But being "First Among Equals" is simply not acceptable to the True Beleivers.
In the end, it comes down to a compromise. We need to keep a wary eye on ALL Muslims, just as we kept a wary eye on ALL Americans of Italian and German descent during WWII, without going to the extremes we went to with the Japanese. At the same time, the Muslim community in American needs to go out of it's way to prove that it's committed to the Amerian ideals, even when they might be in conflict with the Koran, just as my father's generation had to.
Don't forget that for a great deal of our own American history, conflict between protestants and Catholics was angry and at times violent.
If we skip THAT stage of Muslim immigrant assimilation, as I'm fairly sure we will, we will be doing great.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The fact that there has been and remains an anti-Catholic bias in certain parts of society is indisputable(once the domain of the Klan, it now the seems to be the latest fad amongst the inteligencia), but aside from some turf wars in New York between rival street gangs, I can't remember ever reading about it turning violent.
Reading all this, I hope the President keeps right on referring to Islam as the "Religion of Peace," just to let everyone know he's against this thinking.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
"against this thinking"
Against what thinking? Are you saying that terrorists aren't ever Muslim? That they don't cite Islam as the motivating force? What kind of thinking, exactly, are you against Neil?
From the looks of things tonight, ALL kinds of thinking. Thinking in general. That's what you seem to be against.
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams
The leaders of Al Qaeda would have found some way to attempt to grab power. Islam was convenient, not because it is inherently evil, but because you have a vast population of uneducated people who are easily propagandized. Would it be any different if they were christian instead of moslem? I doubt it.
People have use religious and political propaganda like this for thousands of years. Who said, "Kill them all, God will know his own!", just before slaughtering an entire city in France? It wasn't a muslem.
The important thing is to establish rule of law, democracy instead of theocracy, and secular education. And that is what Bush is trying to do in Iraq -- not wage war against another religion.
I totally agree with you. We need to make sure that everyone understands the definition of the war. It is not a war against a religion because a religion is simply a philosophy. It is not a war against terror because terror is simply a tactic. It is a war against people who are using a religious philosophy and terror tactic to destroy western civilization. The enemy are real ruthless human beings who will take every opportunity they get to bring about the destruction of modern western civilization. We always need to remember to separate the enemy from the philosohy and tactic he uses to get what he wants.
Sounds to me like you are making excuses for aberrant behavior
Who said, "Kill them all, God will know his own!", just before slaughtering an entire city in France? It wasn't a muslem.
People keep using the argument that Christianity behaved badly a thousand years ago so we have to accept Islam's uncivilized behavior today. Doesn't a thousand years of progress count for anything?
The important thing is to establish rule of law, democracy instead of theocracy, and secular education. And that is what Bush is trying to do in Iraq -- not wage war against another religion.
But even a casual reading of Islamic literature leads one to the inescapable conclusion that Islam does not allow for the separation of the state and the religion; the church and the state are inseparable.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Yes, in the Islamic tradition the state and the church were one, but today that isn't the case. Outside of the Islamic Republic, the Muslim world has plenty of experience with secular government.
It helps that Islam is about as splintered as Christianity is these days.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
that the Muslim world has plenty of experience with secular government. The only significant example of that I can think of is Turkey and they are clearly turning away from that position.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
No doubt the meaning was Muslims integrated into nations that do have secular governments.
Which, of course, does not address your point, which was with regard to
Muslim nations, was it not?
It wasn't restricted to Muslim Nations, I was observing that a reasonable understanding of Islam's tenets is that there can be no separation of the state, and the individual, from the religion.
Our problem is that we make this distinction, going all the way back to Jesus Christ himself: Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's. Islam seemingly does not recognize that there is a distinction to argue against; it simply does not exist so there is no argument.
It could be argued that Muslims who are integrated into secular societies are not actually Muslims; an argument on which the jihadis base their actions.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
... not very devout Muslims. But I don't have illusions of understanding what philosophy drives moderate Muslim to differ in so many fundamental ways from the original religion. I don't know on what they base their moderation, or how they reconcile those difference. I only know that I wish their philosophy could be called "True" Islam. I just don't think it can. Like you said, it could be argued ...
The region might not have experience with free, legitimate governments, but between the monarchies, the strongmen, the pan-arab national socialists, and yes the occasional real Republic, the idea of a country ruled by someone other than a religious leader is pretty common.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
incomplete I knew that you would toss back the various dictatorship and monarchies. But I contend that even they do not function contrary to Islam, especially when you consider that Islam essentially demands the supression of independent thought.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Monarchies may not be contrary to Islam, but there's a big gap between a hedonistic, oil-rich Emir and a pious Muslim Caliph.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
that at the level of the average guy, where the rubber meets the road, there is much difference between the two.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
1. In my origninal blog I never advocated war on an entire people. I advocated clear and precise thinking on who the actual enemy is and what belief system motivates them.
2. Islam promotes conversion and domination through many means, not least of which is violence.
3. When American leaders do not recognize, willfully or through good intentions and mistaken belief of what the Koran calls for, then our policies cannot be as effective as we need them.
4. Only the United States can provide for the defense of our country and intersts. The UN, other countries, and even other defense agreements will not provide an adequate defense. Tsung Tsu preached know thyself and know thine enemy otherwise you will be defeated. We need to know exactly who are enemies are.
5. The supposed moderate muslim world (outside of the United States and I would contend that American Muslims still are not vocal enough about the Koranicly supported tenets of faith that call for world domination) has done nothing of any great import or lasting effect to curb Islamiscists from bringing forth death and destruction.
-------
America is the world's last best hope.
Turning the war on terrorists into a crusade against Islam would be a monumental escalation.
I don't believe the Romans conqered Gaul because the worship of Mars made them violent. I don't believe the Albigensians in France were slaughtered because Christianity is inherently violent. The word "zealot" orginates from a violent Jewish political movement.
If anything, the situation in the Middle East demonstrates the importance of separating Church and State. Their society is not suffering from a particular religion, it is suffering from a breakdown of the rule of law and a grab for power by clerics and revolutionaries who see a a selfish opportunity.