Jihad and democracy.
By Paul J Cella Posted in War — Comments (43) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have long believed that the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq — a goal that is often confused with bringing freedom to Iraq — may in fact be inimical to the immeasurably more important goal of vanquishing the Jihad. This for the pulverizingly simple reason that the Jihad is popular in the Islamic world, including Iraq. I doubt that it commands majority support — but it certainly commands majority acquiescence, and enormous factional sympathy. That is to say, waging war to subjugate the infidel (however defined), being an ancient and enduring feature of the Islamic religion, perforce is an enduring feature of Islamic society. Emancipate that society from autocracy and suppression — free popular passions from the yoke of Leviathan — and you may well find that the Jihad is not weakened but considerably strengthened.
Read on.
It is a matter of some astonishment, and indeed discouragement, to me that this possibility has not really been wrestled with. It is as if a man were to say in about 1970, “there is really no possibility that freeing the Poles from the yoke of Communism will issue in a Catholic revival”; or as if a man were to say in 1865, “surely you cannot imagine that blacks in the South will use their newly-won freedom to practice Christianity”; or as if a French nobleman were to say in the early 17th century, “only a fool would expect the Edict of Nantes to advance the cause of Protestantism in France.”
There is no necessary connection between democracy and secularism; or between democracy and religious temperance. Often the very reverse is true: religious enthusiasms are among the most popular, that is, the most democratic, and thus the most potent. King Philip II of Spain did not send his half brother Don John, the great victor at Lepanto, to suppress the republicans in the Low Countries because Calvinism was an unpopular fad of the elite. Monks were not the characteristic demagogues of Byzantium, leading common Greeks out into the streets of Constantinople against Emperor and Patriarch, because mystical Orthodoxy was a mere courtier fashion.
How impoverished is the imagination that merely assumes democracy to be a natural antidote to the Jihad! Consider: One of the more disturbing powers of this Islamic doctrine of holy war is its appeal to the alienated and villainous, to the petty thug or delinquent. The Jihad grants to the outlaw a higher purpose; it annihilates whatever pangs of conscience remain; its democracy reaches to the very basest elements of society, where the lofty platitudes of Western politicians are sneered at. In the late Middle and early Modern Age, the Mediterranean and its coast verily crawled with Christian renegades, brigands, pirates, gangsters, lowlifes, marauders, and the like, whose avarice or lust or aimless wrath was disciplined into service against the infidel. Some of the greatest corsairs and slavers, whose bloody trade sowed terror on the tranquil coasts of Christendom, were Italians and Greeks. Our own prison system, its Islamic chaplaincy awash in Wahhabi influence, is following this pattern. A plot out in Los Angeles originated from the California prison system; Jose Padilla was converted in prison. We hear reports on the alliance between Latin American gangs and the Jihad every few weeks — more jobs Americans won’t do, I suppose — and the same people who (quite rightly) remind us, in the context of Iraq, that there in no good reason to dismiss the potential for alliances between secular tyrants and Jihadists, find that alliance, on our very doorstep, uninteresting.
The lineaments of the catastrophe that Islamic democracy might mean have hardly been even conjectured at by most public men of our day. We are told that certain candidates are “good on the war,” who haven’t shown even an inkling of awareness of the problem. We are urged fervently to support the war in Iraq; but that support is idle at best, if the goals of the war run counter to the interests of the Republic. And if Islamic democracy is Jihadist democracy — I do not say it must be; I say only it might be — then they sure as hell do run counter. We are rightly implored to search for and uphold the moderate Muslim (which, if the phrase means anything at all, must mean the Muslim who rejects the Jihad) but what if he is also an Islamic heretic? You cannot preclude the possibility.
The unwillingness to think hard, and discuss openly, the character of the Jihad — its antiquity, orthodoxy, and commonality in Islam — paralyzes us. What might the last 50 years have looked like, if no one had the guts to look hard at what Communism actually is, where its sources of inspiration and strategy come from, who its adherents read and absorb? Imagine a Cold War where every mention of Communism was prefaced with some careful qualifier: “radical” Communism, “fundamentalist” Communism.
A republic, according to Publius, is that form of government where men are ruled by “reflection and choice,” as against “accident and force.” Some measure of my alarm and annoyance may be judged from consideration of this: that on the greatest crisis of our age, Americans have abjured Reflection and made their Choice for comfortable illusion instead of hard reality.
[Cross-posted at WWwtW.]
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | All Combat Zone Journalism is NOT Created Equal — Comments (11) »
Jihad and democracy. 43 Comments (0 topical, 43 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Lest we forget, Hamas in Palestine was democratically elected in January 2006. In addition, although Iran is hardly a pure "democracy" (given that people can only vote on candidates approved by the Council of Guardians) Ahmadinejad, the hard-line candidate, was elected over the more "moderate" Rafsanjani.
The neoconservative goal of spreading democracy throughout the world is, while a noble one, perhaps a bit naive. If we have to choose between democratically elected governments who want to destroy the U.S. and dictatorships which are our allies, I'd have to say that the lesser of two evils is the dictatorship.
Given that the two active terror groups in the PA would kill anyone who opposed them, it was assured that a terror group would win that election.
It's not really fair to blame elections for that, any more than it's fair to blame elections for Saddam Hussein winning his last election with 100% of the vote.
Can you please tell us in what precise ways Iran would be less a rogue state (to dig up an old term) under Rafsanjani? Would he have ended the nuke program? Would he have ended sponsorship of terror groups across the Middle-east? Would he have stood up to the Council?
w/r/t Islamic Fundamentalism is the assumption that, just because the liberal does not allow his faith to inform his politics, the Islamic Fundamentalist will also not allow his faith to inform his politics.
I think that we are entitled to rely on the notion that people will act in accordance with their stated beliefs, absent convincing evidence to the contrary.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
your comment seems a bit out of place given recent history. the neoconservatives (esp. wolfowitz) were the loudest preachers of this nonsense. the sooner the republican party rids itself of neoconservative thinking the better.
Now might not be the time to try tossing out a wing of the Party, ya know? And for your own posting health, it may not be wise to take shots at a wing of the Party.
You know.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
This was a neoconservative error, not a liberal one. The likelihood that a democracy in Iraq would likely vote in ways we would not prefer was, in fact, among the many arguments /against/ the Iraq War put forth by many liberals--as well as by no small number of conservatives.
That would actually mark the first time when there were no communists over whom to swoon that the American Left thought anyone couldn't be democratized into submission. One might even suspect that they were -- gasp! -- just tossing whatever they could to oppose Bushitler.
Weren't you boycotting us or something? I lose track.
Incidentally, contemplate how Mr. Wolf might have meant the word "liberal." Give it some thought, and remember that not everyone capitalizes every noun.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
You're thinking of someone else.
I've been absent for quite some time, but from everywhere else as well--I tend to have limited amounts of time to spend blog commenting anymore. Glad to know I've been missed. :>
They were willing to die for high principles like freedom and liberty. The far more common scenario throughout history has been: If the lights are on and there's food in the belly, high principles aren't worth dying for.
This may be one of the lessons of the Iraq War in the end. We chose the time for them. It's an odd paradigm and entirely different than history's other cases of remaking of societies. I still believe that our cause is noble and just, but I can't figure out why somebody for whom the lights were on and food was in the belly a few years ago would be happier with the situation now.
To put it another way: I talk to people all of the time who think our country has gone to hell in a handbasket under Bush (which is silly, of course). I don't think any of them is hoping that China or Russia invades to fix it, though...
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
People are dying -- and killing -- for principles in Iraq, alright: mostly the wicked principles embraced by the doctrine of Jihad.
If the lights are on and there's food in the belly ... This sort of view is in fact the source of the Liberalism which is the backdrop for the democracy-in-Iraq project; a posited materialism as the ground of common human aspiration. Building on the Lockean or Hobbesian materialism, the Liberals speculate on common human nature and come out with ideas about Iraqis being at base just like us.
My point is contrary to that; there are indeed commonalities in human nature, and there are vast differences. One commonality, for instance, is the very non-materialist enthusiasm of religion, which may be used for good or ill. With the Islamic doctrine, it is for ill.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
My subpoint is really that it's hard to figure out who is fer us and who is agin' us in a world where being annoyed or frightened trumps ideology for many -- if not most. That is, the quiet acquiescence to the minority jihad may be mostly because of apathy. I think that's the case in Iran for example, where the majority would prefer a less theocratic government, but are unwilling to fight or die for it.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
although it is capable of inducing considerable dispair.
A follow-up question worth asking:
Is there any country out there with a large Muslim population and periodic elections in which the government is becoming more secular instread of more Islamic? More protective of minority rights instead of less?
I can't think of one.
Turkey? No
Malaysia? No
"Palestinian" Authority? No
The Kurds (a non-Arab ethnicity of whom a majority practice Sunni Islam) might be a contrary example, but they don't have their own country and they are still overjoyed at their liberation from their Arab oppressors. Will they "move on" after the euphoria subsides?
To me, the real question about Iraq is not whether we can pacify the militants while we are there, but rather, to what extent would any type of western-style governance survive our departure? How many elections would it take for the election of an Islamist party to win? A party by whom their very precepts, doesn't recognize the value of western-style governance.
However, there is no reason for despair; and ample reason to resist with girded loins the temptation to despair. What we need is clear thinking, and a willingness to press our leaders hard on these things. For example, not GOP candidate should escape a townhall meeting without facing a tough question on Islam -- not "radical" Islam or "fundamentalist" Islam, but Islam qua Islam.
For instance: "Sen. McCain (or Mayor Giuliani or fill in the blank): given that any serious study of Islamic history will disclose the antiquity and endurance of the Jihad, do you think it is not time to consider an immediate cessation of all Muslim immigration?"
Let them know that they are behind the curve on this, that the Republic is pressing them to be tougher.
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
the political and cultural reality of the moment is that Republicans and even most conservatives are too PC to really look at the teachings of Islam.
Short of a nuclear device exploding in a U.S. city, I don't see any serious contendor for the Presidency willing to actually look at Islam.
Rebublican candidates the following: Do you favor stopping all immigration and visas to radical islamists, defined as individuals who support or sympathize with jihad attacks or who suport the institution of sharia law in he USA.? And for those radical islamists who are already here legally, but are not yet citizens, do you likewise support their deportation?
Let's see if we can get someone other than Tom Tancredo to say "yes" to the above.
This would work pefectly because no terrorist would ever lie in order to commit a terrorist attack.
Of course they could lie. Right now they don't even have to do that.
I guess your view is that if you cannot achieve a perfect solution, you might as well abjure any improvement at all.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I can only assume that the intended purpose of putting a hold on all Muslim immigration is to protect America by preventing jihadists and their sympathizers from entering the country.
You are likely well aware that jihadists twist the practice of taqiyyah to allow them to disavow their faith in the service of jihad against unbelievers. Those who are a genuine threat to the country will lie, and barring some other red flag that would deny them entry anyway, they will get in.
Those who are not a threat to the country will almost certainly tell the truth, unless they believe--correctly--that they are being persecuted for their beliefs, and invoke taqiyyah--correctly, depending on your reading of scripture--to protect their family.
What you suggest is a recipe for doing absolutely nothing that makes this country safer from jihadists or keeps them from coming here, while turning away the sort of people that we want to support. That's not an imperfect solution, it's a perfect abomination, and if that's what passes for brilliance in your world, we would all be better off with less of it.
of, for instance, the 9/11 hijackers visa applications. O formidable taqiyyah! how shall we ever overcome you?
I find the lectures of American impotence remarkable. We are capable of transforming the political culture of whole Islamic nations; but take simple steps in our immigration policy is a thing well beyond our power.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I see. With the foolishness of a ban on Muslim immigration demonstrated, you shift the goalposts halfway across the field, to better visa scrutiny.
Nobody here objects to taking "simple steps" in improving our immigration policy--but the details of those steps matter. What I object to is the asinine notion that we should ban all Muslim immigration. According to the very link that you provided, 15 out of the 19 hijackers would have been denied entry if existing laws were followed. What part of this do you imagine supports the proposition that we should ban all Muslim immigration, as opposed to ensuring that the laws we already have are enforced?
I never "lectured" you about "American impotence"--only the impotence of your suggested solution. I would take it kindly if you'd restrict yourself to answering the arguments I actually make.
I would take it kindly if you'd restrict yourself to answering the arguments I actually make.
This is precisely what I did, by showing that the fear of the crippling power of Muslim dissimulation may be a bit overstated.
I realize you object to my proposed ban on Muslim immigration. Citing the 9/11 visa scandal was no so much a response to that objection as to your stated reasons for objecting -- namely that jihadists could by subterfuge circumvent the ban. That "subterfuge" in the most prominent case was not particularly impressive, was it?
My point about impotence is that behind your (mysteriously bitter and strident) objections there seems to be this notion that because some men may escape the strictures of law, therefore th law ought to be thrown out. There is some merit to this, off at end -- and if you believe that my proposal would be counterproductive, by all means oppose it.
But perhaps it will come as a surprise to you to learn that the reasoning behind my proposal is not simply to limit actually functioning agents of the Jihad; many of such agents are, as you argue, likely to escape our nets in any case.
The object of my proposal is to reduce, in a humane way, the Muslim population in the country; at the very least to stop the increase in that population. In a word, to discriminate against the Islamic religion.
Because right now we have an exceedingly difficult time distinguishing the radicals from the moderates. Even their neighbors and family members are shocked when the radicals are arrested, if their public pronouncements can be believed. Moreover, we can never be sure when some perceived slight will transform a moderate into a radical.
Right now there is a huge faction of the Islamic world is committed to the Jihad, we have great difficulty talking openly about it, having largely disarmed ourselves by variants of Liberalism, and in my view it is our interest to restrict the growth of the Muslim population in this country -- by humane means like immigration policy -- until the religion confronts its demons. Which may be a very long time, I'm afraid.
__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Until and unless we can determine conclusively that it is the Religion that is the issue, not just the people in it.
A conclusive piece of evidence would be if Iraq votes in a fundamentalist government. This is why Palestine bothers me so.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
In Islam, religion is culture- beliefs, dress, food, language, rituals, law, habits, family, and social relationships. It must be understood that in this sense there is a fundamental incompatibility with western civilization and mores. It's like oil and water.
Just see what's occuring in England and what is increasingly transforming the political and cultural landscape in major American cities. Besides as everyone knows, building a Christian/Catholic church in any Moslem country is next to impossible and in the middle-east nations like Saudia Arabia it's against the law. One cannot even openly practice a non-Moslem faith.
This is why, it's crucial that Moslem immigration to the US be immediately halted. Patrick Buchanan's Book "The Death of the West" should be made compulsory reading for every presidential candidate. It might already be too late!
Buchanan is hardly the best commentator on the issue of Islam. Indeed, his hostility to neoconservatives and the Iraq war is so fierce that it has regularly driven him to downplay the Jihadist threat.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I would like to make a couple of points, beginning with your second graph. You wrote:
"....It is as if a man were to say in about 1970, 'there is really no possibility that freeing the Poles from the yoke of Communism will issue in a Catholic revival'; or as if a man were to say in 1865, 'surely you cannot imagine that blacks in the South will use their newly-won freedom to practice Christianity'...” it isn’t the religion perse that is in question, so much as how it is being interpreted.
The people of Iraq practiced a form of Islam under Hussein. Being free from that dictatorship hasn’t changed their religion. It may have changed how they practice that religion. Will they be traditionalist, fundamentalist, secularist, etc.?
The freedom the country is now embracing will hopefully allow all the citizens to choose how they want to worship. The problem therein is how intertwined Islam is with the political process. At the current time, the Iraqi constitution (to my knowledge) makes no or little distinction between the two.
The second point I wish to make concerns the type of government Iraq has been encouraged to create. It is unfortunate, but the terms democracy and democratic have become interchangeable with republic and republican. I doubt most people know the difference.
President Bush and many others have continued to promote a Democratic form of government in Iraq. This, in fact, is somewhat misguided. I believe a republican-style government, where “rule of law” was first and foremost would have been more beneficial. The people would have had a voice, instead of the mob’s voice.
Of course, without justice and security, either form of government is going to struggle to survive.
R.J.
I personally do not think that question is ignored. I look around and see the nature of Islam much discussed. There are many claims regarding Islam (and jihad) on offer. IMO, there is only one clear way to find out what the people _might_ do. Unfortunately it involves the present tragic sacrifice. When the question you raise is answered in definite empirical terms, the shape of our choices will be sharpened by the uncovered reality. _If_ the doctrine of jihad for the submission of all the world to god indeed proves to be the belly of Islam then there will be violence on our planet until Islam wins dominion or is eradicated. You may excoriate the thinking which could arrive at such a conclusion, but I would be better served by clarifications to the alternative to such a conclusion than by doses of moral opprobrium. The turtle-up strategy, whether isolating us or isolating them, has not been presented with the force necessary to sway one who perceives the situation as potentially existential. And it is difficult for me to downplay the force of Islam when I see its unlikely history and the suicidal martyrdom that it inspires. John E.
and that we already know the answer. Will someone ask the same questions twenty years from now during another experiment?
Seems to me there's a bit o' a double standard here: democratization gets the benefit of an empirical testing, but separationism faces a more stringent bar before it can even be tested. Are you, for instance, unpersuaded that we ought to end Muslim immigration, as a first step? Are on on-board with the Jihad-sedition law? (If you've already answered these, I apologize.)
Seems to me violence will be a feature of our planet until our Lord returns; what I want is to keep jihadist violence out of America.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
"what I want is to keep jihadist violence out of America."
Though we may have a chance to prevent any future Jihadist violence on the scale of 9/11 out the USA. Maybe. If we're lucky.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
If we frame this subsidiary question in context of the question raised in your initial post, democratization (short hand indeed, Socrates, thanks) puts the Islam-is-jihad question to an empirical test. How does separationization purport to offer an empirical means for answering that question?
It seems to me to presume an affirmative answer. So I tend to categorize separation as an alternative to confrontation or eradication (not as an alterative to democratization). It is fair to ask why I don’t give separation the benefit of the doubt over offensive confrontation. But the answer to this is already alluded to: because in the affirmative case I and what I love is faced with eradication and I am not inclined to meet it only with defense; what I love is not safe until its destroyer is emasculated. I want to keep jihadist violence out of America too, but 21st century human technology slams me with the realization that this planet is a small and very interconnected space. We are vulnerable to a thousand cuts.
To put me on record again: as to Muslim immigration, I only go as far as sandbox describes above, not the absolute ban that you would impose, unless and until it is final and clear that the belly of Islam is to fight until all is brought into submission. As to sedition, I would like to see a national and legislative debate occur in just the terms you have outlined and my starting position is in favor of it.
I may be a fool to think that the democratization experiment may provide a definitive answer to this question. It does seem to me that the answer to the question is a foundation stone, knowledge of utmost value for prudent action. I should be an even bigger fool if that were not true. At any rate, lack of a clear answer inhibits stronger action. (This may be a reaction to the preceeding commnetator rather than you Paul).
John E.
"To put me on record again: as to Muslim immigration, I only go as far as sandbox describes above, not the absolute ban that you would impose, unless and until it is final and clear that the belly of Islam is to fight until all is brought into submission"
I am not exactly sure what is meant by the "belly of Islam". Do you question that it is a central duty of every muslim to conduct jihad until Islam is spread throughout the world?
Jihad can take different forms. Violent (al Qaeda, and non-violent) and non-violent (spread of wahhabism by Saudi financing). Not every muslim actively participates in Jihad with affirmative acts. But any person who proclaims himself a muslim and does not renounce those teachings of the Koran that directs spread of Islam by violent and/or non-violent means is a either a facilitator, enabler, or accomplice to the jihadists by his apparent inaction and should be denied protection of our constitutional government. By apparent inaction, I mean that non-participation in a local jihadist cell would appear quite innocuous, but the mere exercise of a right to vote for another muslim running for elected office should be construed as an act of sedition if that official has not renounced both the violent teachings of Islam and the call for implemetation of sharia law throughout the world.
Blanket involuntary removal of muslims from western nations is simply impractical because removal presumes there is some other nation where deported muslims will be accepted. But those muslims that are in the west, particularly those holding public office, or have salaries paid with state/federal funds, such as muslim Professors at state universities, should be pressed to offer proof of whether their allegiance is to their host country, or to their god Allah because a true muslim cannot have equal allegiance to both.
Also, regarding muslim immigration, I notice little discussion about the proposed legislation (HR 2265) that would allow ,essentially, unlimited Iraq immigration to the U.S. should a withdrawal of military forces occur. The Center for Vigilent Freedom has excellent analysis of this bill at:
http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/08/30/hr2265-keeping-your-fr...
I think the problem boils down to a fallacy of ambiguity, between democracy and liberty. We say we want a "democracy" in Iraq when what we mean is that we want a government that supports all of:
- Human rights, including freedom of religion
- Rule of Law
- Representative democracy
- Nonimperialism (and renouncing terror)
- Capitalism, both for the native and the alien
I think the use of "democracy" is a kind of unfortunate shorthand for being a good international citizen. In a way, it may be President Bush's root mistake, in that a failure to accurately describe our goals in Iraq encouraged everyone to take "forming democracy" literally as being the sum of our goals.
Then again, maybe not.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
will try to protect religions liberty?
Islam is enshrined it its Constitution.
The non-Muslim population is fleeing in droves because there are no non-Muslim militias.
Remember about a year ago when a Christian convert was sentenced to death in Afghanistan for the mere act of converting?
I am all for Democracy, Real Democracy (or Republics) in the Middle East. If "the people" really do just want peace and to live and let live, then Awesome.
If "the people" really Do want to destroy the West, then at least we'll know and our consciences will be clear when we teach them the error of their ways.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Great post as always, Paul.
I am not a particularly religious person, but I am the spawn of a religiously liberal family. If my thought processes had been turned off, you would call me "neo-Conservative." As it is, that decaying virus never infected my politics or brain.
Methodism is engrained in me (unlike you, of course). At one point, my denomination would have spoken out against the Iraq War on the basis that Christians (mostly Catholic Chaldean) would be slaughtered.
No more such protestation.
I have no beef with any religion. Frankly, Islam is a faith to which my mind normally wouldn't drift. But as it is, my thoughts must go there.
For decades, Islam and the West lived at peace. We should all acknowledge that truth. I would love to attribute the divorce to the establishment of Israel, but I cannot. Eventually you are right in that jihad in the traditional sense is ascendant. The question, as you suggest, is "why?" After much thought and study, I have to conclude it is the text. All the rhetoric about theyhate our freedom, ad nauseum,, is delusional.
Therein lies our foreign and domestic policy quandry. I don't have a ready answer, as apparently you do not, but the post-Bush nation must. We begin with the simple proposition that the destruction of the United States is out of bounds regardless of one's religious and/or political beliefs. Where we go from there will require the analysis that, as you suggest, we have feared to engage.
Good work, again.
I've stayed out of this thread, up to this point - it's Paul's puppy, not mine; and he's well aware of my disinclination towards the thought that Islamists are some sort of ten feet tall ubermensches that fart fire* - but I think that I need to reign this in. Neoconservatives post here. Some of them are even Contributors. You are not allowed to slam good Republicans here.
Capische?
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*And their religion is not some sort of killer infectious meme that can, inexorably, rewrite a hapless victim's entire mental operating code, either. If it was, the jihadis wouldn't be so freaking scared of us in the first place.
Any fervent religious conversion does a pretty impressive job of rewriting the convert's mental operating code. I wouldn't think that in dispute.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
The equivalent metaphor here wouldn't be "fervent religious conversion": it'd be "zombie bite." Sorry, but I don't buy that it's the latter. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Are the former? At least in the Western world.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Most religious conversions are. I have no objections to sitting on Wahhabist and Salafist missionaries, understand: if they don't like it, they can modify their doctrine so as to not encourage sedition. I just prefer specific restrictions to blanket bans.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
for decades at a time. Unlike Christianity and Any other religion.
Keep in mind, the current enmity between the Muslim world and the Christian goes at least as far back to what brought about our invasion of Tripoli at the end of the 18th Century (or was it the beginning of the 19th? It was right about the turn of the century, either way).
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
The Iraqis wanted to implement a Jeffersonian Constitutional Republic.
The politcal science discourse of the West decided to dissuade them of the notion and instead implement a party list parliamentary system.
What we see is the result. Power is delocalized. And note where the functional governance is finally coming from. The most local - physically - power nodes, where people are able to come together to make their own community safer.
Western political science is current distorted by power, along with Western Civilization in general.