In our small little corner of the internet, blog spats and disputes come up every now and then and are commented on by other bloggers but avoided by just about everyone else. These fights end up feeling bigger than they really are to people like me who write about them, but these disputes can represent a microcosm of the world at large, and that is why they have some importance in the grand scheme of things. Ok, maybe I am just rationalizing this blog’s existence, but hear me out.
This week, a line in the sand and a subsequent revolt occurred at the rather popular Dean’s World. One of my first posts here was a link to Dean’s piece on liberalism, and I frequent the site regularly. It was through Dean’s World that I stumbled upon Likelihood for Confusion, a blog concerning copyright law by a Ron Coleman. Ron has been a steady contributor to Dean’s World for quite some time.
Dean has posted an ideological litmus test concerning Islam that went like this:
“Simply put, you must agree to all of the following assumptions: 1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.
2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by Muslims or anyone else.
3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most religions.
4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for polite intellectual discussion. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.
5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.
Is this a test of "ideological purity?"
Why yes. Yes it is.
Ron has decided that he can no longer contribute to the blog based on this litmus test. He explained why here.
It is point 3 that has generated the most discussion and dissent, and I must say, I am a bit unsure how I feel about it. Every assumption listed other than 3 are easy to dismiss and I would argue, pretty easy to dismiss outright. But that 3…there are so many factors involved.
Most major religions have had to undergo changes to make them acceptable to our modern liberal and democratic society. There are still aspects and groups within Judaism and Christianity that don’t quite fit; you can hear them on AM radio every now and then and can sometimes turn violent. But do these fringes represent something inherently anti-modern about their core religions, or are they just wackos?
I have absolutely no doubt that many Muslims have no problem with the West and “modern values”. The folks who are killing in the name of their God are a fringe. But that is not what issue 3 is assuming: it is assuming all major religions allow for individual rights and decisions in their core beliefs. Not what people do in the name of their God, but what a religious text demands of its followers. I honestly don’t know enough about the core beliefs of Muslims to really speak on the issue. What I can say however, is that the Muslim world has a lot of growing up to do before it can be on-par with the West in the core principles that we expect from a modern society. Not because I think they are not as “smart” or “cultured” as we are, just that things like democracy and individual freedom has not taken root in the Muslin world as it has in the West. Why that is, well there are individuals far more qualified than I to duke that one out.
A question I often ask myself, was whether the Renaissance and Enlightenment were a rebellion against the Christian and Jewish traditions, or an outgrowth of them? A good chunk of my Bible is pretty violent, and sometimes preaches violence and oppression. But do those quotes outshine the portions that highlight the rights of man and the individual? Do all three religions come to the table with the same morals and cultural outlooks?
Obviously bigger questions than I can give definitive answers too. I even read somewhere that folks have been arguing about all of this for hundreds of years! Fancy that!
But I digress. I agree that a blog (especially one that shares your name) should reflect your core beliefs. I wouldn’t host articles by folks I didn’t have a basic philosophical connection to, and to Dean, these ideological points were black and white. I just think point 3 is too complicated to put in such a narrow confine.
The truth is Dean is right in that the right needs to purge itself of those who scapegoat and stereotype Muslims for the entire world’s wrong doing, the same way the Left needs to rid its ranks of communists and Jew haters if it hopes to make a difference. But to disagree with 3 does not make someone a radical nut job. Heck, I would love to read more about the specific subject, and it is a shame that such a thing can not occur at Dean’s blog anymore. (Ironically enough, in the Amazon advertisement at Dean’s World, there is a link to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book “Infidel”, which is a pretty scathing attack on core tenets in Islam)
I will definitely continue to read Ron’s blog, and I will likely drop in to Dean’s World every now and then to see how things are going. Perhaps I am oversimplifying the entire argument, or perhaps I am blowing it all out of proportion. But it is surely an essential issue that needs to be discussed by moderates of all stripes and creeds.