"Why do they hate us?" Some conservatives, following President Bush, believe that Muslim anti-Americanism stems from irrational hatred of our freedom and democracy. Others lay the blame on our foreign policy. Now comes bestselling conservative author Dinesh D'Souza to argue that both views, while they contain elements of truth, miss the larger reason. In The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, D'Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America's cultural left.
"In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," D'Souza explains. "I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage -- some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left."
In The Enemy at Home, D'Souza uncovers the links between the spread of America's decadent pop culture, leftist ideas, and secular values and the rise of virulent Anti-Americanism throughout the world. He shows how liberals are responsible for fostering -- and exporting -- a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. He also reveals how liberals' outspoken opposition to American foreign policy -- especially our conduct of the war on terror -- contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world.
Though we are accustomed to thinking of the war on terror and the culture war as distinct and separate, D'Souza argues, they are really one and the same. Conservatives must recognize that the left is now allied with the Islamic radicals in a combined effort to defeat Bush's war on terror. A whole new strategy is therefore needed to fight both wars. It is only by curtailing the left's attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries. In short, writes D'Souza, "to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad, we must defeat the enemy at home."
13 comments:
I like this blog a lot, and I am also sympathetic to critiques of liberal/multiculturalist pieties, especially in the area of culture and ethics.
But I wish very much that you would not link to this sort of garbage. Dinesh D'Souza is a Republican party/conservative-movement hack who has made a LOT of money producing, like clockwork, "controversial" books that seem especially "interesting" because he is himself a "minority."
He is funded entirely by right-wing think tanks, like lots of other hacks (for example, Charles Murray of "Bell Curve" fame--who argued that blacks are genetically inferior, blah blah blah)
Anyway, the most important point is:
Catholics who are skeptical of cultural liberalism totally undermine themselves if they assume that the way to oppose liberal pieties is to align themselves with "Bush's war on terror."
This war is as secularist, a-moral, and nihilistic as it gets--no matter what sort of grotesque caricatures of religious language it is dressed up in.
If the only alternative to cultural leftism and liberal piety is support for Bush's war, then Catholics are indeed in trouble.
Fortunately, as I think most of the contributors to this blog know, there are other options.
I'm grateful for this truly useful and resourceful blog, and for the diversity of opinion it expresses--including those of people I really disagree with.
But a racist violent paid-up hack like Dinesh D'Souza does not need you to countenance his poison.
My interest in this work is b/c of similarities of his thought with two very respected Catholic thinkers - Dr. Robert P. George and Dr. Peter Kreeft. Refer to the links and books in this post. No offense taken with your remarks. I personally appreciate them and agree with them for the most part. As Catholics we must test everything and retain that which is good.
I, too, disagree with D'Souza's present work. With other conservative critics of this work, I don't think he sufficiently establishes and demonstrates the linkage between secular culture and Islamic anger at the west. With other critics, I also think he attempts to create a false dichotomy between moderate and radical Islam with regard to ultimate intent, when in fact the ultimate intent appears to be the same for faithful Muslims: the spread of Islam and its legal code (Sharia) across the globe.
There is truth in both positions, and that's if you can call them two separate positions to begin with. To be sure the hedonism of the West adds fuel to fire in the conflict of civilizations, but so does technology, the 3rd world economies of the Muslim states, Muslims culturally coming to terms with modernity, the support of Israel, etc. Refer to Jihad vs. McWorld.
There is truth in the fact that the Hadith, the Sayings of Teachings of the prophet Mohammad (2nd Canon after the Koran) explicitly calls for the formation of a Khalifa, the formation of an Islamic nation-state. To be Muslim is to strive to achieve this if you live in the non-Muslim world. That doesn't mean by violent means though. This where you have the division between the more radical/militant forms of Islam and those of moderation. But having 5-10 children per family is a form of long-term Jihad, demographically speaking. Just look at the situation in Europe. Dr. Daniel Pipes, an expert on these matters, estimates that approx. 10% of the Muslim world belong to the radical/militant branch of Islam, but at least another 20-30% passively support its agenda. How many terrorists did it take in 9-11? That's why Newt Gingrinch and others are calling the War against Terror a "long-term war." This conflict will be with us for the next 50+ years. How long did the cold-war last?
Personally I believe China is just setting back and enjoying the show. Their time is next. We will have expended our resources and national will in defeating radical/militant Islam. Only India has the demographics and economy to deal with them in the future.
In America Alone, Mark Steyn argues that China's current demographic trends are actually so serious that they *won't* be able to be the next hegemon.
David, I think a post from you on the whole topic of Islam and Sharia would be helpful... the "doomsday scenario" for a number of people is the day when any number of Western democracies see faithful Muslims numbered as the majority, at which time they could/would discard their constitutional democracies for Sharia. Do you think this is a valid concern?
To be sure the one child policy in China has had significant impact on the future of the country. One major problem they are facing is the overpopulation of boys to girls. When you have an excess of men though, that leads to many soldiers who can sacrifice their lives in conquering other nations. Do not underestimate the power of Chinese culture regardless of its current Marxist ideology.
In regards to Muslims and the adoption of the Sharia I would say the following. The Sharia is Islamic law/customs. It grows out of the Koran and the Hadith. It is a natural progression of how things should be for any Muslim considering their worldview. Consider modern nation-station examples of Sudan, Nigeria, Algeria, Turkey, etc. Everytime serious Muslims gain the majority they adopt the Sharia unless a secular force (i.e. military) can overthrow them - refer to Turkey.
The Sharia can widely vary from country to country depending on it's culture though, i.e. Persian, Arab, non-Arab, etc. But no Sharia is compatible with any sense of modern Western democracy when one considers rights of women, religious freedom, etc.
The difficulty I see is this: if my understanding -- affirmed by your statements -- is accurate, how can any modern Western democracy allow orthodox Islam to exist within its borders? If my understanding is accurate, how can any orthodox school of Islam be seen except as subversive of Western conceptions of law and rights?
The conclusion is truly a terrible one: that we'd need to forbid the practice of orthodox Islam on our nation. I abhor such a notion (precisely on the grounds of religious freedom), but I don't see how it cannot but follow from the Islamic understanding of law & government.
Muslims can live in non-Muslims lands and live as pagans, i.e. drinking alcohol, sex, etc. And many do. There are also many Muslims who are not praticing Muslims. And then there are Muslims who are praticing but appreciate the freedoms that America has to offer, i.e. religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc. Many Muslims have fled to our country b/c of violation of these rights in their own countries which are Muslim. So I can think you're proposal is reasonable nor possible and here's why.
I support Kreeft's, George's, and D'Souza argument that we, conservatives, need to build a firmer alliance with Muslims. They share many of the same values and concerns from a social consevative standpoint. It would not be possible nor prudent to restrict their immigration to this country - many are well educated and good citizens in this country who pay their taxes, etc. How would we purge our country of the Muslims already living here? How would we restrict their coming into this country? Through a religous litmus test? How could you validate that? To be sure there are radicals living in our midst, but the best chance we have is to allow them to live here to show them through their own experience the positive value of living in a democarcy with all the various freedoms that we have.
Additionally we must develop friends within the Muslims circles in this country so they can identify the radicals who are planning terrorist acts here. How can we do this if we persecute all of them?
So essentially, we have to hope that American Muslims reject certain tenets of their faith if they are to be good US citizens.
Not much more favorable to them than persecution, if you ask me.
And let me be clear: I'm not in favor of outlawing Islam. But OTOH, how can Muslims be good US citizens if they support the spread of Sharia, which is required of all faithful Muslims?
From: Chris Burgwald
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:17:56 PM
I know of Oasis, that's about it. I do think that aspects of Muslim theology and Christian theology have interesting avenues of dialogue, but what we're talking about here is a particular understanding of the polis that seems to be intrinsic to Islam.
"I don't think integralism is an intrinsic element to religious orthodoxy."
I'm not sure that we can simply transfer a specifically Catholic (Christian) issue to Islam. Regardless, though, what either of us think is irrelevant, and what individual Muslims think no more determines Islamic orthodoxy than does the ruminations of, say, Fr. McBrien. Now, if those Muslims are able to gain substantial numbers and effect a Reformation in Islam, in which there is no need to spread Sharia, or in which Sharia is so reformed as to be compatible with our conceptions of law and rights, then my concerns would be allayed. But to this point, that hasn't happened, and I'm not sure we can simply hope that it does, can we?
Even then, though, it would seem (and correct me if I'm wrong) that such a reformation of Islam would be radical indeed, considering how intrinsic Sharia apparently is to Islam. Such an Islam would be no more Islamic than Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons are Christian, if my understanding of Islam and Sharia is correct (and again, I'm open to correction).
And that gets to the difference between the ability of Catholicism to embrace democracy and the (in?)ability of Islam to do so: obviously, democracy & our understanding of rights, etc. and Catholicism per se are not incompatible. Can the same be said of Islam? I'm not sure. Perhaps, but again, there is no established school of orthodox Islam which so says.
---
On 3/16/07, Ampleforth wrote:
If we look at the Syllabus Errorum, it would also seem that being a Christian and being a US citizen is also incompatible. But we reconciled. Novak -- sorry -- has two chapters in his book, "The Universal Hunger for Liberty". One is titled, "How the Catholic Church Came to Terms with Democracy." The second one is titled, "How Islam Could Come to Terms with Democracy." The latter chapter is more of a report, quoting from various leading Islamic thinkers. Moreover, any faith that believes in damnation inherently also believes in free will. I don't think integralism is an intrinsic element to religious orthodoxy.
Do you know about Oasis, the ecumenical, theological journal started by Patriarch Scola?
Ampleforth
---
On 3/16/07, Chris Burgwald wrote:
I fully realize that not every Muslim wants to live under Sharia. My point is that every school of orthodox Islam calls for the spread of Sharia, meaning -- apparently -- that orthodox Islam is incompatible with "faithful [US] citizenship", as the US bishops have put it.
Here's an analogy (with historical parallels): what if fidelity to the pope was seen as treasonous in our country, as incompatible with our constitution? That many "Catholics" would henceforth ignore the pope wouldn't change the fact that Catholicism would be incompatible with being a US citizen.
So, too, with Islam: it would seem that being a US citizen demands that Muslims ignore an important doctrine (so to speak) of their faith. In effect, it seems that being a US citizen and being a faithful Muslim are incompatible.
What am I missing?
---
On 3/16/07, Ampleforth wrote:
I am not a big fan at all of D'Souza's work. I think his approach is needlessly partisan and Manichean and sensationalist. The only difference between him and Ann Coulter is that he may have read more books. I do not like the idea that I have to to hate everyone on the Left.
Here is a good critique of Steyn's book: http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1082
Chris Burgwald and yourself should take into account that not every Muslim in Europe wants to live under Sharia law. Heck, not every Muslim in the Islamosphere wants to live under Sharia.
Also, none of you guys take into account one concrete historical fact; namely, that in 1954 an Ambrosian priest named Luigi Giussani founded the Gioventù Studentesca.
Peace, Love and Empathy,
Ampleforth
PS Have you guys seen "The Lives of Others" yet? It is NOT to be missed.
Post a Comment