There is just one problem, Ed. While Christians slaughtered each other over the differing views of the trinity (for example, in the 4^th and 5^th century), Muslims slaughter over differing view of politics; Islam is inherently a political ideology. Jesus had no extensive political theory, Mohammad embodied political doctrine. The Sunni/Shiite split was a political split. The opposition to democracy in Iraq is an open condemnation of democracy as anti-Muslim – not following the example of Mohammad. When John Locke argued against the Divine Right of Kings, he didn’t have to deal with the baggage of Jesus’ slaughter, conquest, and rule.

The Koran desecration is a red herring; the Saudi government regularly shreds Korans of Shiites entering the country. Terrorists in Iraq bomb mosques without worry to Korans. Non-Muslim dictators in Africa do the same without world-wide uproar. As I argue elsewhere, we are being manipulated by our ignorance of Islam.

I have a suggestion. As we abide by “international law” and allow detainees to have a Koran, let’s give them an edited version by taking out all the violence and hate (the passages from the Medinan period). This is just what one North Carolina University did when it required all freshmen to read the Koran in 2002. After all, if the hate doesn’t apply anymore, no one should complain, right? Let’s see how many “non-fanatic” Muslims cheer this move and support us and how many Muslims say they want the hate and violence back in. (Besides, Thomas Jefferson edited the Bible and he is still one of the most revered figures to conservatives.)

Edit: I was remiss in not acknowledging the validity of the central point of your article: reason and liberty as the antidote to faith, dogma, force and intolerance. That’s the right message, of course. And it is the more important point.

 

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 6/23, 5:23am)