Here is a link from the (altogether admirable) James Randi Edcational Foundation website. A Kuwaiti scientist has written to James Randi - for the purposes of the debate, I am only concerned with the content of the correspondent's message, not Mr Randi's editorial commentary.

An Insider's View of Islam

Salient extracts (emphasis mine):


Anything sound familiar?

He goes on to talk about how this might be bad enough in a country where religion and state are constitutionally separate, meaning America, but is much worse where they are not, meaning Kuwait (but presumably even more true of places like KSA or Iran).

My questions for debate:

Should the Bush administration and their allies encourage secular, rationalist and sceptical movements in countries such as Iran and among the ordinary Islamic publics that are mostly sympathietic towards Islamist terrorism?

How does this square with their laissez-faire (at best) and proselytising (at worst - e.g. insistence on abstinence befroe providing funding for AIDS relief) attitude to Christian fundamentalist ideas in other areas of foreign and domestic policy?

Is there a material difference between non-violent fundamentalists of any religion, are are they to be encouraged, ignored, or discouraged in public policy?

No. It's not very heartening to see people being forced into ignorance like that, but it isn't really anyone's buisiness but their own.

This is a very good point.

(though we do tend to avoid "one-liner" responses here on AD (for some good info check out: the rules and the Survival Guide )).

Something we have to consider when dealing with Middle-Eastern countries (as well as most other regions for that matter), is that there is a belief, held by many, that it is our goal to convert them, undermine their religion, eliminate their culture in general, Americanize them, take over their land, etc.

If we are going to ever win over the hearts and minds of the average people in the Middle-East, we will do it without any actions being taken to specifically do so. The most likely chance we have to win over some favor in the Middle-East is Iraq.

When Iraq forms it's own government, and that government is formed from the votes of the Iraqi people (a government that will in some ways likely differ with what we would have them do if we were in charge, and likely be seen that way by many), and then we simply step back and allow them the choice to form the government they choose and exit the country as the government gains control of the nation. Assuming that we do in fact act in this fashion, we will have taken our first real step towards establishing credibility with the people of the Middle-East.

As Iraq takes advantage of it's higher then average (for the middle-east) level of education, and all the help other countries make available and prospers, Others in the middle-east will see this. It is likely that it will cause some to question the idea that America is the "Great Satan".

Now, if we start telling these countries how to live, what to teach, etc, we will undermine all of the credibility that what happens Iraq has the chance to build. Iraq could still go well and prosper, but many will not take notice of it when they are looking at it through the eyes of those who have seen America come to them and try to change their ways.

How does this square with their laissez-faire (at best) and proselytizing (at worst - e.g. insistence on abstinence before providing funding for AIDS relief) attitude to Christian fundamentalist ideas in other areas of foreign and domestic policy?

You're going to have to clarify this question for me. Maybe I am just tired, but I don't quite get what you're saying here.

Is there a material difference between non-violent fundamentalists of any religion, are are they to be encouraged, ignored, or discouraged in public policy?

I don't think that religion really has anything to do with it. Terrorist groups, and the radical groups that support them need to be dealt with. I am not aware of any government actually targeting those of the Islamic faith in general (well there was that thing about banning religious dress in some instances in France, but I don't think that is the same thing).

Is there a difference between fundamentalists? Zealots are Zealots. When someone is blinded by faith, religious doctrine, ideology, loyalty, history, bigotry, etc, they are very difficult to negotiate with and they can become dangerous if provoked by that which they fear the most (whatever that is in each individual case). I really don't think this is an issue of limited to religion.

Should the Bush administration and their allies encourage secular, rationalist and skeptical movements in countries such as Iran and among the ordinary Islamic publics that are mostly sympathetic towards Islamist terrorism? I agree with those above, that such movements have no place in policy interventionist decisions. Attacking religion at the foundation is not a good idea, and has no basis in preventing terrorism. Perhaps even the contrary. There is nothing inherently violent or destructive in discrediting evolution. The concept of Creationism is no more violent than the belief in aphrodisiacs.

How does this square with their laissez-faire (at best) and proselytizing (at worst - e.g. insistence on abstinence before providing funding for AIDS relief) attitude to Christian fundamentalist ideas in other areas of foreign and domestic policy? Like OS, I’m not sure what you are saying here. Does the Bush administration encourage “secular” and/or “skeptical” movements in other countries? I hope not. We should work to discourage movements which urge and promote violent attacks on us.

Regarding our funding decisions, I see no ethical conflicts. There is certainly no universal law that requires we give money to all organizations regardless of what they promote. In fact, though abstinence education seems to have limited and/or negative effects in Texas it has had very positive effects in Uganda. If such “proselytizing” saves lives, then all the better. We should “proselytize” by doling out funds in such a discretionary way. Just as we should not endorse human rights violations by funding interests which violate our own concept of civil liberty. Surely we should not be obligated to do so?