A disappointed reader writes

Your comments remind me of something from the Bible---God setting the Israelites FREE from Egypt "so that they may SERVE Me." Obviously, when God is setting them "free," it means something different than what secular America considers "free." (Incidently, happy Passover to any Jewish readers. :-) ) "Why, exactly, is it America's obligation to support free elections in Egypt, given how well they've worked out in Iraq and the Palestinian territories." This is only tangentially related to your point, but it seems to me that, free elections of not, that dangerous, suppressed "freedom" is still there, under the surface. In other words, Egypt may not be free to elect the Muslim Brotherhood, but that they still want to is dangerous. Sooner or later, it seems to me that is going to erupt, as suppression gives way to revolution, or something like it. For example, I think the situation in Iraq---or, again, something similar---would have happened eventually. That does not necessarily mean that we SHOULD support democratization in regions where their choices will not be to our liking; I can't say if we should, if that would be better or worse. In the long run, it may not matter. Just my thoughts. God bless.

If you change Muslim to Catholic and Allah to Christ, isn't that what Pope John Paul II meant by liberty, rightly understood? I don''t have Centesimus Annus in front of me, but I swear that could right from it with those changes. But Muslims are not Catholics. Change "Allah" to "Christ" and you change a very great deal. I don't see that any serious Muslim or any serious Christian would consider them interchangeable.

Autocratic regimes often have strong support, religious or otherwise. Man does have a desire for freedom, but certain sociological situations seem to cause them to prefer serving a master. The Stockholm effect, where people have sympathy for their oppressors needs to be studied thoroughly. Is it in play in situations where brutal retribution is in store for those who oppose the leader? Christianity, in its biblical form, seeks to take the believer as far from that kind of sociological dynamic as possible. Like Buddhism, it represents a radical departure from the ubiquitous human struggle. Islam, with its jihad and violent punishments, plays into autocracy.

By the way Rod, I agree about our form of democracy or government not always applicable or even desirable for other cultures and nations. But I do disagree with your position that Islam is always evil and Christianity is always good. I see Islam as a designer faith for that culture, those people, that place and time. Just like I see Christianity as a designer faith reflecting our culture, place, time, etc and so on.

joseph d'hippolito your characterization of Islam could be applied to Christianity very easily. Islam is six hundred years younger than Christianity. All we have to do is compare the two faiths at the same age or stage of evolution (faiths are subject to evolutionary forces too).
That would take us back to the fifteenth century. Christianity was just as violent and just as ugly a force upon the face of the earth then as Islam is now. Christianity has matured and isn't as violent or ignorant as it was then. Modernity shaped it into a more user friendly and socially acceptable entity. Modernity will do the same for Islam.

There's no "render to Ceasar what is Caeasar's" passage in the Koran. Which is what seperates the West from the Middle East.

If, as you aver, modernity has tamed Christianity, please let us know how it will accomplish the same for Islam, which rejects out of hand all that modernity stands for? Gretchen First Gretchen you need to step back and try to get some perspective. Now, look at what Islam and Christianity provide for the individual.
As you look at that you will see Christianity and Islam share more than they don't. One of the things they share is a distrust of modernity. The reason they distrust modernity is because it's presents change. Change that is a threat to the theological concept of family. If you read Rod's rants on the benefits of culture it doesn't take much to change the name of the author and the orientation of the faith and see an Iman defining why Islam is good. We know that Christianity and Islam are destined for failure. The reason we know this is their only successes have involved legislated adherence. Everytime volunteerism has been the rule of law for both religions they've faltered. They've only survived their brushes with unregulated reality by modifying their message and embracing a gentler kinder brand of the faith. I have a dream as a famous man once said. That dream is the day will come, I'll probably not see it except on a limited basis, where children will be taught that morality is good enough on it's own to embrace and celebrate it. It's a tough concept to sell. Especially to those who insist that they are the only ones that have morality and it's because of their own perspective or fantasy faith. And it's no harder convincing Muslims that freedom and personal responsiblity is a viable alternative to legislated morality than it is a Christian.

There was a middle class in Iran (petty bourgeois merchants and artisans, primarily), who supported the Islamic Revolution in large part because they were opposed to the authoritarianism of the shah. A majority of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has historically been "middle class" professionals. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were from middle class families. It isn't so easy to reduce Islamic terror to economic background. I agree with "Bugg" that one of the defining differences between Islam and Christianity is that in Christianity there has traditionally been a difference between the religious/moral sphere and the political. If in Islam the state must exist primarily as a tool of Sharia, then having a liberal democracy in an Islamic state might not be possible. There doesn't seem to be the kind of framework to separate Islam and the state that existed in Christianity long before the Reformation that many people claim made liberal democracy possible in the west (read Dante's De Monarchia, for example). And as Bugg pointed out, the foundation for the distinction between the two has scriptural warrant.
It may be more instructive to look at Eastern Orthodox Christianity and its connections between Church and State. With the tradition of cesaropapism in the Orthodox world, which Mr. Huntington viewed (views?) as a distinct civilization, the question of what success liberal democracy will have in the Orthodox world may be instructive. It seems to have developed roots in Greece, but is that at the expense of Greek religious life? I don't know enough to answer that question. Liberal democracy doesn't seem to be doing nearly as well in Belarus, Ukraine, or Russia though.

In addition to the separatism of church and state, which Jesus ordained, there is another thing that makes Islam and Christianity very different. Muslims are commanded by Allah to fight the Infidel; Christians are commanded by God to love their enemies.
There are no two things in this world that could be more different from one another than Islam and Christianity.

You'd never guess that Christians were commanded to love their enemies by looking at the politics of the Religious Right.

Rod, I live here in Dallas, and I read your stuff each Sunday. I agree with you on just about everything, save for global warming - that's another discussion. Anyway, your piece Sunday concerning not everyone wanting to be an American is spot on. I lived and worked in DC for much of the last 5 years, doing time at several conservative shops. And, it was always mind boggling, the knee jerk support of President Bush's "democracy at all costs" mantra. When fellow conservatives like myself pointed out that not everyone, especially in the Muslim ME wanted what we have here in the States...I was usually repelled with "you don't like brown people", or "you just hate Muslims", or "it took us years to get our Republic started", and other non-starter retorts. I started referring to the lot of them as my reflexive, kool-aid drinking friends. Everything Bush did, especially with regards to Iraq, was grand, and all dissent was apostasy.
Anyway, I'm sending them the link to you Sunday piece. Hopefully, your well written prose will do what I couldn't do - get them to take a real appraisal of our largely disastrous Iraq policy under this admin. Thanks, Joel Garland

Marian Neudel, I stand corrected about the meaning of "Bolshevik." Saying as a result, however, that "English-only" language programs are ill-advised is a leap of logic that makes the equator look as small as the eye of a needle. Despite my mistranslation, Lenin's Bolsheviks did not have as firm a hold on the Russian Social Democrats as one might think. From Wikipedia: Neither Lenin nor (Julius) Martov had a firm majority throughout the (1903)Congress as delegates left or switched sides. At the end, the Congress was evenly split between the two factions. The two factions were in a state of flux in 1903 1904 with many members changing sides. The founder of Russian Marxism, Georgy Plekhanov, who was at first allied with Lenin and the Bolsheviks, parted ways with them by 1904. Leon Trotsky at first supported the Mensheviks, but left them in September 1904 over their insistence on an alliance with Russian liberals and their opposition to a reconciliation with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. He remained a self-described "non-factional social democrat" until August 1917 when he joined Lenin and the Bolsheviks as their positions converged and he came to believe that Lenin was right on the issue of the party. The lines between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks hardened in April 1905 when the Bolsheviks held a Bolsheviks-only meeting in London, which they call the Third Party Congress. The Mensheviks organized a rival conference and the split was thus formalized. The Bolsheviks played a relatively minor role in the 1905 revolution, and were a minority in the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies led by Trotsky. The less significant Moscow Soviet, however, was dominated by the Bolsheviks. These soviets became the model for the Soviets that were formed in 1917. In the end, Lenin's Bolsheviks had to split from the Russian Social Democratic Party to form their own party.

It is likely because of, not despite, Christian influence that the idea of separation between church and state ever came about.

Hello Harvey, You have something of a point about the desirability of a vibrant middle class, but I think you're missing Rod's point about ISlam. Islam's self-understanding is quite different from that of Christianity - particularly its anthropology. Its scriptures are not written by men inspired by God, but presumed to be written by God Himself. And as such it offers a complete vision of society and its ordering - a legal code unto itself. That is simply not the case with the New Testament.
Christianity has never offered one political model for the proper ordering society - at most it will say that some are better than others. And even in the most theocratic points of the middle ages, there was always clear understanding on the Church's part of a distinction of some kind between the state and the Church - fuzzier, admittedly, in the Orthodox East, but still present in a way that it cannot be in Islam.

Harvey, the sheer absurdity of your statement compels me to respond, even though the conversation is dying. First, neither Christianity nor Islam is "a vehicle for controlling a group." Each is a system of belief attempting to to organize and give structure to the believers' relationship with God. From that, it follows unsurprisingly that there is a social component of that belief--both groups of believers feel that their obligations to God include obligations to their fellow men. For Christians, that includes an obligation to defend the weakest in society. Yes, there is a clear religious basis for that belief. But we kid ourselves if we think that everything Christians do is because of teaching in scripture and tradition. Although our faith gives us numerous principles, many of these can be grasped through the exercise of reason as well. For example, I'm sure that you will concede the validity of many of the ten commandments' injunctions, despite your lack of belief in the God of Moses. Anti-abortion Christians maintain that our political advocacy against abortion is no different than opposition to theft or murder. That the consensus against abortion has disappeared (in no small part as a result of a poorly reasoned Supreme Court ruling that was not representative of the overall views of Americans at the time) in no way delegitimizes our continuing defense of unborn life. Abortion is no more a decision that should be between a woman and her God than infanticide is. Many Christian moral principles are shared by non-Christians because they are universally accessible via reason. At the same time, reason is rarely as powerful or unbiased a tool as some seem to believe, and many non-Christians share Christian moral principles because they maintain the vestiges of a Christian moral philosophy without crediting that philosophy. Try arguing for human rights from first principles and you will see how difficult it is to fully drive out the Holy Spirit completely. I understand that I will probably not persuade you, but I ask you to consider the possibility that, as imperfect as Christians are, maybe Christianity really does have something worth paying attention to.