Dawn:
If anything, the cocktail of religion and government has only acted as an obstacle to modernization and freedom for the largely moderate 1.2 billion Muslims of the globe.
That’s an interesting point. I’d resolve it by observing that the “sovereignty question” is a monolithic question mark in Islam, so it was inevitable that it would crop up in some form, and would be exploited by autarchists and totalitarians. But the larger point is that there is now a competitor to this notion of sovereignty, namely liberal democracy and civil society. Christianity specifies a separation between church and state, but does so only in a small number of instances (involving coinage, mostly). Judaeism doesn’t, but leaves the issue of sovereignty in a muddled status. Islam is more like Juaeism than Christianity, in the sense that (with the exception of the Shi’a Quietists) the issue of sovereignty is muddled. I propose, very simply, that we take advantage of this ambiguity and sectarian division in order to promote liberal democracy and civil society in the Middle East. As Americans we should be very cognizant of the blessings of sectarianism. It isn’t as exotic as it seems, and clearly the military dominance that the US enjoys will influence deliberations within the Ummah. We could call this the “new realism” (not to be confused with the “new conservatism”). Tongue decidedly planted in cheeque.
