There seem to be two competing arguments going on at the same time, two oratorical ships passing in the night.

The first argument is that the “good” Muslims must be sheltered and absolved from blame for the acts, intentions and “beliefs” of the “bad” Muslims. Or not.

The second argument is that Islam actively preaches a brand of theopolitics, (the other recent discussions of theopolitics involved the James H. Cone’s Black Liberation theology, and Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam)…that invokes a hostility toward the West in general and toward Israel and the Jews in particular.

While an isolated issue or three might have some “crossover” relevance, the debates are wholly separate.

I like and respect Ron Radosh. I think he is a good and decent man and is deserving not only of our respect, but also praise and thanks for his brave stands on a number of issues.

But, he has fallen into a trap for the unwary here. As Roger points out, one may be a “moderate” member of the Islamic faith, much the way there can be “Jews for Jesus”, I suppose. I respect their right to exercise that particular notion of spirituality, but…it does seem to sort of define something different than what they are advertising.

Not to be flip, but Methodists for Mohammed or Baptists for Buddha, or Muslims who don’t follow the Koran…are practicing something that seems to be a contradiction in terms. It may be very kind-hearted, filled with human decency and respect for all of mankind, but to suggest that the followers of the “main” religion should be defined as part of the same group, does a disservice to both.

Each may be devout or pious at their own altar, so we are not measuring piety by combining them and taking a weighted average either.

Let’s call the “moderates” what they are and let’s call the adherents what they are. Different.

One might suggest that Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism stem from the same book. Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals etc. stem from the same book.

What has to be studied is how the “teachings” of each differ, the interpretations differ and the actions of the followers differ.

Strict adherents to the Koran have certain “teachings” about lying to infidels, creating mischief, honor killings, imposition of sharia law. One key question to ask is this: Is Sharia law compatible with the laws, culture, and mores of Western society?

If not, then someone practicing a “reform” brand of Islam that is “westernized” and eliminates the very foundational tenets of the Koran, is no more a Muslim than he/she is a Unitarian.

Ron is arguing that the “Muslim moderate” should be treated kindly. This is a wonderful notion. I agree. He then argues that therefore, ALL Muslims, therefore should be given the benefit of the doubt, in the event that we don’t shoot scatterguns and hit a moderate by mistake.

This is the trap.

The “first” debate ended when we said “live and let live…all those who come in peace and harmony”.

We were never aiming at the moderates or their spirituality in the first place.

This is not a “conservative” notion, by the way. For those of us who consider ourselves “moderates” as well…other “moderates” are “one of us”.

Now, on to the second debate. Can we oppose the tenets of a theopolitical system that invokes violence, hatred, the destruction of Israel, hatred of the Jews, lying, oppression of gays and women?

I suggest we HAVE TO oppose such a belief system and we would be cowards and hypocrites to do otherwise. Freedom to practice religion does NOT extend in the West to freedom to do violence to innocents or to kill my countrymen. It does NOT extend to overthrowing my government.

My opposition doesn’t “hit” any targets to whom those things don’t apply. And they should not be offended. The two debates don’t mix or blend.

Ron is a brilliant guy. He will understand. And respect this argument. He just got caught in a trap for the unwary. Now is the time to release him from that trap….and anyone else caught in it.