Reaching that agreement is tricky, though. Should we all unilaterally march ourselves to our own rooms and hope the other children follow in our example? Neither children nor governments seem willing to take that approach. Quite a few holy books across the world seem to advocate exactly that approach, though.

But my point is real–or perhaps I should have said “whose” rather than “which”. Nationalism and sectarianism quickly get tied to any conflict over “spheres of influence” in our stewardship, and while this may be no less pathetic than two children fighting over who’s in charge when Mom and Dad are away, they are far more disastrous in consequences.

eth9 - It would take me a while to think of anything more fun than stating that Muslims have chutzpah. Watch out, we might get a repeat of the reaction to the Danish cartoons!

I would also like to add that America had very few Muslims visiting or living within its borders. Muslims were entirely ignorant of American culture and American foreign policy. We cannot undo that ignorance but we can alter our foregin policy (for the benefit of the nation, not to placate the Muslims) and we can also prevent more Muslims from coming into America. Blaming Red State values or Blue State values for the rage of Islam is pointless because Muslims hate both value systems even if they are contradictory. Your average al-Azhar student believes that America is both godless and fanatically Christian for the same reason that he believes that the Jews caused 9/11 and that Osama bin Laden is a hero for destroying the Twin Towers.

Muslims have a hundred reasons for hating the West and even if we corrected all of those problems, they would think of one hundred more! Some are more important than others such as globalisation and foreign policy. Globalisation allows them to study about the West, travel to the West, and even experience a bit of the West back home whereas foreign policy serves as a great tool to unify the disparate ummah against the arrogant infidel.

The question these red and blue dittoheads should ask themselves is that why is it that out of every civilisation, the Muslims have reacted so harshly whereas other civilisations that have fared far worse under American hegemony such as Latin America and the non-Islamic part of South East Asia have not reacted in such a way? They have grievances too but what they don’t have is a handbook and a tradition that teaches them to hate the Other and Friday sermons to reinforce that hatred. This is what animates their intense hatred and it is also why they have the chutzpah to decry Americanisation at home and demand Islamisation where ever Muslims live in the same breath.

Which God?

I also think its misleading to group together “the displacement and economic and cultural insecurity created by globalisation”. Even if we reverted to 1950s America in terms of culture, that globalisation would still remain, and as Qutb illustrates, it wouldn’t offend Muslims any less than our current globalisation. In that respect, as a liberal dove I must admit that the “hate us for our freedoms” line actually makes a little sense, because globalisation is freedom.

“Hate us for globalisation” certainly makes more sense than “hate us for immorality”. Ultimately, though, globalisation and social freedoms are good things in and of themselves (to those who support them), whereas a hawkish military policy is only good if it actually makes us safer. So if it turns out that all three of these things make us less safe, the argument is strongest for changing the military policy.

We own our spirit, our will, and that’s all. Everything else is on loan from God as a stewardship - our bodies, our possessions, the animal and plant life, the air, land and water, with expanding or diminishing spheres of influence and responsibilities regarding each. If we view ourselves, offspring, families, neighbors, communities and nations from this perspective, then it follows that we will try to act in a respectful manner towards ourselves by disciplining our emotions and desires. This follows all the way up the line, and can be a reference point for other issues.

The problem I have with the decadence angle is that it is something that doesn’t commonly incite violence. If I see a woman dressed scandalously I’m not tempted to do violence to her. I just see her as a floosy and want nothing to do with her. To say that Muslims don’t respect Western culture I think is an easy statement to make. However, I think we could be a state governed under Sharia, and we would have the same issues due to our economic and military hegemony.

The Crunchy-Cons seem a good step in that direction. Getting Wendell Berry essays read on college campuses, starting in the Northwest, would be helpful. His book “Citizenship Papers” would be a great start. Berry does a great job showing the connections between social, political and ecological conservatism, and how they can’t exist without each other.