Culture Clips – February 20, 2007

Secularism is Not the Solution

For many Western liberals — and even some conservatives — the war on terror is a clash of opposed fundamentalisms: Christian fundamentalism vs. Islamic fundamentalism. So, in this view, Christian and Muslim religious fanatics are once again fighting each other, as they have done in the past.

From this perspective, the best solution is for America to stand up for the principles of secularism and oppose both Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. But in reality secularism is not the solution. Secularism is the problem. It is the West’s agenda of secularism that is alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them toward the radical camp.

The common understanding of the battle as one between two rival fundamentalisms is superficially supported by Bin Laden’s rhetoric declaring a religious war of civilizations. Bin Laden speaks of the world being divided into the “region of faith” and the “region of infidelity.” At times Bin Laden defines the clash as one between the Muslims and the crusaders.

But the context of Bin Laden’s arguments clearly shows that Bin Laden is not speaking of a religious war between Islam and Christianity. In the same videotaped remarks where Bin Laden posits these conflicts, he praises Christianity. In one statement Bin Laden observes that Islam respects the prophets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam “without distinguishing among them.”

In the classical Muslim understanding, there is a fundamental distinction between Jews and Christians on the one hand and polytheists and atheists on the other. According to Islam, Judaism and Christianity are incomplete but genuine revelations. As monotheists, Jews and Christians have historically been entitled to Muslim respect and even protection. In every Islamic empire, from the Umayyad to the Abbasid to the Ottoman, Jews and Christians were permitted to practice their religion and in no Muslim regime has it ever been considered legitimate to systematically kill them.

By contrast, polytheists and atheists have always been anathema to Islam. The Koran says, “Fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together” and “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.” These passages, which Bin Laden frequently quotes, do not refer to Christians, because Christians are not considered pagans or idolaters. Rather, they refer to those, like the Beduins of ancient Arabia, who worship many gods or no god. Muslims are commanded to fight these unbelievers, especially when they threaten the House of Islam.

Dinesh D’Souza
Townhall
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DineshDSouza
/2007/02/19/secularism_is_not_the_solution

--

The Perverse Politics of Gardasil

Watching politicians and corporations shoot themselves in the foot, you get to taking seriously theories about drives to self destruction. The trouble is that when these folks do it, they tend to take the rest of us with them.

Such is the case now in the 20 state legislatures considering bills to mandate that pre-teen school girls be vaccinated with Gardasil, a new vaccine against certain strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) that can cause cervical cancer. These initiatives are being shepherded by lobbying campaigns by Merck, the pharmaceutical giant that developed the vaccine.

A vaccine that prevents cervical cancer sounds great. But this is a free country. Remember? Unless there is a compelling reason to use government to mandate, Soviet-style, use of a particular product, then medicines, like all products, should be sold on the free market. Consumers can buy them if they want them.

Not only is there no reason to mandate the use of Gardasil, but the reasoning being used to justify its mandated use is perverse. Among the destructive consequences will be that girls who are most at risk, those who are poor, usually minorities, will be hurt more than helped.
Government mandated vaccines for communicable diseases, like measles, where an infected child can put others at risk, are justifiable. But the HPV virus that may lead to cervical cancer is spread through sexual contact. It is, as Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, aptly put it, a "lifestyle disease."

Where are we going as a country when we start mandating vaccines against diseases resulting from behavior we choose?

Star Parker
Townhall
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/StarParker/
2007/02/19/the_perverse_politics_of_gardasil

--

Politics and Religion

There appears to be a different standard of civil decency, however, when it comes to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Why? Is anyone really worried that Gov. Mitt Romney wants to bring back Prohibition? Does anyone think he might propose a 10 percent tithe (a members-only flat tax) to replace the welfare state as well as Mormons do?

Several years ago, an article in Slate by David Plotz put religion and politics into historical context. "In 1937," he found, "46 percent said they would vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, and 47 percent said they wouldn't. In 1999, 92 percent said they would vote for a Jew, and only 6 percent wouldn't. In 1958, 27 percent of Americans said they would not vote for a Catholic. In 1999, only 4 percent said they wouldn't. ... The free pass does not extend to all religions. Seventeen percent of Americans won't vote for a Mormon, the same as in 1967, the last time Gallup surveyed about Mormons. ... As for atheists, forget it. Only 49 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist presidential candidate."

Not to be outdone, a recent Rasmussen Report poll said, "43 percent of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon presidential candidate." Well, 45 percent also said they would never even consider voting for Hillary Clinton, but that hasn't slowed her down. And, as Plotz observed, only 49 percent are willing to vote for an atheist. But 49 percent is enough to win.

LDS television ads show that their pro-family beliefs are essentially indistinguishable from those of evangelical Christian groups, with whom they often form alliances. Yet "half of all evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate," according to the Rasmussen Report.

On the other hand, 21 percent of all voters (a much larger number than half of evangelicals) would not consider voting for an evangelical Christian candidate, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll last July. Perhaps those who experience such intolerance should try being more tolerant of others.

Unless we are to believe that political intolerance of just one religious group (Mormons) has suddenly jumped from 17 percent to 43 percent in just a few years, there must be something wrong with these polls.

Alan Reynolds
Townhall
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/
AlanReynolds/2007/02/15/politics_and_religion

--

Red All Over
Is there hope for the future of newspapers?

The news about newspapers could hardly be more dismal: falling circulation, repeated rounds of layoffs, disappearing ads and a chain of bad earning reports. It's an unsavory stew of ills, one that shows little prospect of becoming more appetizing.

Many journalists — and having spent the first slice of my career reporting for the New York Times, I still regard myself as one — would prefer to blame the nasty folks in their corporate offices. By this reckoning, it was the layoffs that degraded the quality that cost the readers that led the advertisers to flee that caused more layoffs and so forth.

That smacks of a vicious circle, or perhaps more of a perfect storm that began with the loss of readership. The Washington Post, a model of journalistic excellence, has lost 14% of its circulation since 2000. Across the industry, circulation has been dropping for 20 years, and worse, the pace of decline seems to be accelerating. In the 12 months ending in September of last year, the 50 largest papers lost 3.2% of their daily circulation. Only two newspapers in the top 25 — the two New York tabloids — grew circulation during this period, a statement in itself.

Perhaps most worrisome is the loss of young readers, who have drifted away steadily since the early 1970s, long before there was an Internet, when more than 70% of 18- to 34-year-old Americans read a daily newspaper. Last year that figure stood at 35%.

No doubt, the Internet has tempted some, particularly the young, with a free and timelier product. In September, a record 58 million Americans visited a newspaper Web site, and many newspapers are fighting hard for more with interesting new products, such as by emphasizing local news and providing easier ways for readers to share stories and ideas, a version of viral marketing.

Steven Rattner
Opinion Journal
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009685

Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.