Lewis: Muslims Act Like People

One of the weird ticks of our current political culture has been a tendency to embrace characterizations of Muslims or Arabs that, at the end of the day, are just truisms about human culture but then turn around and attribute these characteristics to Islam or Arab nationalism specifically. In his book, for example, Andrew Sullivan quotes Bernard Lewis:

What is truly evil and unacceptable is the domination of infidels over true believers. For true believers to rule misbelievers is proper and natural, since this provides for the maintenance of the holy law and gives the misbelievers both the opportunity and the incentive to embrace the true faith. But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society and the flouting or even abrogation of God's law.

Strip this of the portentious rhetoric and Islam-specificity and what you have here is the banal objection that people prefer to be members of political communities where their own faith is dominant. Here in the USA, Christians chafe at public policies they see as imbued with the spirit of secular humanism. More secularly oriented people, meanwhile, are happy to let Christians go about their merry way but greatly fear and loath public policies inspired by the spirit of evangelism or orthodox catholicism. Israelis want to live in a state of their own -- a Jewish state -- and not be a minority in some Muslim-dominated Middle Eastern polity. Just a bit north, Lebanon's Christians long fought -- and quite violently -- to maintain Christian domination of Lebanese politics.

In short, this is not some quirk of Islam, it's how the world works -- people don't like to be ruled over by Others, but tend not to mind the idea of ruling over Others. People are, in other words, self-interested and a little hypocrtical. Muslims, too! The fascinating question is why folks influenced by this view of the Islamic world thought it would be a good idea to conquer a patch of Muslim land and try to rule it. The common thread, I suppose, is an extreme level of condescension.

Comments

Yes, and those heathens among us who ever so meekly confess that there seems to be something stubbornly pernicious about this theology thing are intolerant ignoramuses! Oh, well--I guess if it wasn't religion dividing us, it would be the next thing. See Will Blythe's book on the Duke-UNC rivalry, marvellously titled "To Hate Like This Is To Be Happy Forever"....

Posted by elle loco | October 25, 2006 1:45 PM

No, no. Not an "extreme level of condescension." It's merely the avoidance of "moral relativism" i.e., the view that other viewpoints may have some merit.

Posted by James Killus | October 25, 2006 1:47 PM

Matt,

Your reasoning works ... if you presume all value systems to be equivalent and interchangeable.

Posted by Fifi | October 25, 2006 1:51 PM

"What is truly evil and unacceptable is the domination of infidels over true believers. For true believers to rule misbelievers is proper and natural, since this provides for the maintenance of the holy law and gives the misbelievers both the opportunity and the incentive to embrace the true faith. But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society and the flouting or even abrogation of God's law."

Your translation is:

"Strip this of the portentious rhetoric and Islam-specificity and what you have here is the banal objection that people prefer to be members of political communities where their own faith is dominant."

This isn't an accurate translation. What Bernard Lewis thinks is meant by "truly evil and unacceptable is the domination of infidels over true believers" involves killing infidels who rule over true believers. It has very little to do with the prefence of people to be members of political communities where their own faith is dominant. Lewis is describing people who very often live in communities where their own faith is dominant (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria for example). They find it "evil" and "unacceptable" that other Muslims in other communities are ruled by infidels. This may well be translatable into some kind of general maxim about human beings, but not in the way you did it.

You also seem to think that "But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society and the flouting or even abrogation of God's law." should be transposed into "preference". That doesn't seem right. A Muslim woman may prefer blueberries to blackberries. That doesn't bring up blasphemy, morality and abrogation of God's law. When something is blasphemous, it demands action from a believer.

Essentially you don't seem to take seriously the idea that Muslims might take their religion seriously.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | October 25, 2006 1:55 PM

Essentially you don't seem to take seriously the idea that Muslims might take their religion seriously

Jews in Israel aren't taking their religion seriously? Christians in Lebanon haven't taken their religion seriously? You're being awfully selective with your analysis.

Posted by Christmas | October 25, 2006 2:02 PM

Hey, Sebastian takes his Republican party membership very seriously, and he finds it offensive that others might question the party ideologues.

Religions can hypercharge the natural human desire to see people like you ruling over people not like you (a desire that is shared by Americans, Christians, etc.), by putting the force of God behind it. But for the past 4-5 centuries Muslims have shown little if any desire to invade countries historically ruled by other religions. Instead they have protested violently when areas traditionally inhabited by Muslims have fallen under the governing control of other religious groups.

Posted by MQ | October 25, 2006 2:09 PM

I mean, I suppose everyone wants to be in charge. Do you really think it's the case that most people view being out of power as "evil and unacceptable," or "blasphemous and unnatural?" Unpleasant, I'd say. Annoying, maybe. Seems like this is something a bit different.

Posted by ryan | October 25, 2006 2:12 PM

Here in the USA, Christians chafe at public policies they see as imbued with the spirit of secular humanism

Some do. But most don't.

In fact, for the most part, Christians in the West don't really care if their governments are basically secular.

Posted by Al | October 25, 2006 2:27 PM

MQ,

But for the past 4-5 centuries Muslims have shown little if any desire to invade countries historically ruled by other religions.

LOL

Go say that to Eastern Europeans. Greece was under very hash Ottoman domination until 1829 and the repression against Greek insurgents was atrocious. Or more recently, to Christians and Animist populations in Southern Sudan, 1.9 million killed from 1983 to 2005 by the Muslim North.

Let's not make Islam a Soviet-like all-purpose bogeyman but your statement is ridiculously anti-factual.

Posted by Fifi | October 25, 2006 2:31 PM

But for the past 4-5 centuries Muslims have shown little if any desire to invade countries historically ruled by other religions.

this is false. e.g., ottomans, barbary pirates, the sultanate of oman in east africa, jihads in indonesia by mataram against hindu kingdoms, the expansion of mughal rule into southern india.

matt's point is correct, but, i think

a) there is a quantitative difference of degree in the present time of how acceptable muslims find rule by infidels to be

b) in islam the issue is couched in a legalistic sense. christians, muslims, buddhists, etc., might object on pragmatic grounds to being ruled by unbelievers, but there is debate within orthodox muslim circles whether it is legally permissable in sharia for muslims to be ruled by non-muslims. one way they get around this is saying that all states where muslims can practice freely are the abode of islam and so it is permissable for muslims to live under infidel rule.

to use an analogy, many groups have aversions to particular foods as 'unclean.' e.g., horsemeat or dog meat. these food aversions tend to fix around 6-7, and are probably part of human psychology. but only brahmins (hindu), jews (frum) and muslims will spend a great deal of intellectual effort determining what foods are permissable or not in a very explicit fashion.

Posted by razib | October 25, 2006 2:32 PM

but there is debate within orthodox muslim circles whether it is legally permissable in sharia for muslims to be ruled by non-muslims

btw, this is relevant because some scholars contend that any muslim who lives under non-muslim rule is no longer a muslim, and enjoin all muslims who live under non-muslim rule to rebel or emigrate. this was a serious issue when catherine the great expanded russia's domain so that many muslims lived under the tsarist regime....

Posted by razib | October 25, 2006 2:34 PM

'lands' don't belong to peoples. Once you assume otherwise then you can get just about any result desired.

Do Russia and China belong to the Mongols? They did for quite some time. Or Prussia to the Germans? Or Spain to the Moors?

Why not Spain to the Romans? Rome still exits, hence Romans.

England, aka UK, etc. ran Ireland for longer than any identifiable Irish group. Does tenure count?

Posted by K | October 25, 2006 2:38 PM

btw, this is relevant because some scholars contend that any muslim who lives under non-muslim rule is no longer a muslim, and enjoin all muslims who live under non-muslim rule to rebel or emigrate.

Mizrachi (not Mizrahi) Jews had the same debate. Sort of, I think the ones in Israel just decided to shut up and let the diaspora ones think they were whatever they wanted as long as they kept sending checks.

Their numbers are probably comparatively similar to the numbers of Muslims who would seriously contemplate this question.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 25, 2006 2:49 PM

"In fact, for the most part, Christians in the West don't really care if their governments are basically secular."

The USA, for example has had many non-Christian presidents recently ... well, a few I'm sure... well, one ... well, one Catholic, and that's practically non-Christian ... and they refrained from shooting him for almost 3 years!

Posted by Njorl | October 25, 2006 2:59 PM

"The fascinating question is why folks influenced by this view of the Islamic world thought it would be a good idea to conquer a patch of Muslim land and try to rule it."

The Bush-Blair Grand Strategy:

Invade the World! Invite the World!

Conquering Muslim countries and shooting local rebels, while inviting their cousins to settle in our countries is not the most coherent combination of foreign and immigration policies.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 25, 2006 3:42 PM

Njorl apparently believes that having a President who is personally Christian makes our government not secular. Riiiiight.

Posted by Al | October 25, 2006 3:47 PM

Al, I'm pretty positive not one of your guys elected out there would agree with you.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 25, 2006 3:55 PM

as an addendum, I bet you won't find an elected Democrat that would say that we have a completely secular government.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 25, 2006 3:56 PM

"In short, this is not some quirk of Islam, it's how the world works -- people don't like to be ruled over by Others, but tend not to mind the idea of ruling over."

As others have noted ad nauseum, Christendom reformed itself to the extent that it does not seek theocratic dominion over the world by military means any longer; this is a banal and obvious point. It is not that Islamic civilization is more primitive or in some essential sense unreformable. (There needs to be more historicism and less essentialism.) It is a good half-millenium younger, and has not been compelled to evolve in the same way. And in case it needs to be said aloud it would be better if the same people most passionately in favor of that reform weren't the same ones defending the forcible rape of teenage boys for the pleasure of guards in Iraq, or the looting of that country's oil wealth, or any number of other sins.

PS The Christians of Lebanon were not aiming to create a Christian theocracy in that country let alone the rest of the region or the entire world.

PPS In anticipation of the argument that our Islamist totalitarian adversaries lack the means for attaining world (and probably even regional) domination I would like to thank my hypothetical sparring partner (in advance) for stating the obvious. But that they lack the means for world domination doesn't mean that the threat of radical Islamic terrorism isn't the chief national securiuty issue of our time, nor does it mean that the need for political, economic, and cultural reform in the Arab-Muslim world (and probably an Arab-Muslim world largely reimagined along sectarian lines) is not the chief foreign policy issue of our time.

Posted by Linus | October 25, 2006 4:11 PM

"Njorl apparently believes that having a President who is personally Christian makes our government not secular. Riiiiight."

There is a lot of overlap between law, morality and religion. You can have secular laws that religious people will never even notice. But you can't have an atheist or a Jew for president without the people noticing. The idea that this country could possibly tolerate a non-Christian president anytime in the next 40 years is laughable.

Posted by Njorl | October 25, 2006 4:28 PM

It's "tic", not "tick".

Posted by brendan | October 25, 2006 4:43 PM

Mr. Yglesias misunderstands Bernard Lewis and misunderstands Islam. It isn't just a matter of preference.

For most of Islam, it is, in effect, illegal for non-Muslims to rule over Muslims and that situation must be fixed, by force, if necessary.

The Islamic law about Dhimmis requires that Jews and Christians be second class citizens, ride donkeys and not horses, and have synogogues and churches be shorter than mosques. Equality before the law is not legal under Sharia. The courts must be Muslim and only Muslims can testify.

For Jews in Israel who refuse to be ruled over by non-Jews, this is a historically recent innovation after centuries of abuse at the hands of others. Not a matter of fundamental doctrine. Remember the holocaust?

Mr. Yglesias needs to read up some more on Islam. Start with this: this good book by Professor Lewis.

And the invasion of Iraq is not aimed at replacing government by Muslims with non-Muslims. But actually at replacing the secular Saddam with a more Islamic moderate democracy. This doesn't prove that the invasion was a good idea, but that it's difficulties do not stem from any lack of Islam in the new government.

Posted by Warren | October 25, 2006 4:51 PM

> As others have noted ad nauseum, Christendom
> reformed itself to the extent that it does not
> seek theocratic dominion over the world by
> military means any longer;

You might ask the people of Iraq for their thoughts on that statement. Or perhaps that CENTCOM general who just announced last week that the US is "doing Jesus' work".

Not Really

Posted by Not Really | October 25, 2006 4:54 PM

Not sure if it's that simple. Of course no "people" can stand to be ruled while simultaneously quite liking the idea of ruling over other people, but there are religious and historical specifics at work that you do poorly to miss. What Lewis is doing in that paragraph--portentously or not--is to highlight a bit of the Islamic worldview, which includes specific laws concerning political rule as much as more inward, spiritual stuff. Islam is actually quite unique among religions in its insistence that the temporal realm has to be brought as closely as possible to the spiritual order as described in the Koran. There are particular laws in Islam concerning other religions and other cultures, and the history of Islam is bound up in actings-out of these laws. You might also do well to remember the place that honour and shame hold in Arab and Muslim culture.

It's silly to equate every belief system and culture in the world as being motivated by more or less the same impulses. That is partially true, of course, but surely it's a wise thing to investigate the historical, religious, and cultural particulars of Islam so as to make wise decisions when dealing with folks who claim to represent Allah's will. That's what Lewis is trying to do. Equating the laws about dhimmis in Islam to the Zionist movement and the current Israeli worldview or to American Christians in whatever variety is just too simplistic and vague.

Posted by MortimerPeacock | October 25, 2006 5:25 PM

OK, mea culpa...but the evinced exceptions don't really contradict the rule. Some obscure examples around the fringes of once expansive Islamic empires don't show much drive toward conquest on the part of Islamic peoples. The Barbary pirates were pirate raiders not conquerers, the Ottomans were trying to hold on to outlying provinces of their shrinking empire, etc. Islam had its glory days of conquest, but since the Ottoman tide receded from the walls of Vienna, the Muslim record of colonialism and conquest is vanishingly small compared to the European Christian one. In fact, it's pretty rich for a bunch of Christians to be arguing about Islamic imperialism.

Posted by MQ | October 25, 2006 5:31 PM

> As others have noted ad nauseum, Christendom
> reformed itself to the extent that it does not
> seek theocratic dominion over the world by
> military means any longer;

This is a technicality that people are using to paper over the very obvious evidence of Western imperialism. Christian states have sought nationalistic dominion over the world in the name of the authority of their nation-state. All of these nation-states were/are culturally Christian during their colonialist periods, and would resist vehemently any attempt at conversion. Because of the particular history of the West, there was a formal separation between church and state and some secularization of the population, but there is ample evidence that nationalism and colonialism are themselves faiths that drive fanatical behavior. A lot of the discussion on this thread amounts to saying that Muslims claim to rule nations in the name of their *religion*, which is icky and uncivilized, while we in the West claim to rule in the name of our *Western civilization*, which is rational and proper.

Posted by MQ | October 25, 2006 5:37 PM

"The fascinating question is why folks influenced by this view of the Islamic world thought it would be a good idea to conquer a patch of Muslim land and try to rule it. The common thread, I suppose, is an extreme level of condescension."

Common thread between what and what?

O'Neill tells us that Bush W came in to office wishing to overthrow Saddam. But we still don't know all the reasons why. This is the fascinating question. The reason the invasion idea was passed by Congress, was that they believed that Saddam was militarily dangerous. This is well known, and there never was a question.

Posted by Warren | October 25, 2006 6:16 PM

"A lot of the discussion on this thread amounts to saying that Muslims claim to rule nations in the name of their *religion*, which is icky and uncivilized, while we in the West claim to rule in the name of our *Western civilization*, which is rational and proper."

The West no longer claims the right to rule over others. The US claims the right to disarm certain states of their WMD's. Israel is quite confused about what to do about the Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank.

Western oil money is funding a resurgence of Islamic/Arabic militarism, and something must be done.

Nuclear proliferation changes everything; The causes, the consequences, the morality, and the duty.

Posted by Warren | October 25, 2006 6:53 PM

MQ,

A lot of the discussion on this thread amounts to saying that Muslims claim to rule nations in the name of their *religion*, which is icky and uncivilized, while we in the West claim to rule in the name of our *Western civilization*, which is rational and proper.

As of today, 10/25/2006, Islam has the sorry privilege of being the last major religion whose mainstream continues to consider that theocracy, the Islamic form of course, is the legitimate form of government and that laws should be derived from the immutable “word of God” - Sharia and all the assorted shite - rather than from amendable human choices. All other religions, not just in the Judeo-Christian “West” but everywhere else in the world, have understood a rather long time ago that earthly government is not much of their business.

It’s not to say that there are no episodic outbursts of theocratic delirium outside of Islam, as witnessed by the US Christian Right, but as a mainstream belief, it’s Islam and no one else. So, yeah, it sets Islam a bit apart from the rest of the crowd and rightfully singles it out for special rejection.

Now, if you don’t understand the difference between faith and reason and want to call the foundations of liberal democracy (which is not just a Western phenomenon, Taiwan, Japan, India, the whole lot of South America, quite a few African countries, etc, and so on and so forth) a “religion”, there’s very little we can do for you. You’ll need to check yourself with Dr Russell and Dawkins :>

Posted by Fifi | October 25, 2006 7:07 PM

Islam is actually quite unique among religions in its insistence that the temporal realm has to be brought as closely as possible to the spiritual order as described in the Koran.

and yet this is false. first, you probably mean "higher religions," since god-kings and priest-kings were par for the course during the age of egypt and summer. second, what about the buddhist chakravartin? the byzantine emperor was the viceregent of god, as was the caliph. the idea that the touch of kings and queens in europe cured illness derived from the conception of monarchy as divinely sanctioned, that the monarch in the role of monarch took upon themselves some of the divine essence. the chinese emperor was the son of heaven, the axi mundi between heaven and earth. the point is that a pure secular polity is the exception, not the rule. islam stands in particular contrast with the west today because of its geographic proximity as well as the use of a lexicon which the west finds intelligible, but i think the perception of islamic exceptionalism is false (the christian roman empire was very specific about the laws which governed how jews were behave as a separate people).

but the evinced exceptions don't really contradict the rule. Some obscure examples around the fringes of once expansive Islamic empires don't show much drive toward conquest on the part of Islamic peoples. The Barbary pirates were pirate raiders not conquerers, the Ottomans were trying to hold on to outlying provinces of their shrinking empire, etc.

1) the ottomans defeated russian pushes into the balkans as late as the 18th century. though the structural weaknesses of the ottoman state were manifest in the 17th century, they weren't clear to the ottomans or the west during this period, and a great deal of that century (until 1683) was plagued by a preoccupation of the ottoman threat to vienna.

2) indonesia is as we all know the most population muslim nation in the world, so i don't think the islamicization of that region is marginal.

3) the indian subcontinent has the greated concentration of muslims in the world, at 400 million or so, so the conquest of the hundreds of millions of non-muslims in the southern half of the subcontinent is not marginal. especially since the mughal emperor was considered for a time a rival of the ottoman padisha.

4) the sultanate of oman based around muscat rolled back portuguese ascendency in the indian ocean. i don't think this marginal since this is a european power taking it in the nose

a know of the historical record would i think force one to

1) narrow the time range of european ascendency from 3-4 centuries to 2

2) highlight that the ennui that plagues the dar-al-islam over the last 3-4 centuries is probably more applicable as an assertion in the arab to a lesser extent turkish lands, and they were the ones who were on the front end of european re-expansion

now, what does this have to do with the point of the post? i think that depends on your values, but facts are never 'technicalities,' because to observe a general trend one has to assemble facts. today people seem to forget that as late as 1796 a british embassy was rebuffed and humiliated by the emperor of china. or that the manchus forced treaties upon the russians in the 18th century to the former's advantage.

Posted by razib | October 25, 2006 7:19 PM

Good heavens, it's as though the Ottoman Empire never existed.

The Ottoman Turks believed a true Muslim could not manage the affairs of government, and employed Christians, as a special class, for those duties. In the fullness of time, some of these Christians ended up ruling the Ottoman Empire, sometimes at the request of the Turks themselves specifically to avoid internecine struggles that would result if any Muslim Turk were considered eligible for accession to the office.

This, of course, would be similar to the choice of a podesta by an Italian city-state wishing to avoid internal struggles.

Some of our commenters don't seem to have realized that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are essentially the same religion. It would be odd indeed if the excesses of one of them weren't echoed by the other two as opportunity offered.

Posted by serial catowner | October 25, 2006 8:18 PM

razib:
I think Mortimer was referring to the present when he said "Islam is actually quite unique..."

Posted by Warren | October 25, 2006 8:36 PM

I think Mortimer was referring to the present when he said "Islam is actually quite unique..."

but this isn't true still, at least qualitatively. e.g., thailand is operationally a buddhist monarchy. bhutan is explicitly organized around its form of buddhism.

this isn't to say that i don't agree that quantitatively singling out islam isn't warranted, but, to say something is unique is often either

a) an admission of ignorance about the variation (or lack of) in human history

or

b) a step toward making something into a platonic ideal so that by its nature x, y, z, etc. are entailed (e.g., "islam can never be reconciled with modernity because it is uniquely x, y, z")

there is a median between the black and white alternative of "islam is totally different" or "islam is exactly the same." e.g., islam is more orthopraxic and less orthodoxic than christianity, but the different is quantitative in the two weights and contextualized in time and place.

Posted by razib | October 25, 2006 9:07 PM

Re: All other religions, not just in the Judeo-Christian “West” but everywhere else in the world, have understood a rather long time ago that earthly government is not much of their business.

How long is a “long time”? Other than Buddhism and maybe Taoism I am having a hard time thinking of a religion that was uninvolved in political matters. Christianity could have been but it chose to jump in feet first back in the 300s AD when it married the Roman state. To this day the English monarch is also head of the English Church, and in Russia the Patriarch of the Orthodox church once again gets his way when he petitions the government for some boon for his church.
The ancient Pagan religions were all intimately involved with the state: hence the requirement at Rome that one must worship the Emperor’s spirit to be a good Roman citizen.
Judaism only became non-political when the Jews ceased to have a state. In Israel however this state of affairs has reverted to type.
Within living memory the Emperor of Japan was a Shinto God.
Confucianism is actually more a political ideology than a theological endeavor.
Islam is hardly unique at all.

Posted by JonF | October 25, 2006 9:24 PM

"For most of Islam, it is, in effect, illegal for non-Muslims to rule over Muslims and that situation must be fixed, by force, if necessary."

And the Old Testament has some interesting protocols for selling one's daughter into slavery. If the tables were turned, and Christendom was today where it was 500 years, and Islamic civilization was today where it will be 500 years from now certain folks in Mecca (or Istanbul, or wherever) might have some rather animated notions about Christianity's incompatibility with capitalism.

If all you know about a religion is text, and not context, you're liable to have some funny ideas about that faith. I have Appalachian ancestors who were preacher cum bootleggers; they liked to fight. Few people noted the contradictions, or cared.

Islam will reform itself, become compatible with certain ideals we cherish, and it is no sin for liberal-minded people to observe that the Islamic world is troubled.

Posted by Linus | October 25, 2006 11:04 PM

Other than Buddhism and maybe Taoism I am having a hard time thinking of a religion that was uninvolved in political matters.

Take a deep hard look at Sri Lanka before Bhuddism gets a pass on being unrelated to political matters, especially as related to being ruled by those with a differing view of the supernatural.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 25, 2006 11:32 PM

As of today, 10/25/2006, Islam has the sorry privilege of being the last major religion whose mainstream continues to consider that theocracy, the Islamic form of course, is the legitimate form of government and that laws should be derived from the immutable “word of God” - Sharia and all the assorted shite -

Except for the Lord's Resistance Army, the Army of God domestically along with related sympathizers, large swaths of the Tibetan resistance, most of the Christian Evangelical electorate of America which has had a loud and vocal spasm trying to establish that American law is derived from the ten comandments, The BJP which came to power in India espousing exactly what you have said is exclusive to Islam in Hindu terms, Jewish fundamentalists which who just came back to the fold in Israel's governing party under promises of a more stringent adherence to Torah teaching and religious counseling.

Other than that, yeah, Islam stands alone as this irrational menace.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 25, 2006 11:41 PM

Other than Buddhism and maybe Taoism.

nope. taoism was the nominal religion of the tang royal house (though they patronized buddhism a lot too) and was a pretense used to purge china of foreign religions in 850 and defrock tens of thousands of buddhist monks. not to mention that taoism cults and brotherhoods have long been heavily involved in rebellions against central authority.

buddhism is also heavily politicized in myanmar.

Posted by razib | October 26, 2006 1:58 AM

"the last major religion whose mainstream continues to consider that theocracy, the Islamic form of course, is the legitimate form of government and that laws should be derived from the immutable 'word of God'"

What's the Pope's position on whether birth control (not to mention gay sex, or abortion) should be legal for non-Catholics? (Just as an example--not that a lot of protestant leaders feel differently on the subject)

Posted by rea | October 26, 2006 8:10 AM

Re: What's the Pope's position on whether birth control (not to mention gay sex, or abortion) should be legal for non-Catholics? (Just as an example--not that a lot of protestant leaders feel differently on the subject)

Actually, I cannot think of a single Protestant Church that has an issue with birth control, though I suppose there could be some small, little-known sectarian churches that do. But certainly none of the major Protestant churches. Nor, for that matter, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Nor (as far as I know) Judaism, Islam or any other major non-Christian religion. Rome is pretty much on its own in its opposition to contraception.

Posted by JonF | October 26, 2006 12:44 PM