Warning! What follows is very politically incorrect.
Is Nice the last straw for you? The last victims before you call it by its proper name: radical Islamic terrorism? French Prime Minister Hollande was quick to point out that it was a "terrorist attack", but not a radical Islamic attack. Oh? When the perpetrator is a Muslim named Mohamed, as in this case, and the victims are celebrating an iconic Western holiday, why the reluctance to use the latter term? President Obama's preference is "violent extremists".
The left is the worst when it comes to political correctness. Here is the very progressive Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), criticizing the New York Times for labeling the mass-murder truck attack in Nice "terrorist" ... "despite admitting that it had no knowledge of the presumed killer's motives."
In a recent article I criticized President Obama for saying that ISIS "has nothing to do with Islam". This, I stated, is standard political correctness which ignores the indisputable role played by Islam in inspiring Orlando and Long Beach and Paris and Ankara and other massacres; it is the religion that teaches the beauty and godliness of jihad and the heavenly rewards for suicide bombings.
I have received several letters of rebuke for these thoughts which mainly argued two points:
You can't condemn an entire religion or other ideology for the actions or the statements of a few "psychologically deranged individuals".
The West has behaved just as terroristic, but no Western religion has been condemned at all in the same manner.
The Islamic teachings I refer to are not necessarily explicitly mentioned in the Koran or any other sacred texts, nor have any connection to actual historical events of the 7th through the 21st centuries, but rather are an imbedded part of the atmosphere surrounding a young person growing up in a Muslim culture or environment. This atmosphere, this education, this culture must be severely curtailed. The West must oversee the classes in Islamic schools in France, the UK, the US, et al; and particularly Pakistan if feasible. Even if it means sending in spies to the classes, outfitted with recording devices. The teachers of these classes, if they have had any connection at all to anything smacking of radical Islam, should not be hired; if already hired, should be fired.
The same should apply to imams and other officials of mosques.
We are sometimes told that the perpetrator of some horrible terrorist act was not even religious or never attended a mosque. This appears to be irrelevant if the person has been raised in the kind of atmosphere referred to above.
If defenders of Islam really believe that the terrorists are just a tiny group of "psychologically deranged individuals" they shouldn't object to this purging of them. They should be as happy to be rid of them -- and the ignominy and shame they bring upon Islam -- as the West would be to rid the world of their influence.
As to the West having behaved just as horribly, just as terroristic, without any Western religion having been condemned in the same manner ... I do not need to be taught about terrible Western behavior. I've literally written the book on the subject; five books to be exact. And I have called for the imprisonment of numerous American mass murderers, torturers and war criminals, from Harry Truman and Richard Nixon to George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Every culture of course indoctrinates its young and I would further ban the teaching of the American state religion that inspires young men and women to travel halfway round the world to torture and kill complete strangers who have done them no harm; a religion known as "American exceptionalism".
US and French foreign policy provide ample reasons for the hatred of their governments, but as awful as these governments have been, they have not sought to destroy modern civilization. They have not routinely, fiendishly and joyfully engaged in beheading people, playing soccer with their heads, hacking people to death with machetes, sternly banning alcohol, music, gays, sex, covering up women's faces, destroying ancient monuments, forcibly imposing religious law, and on and on including the worst of all: repeated suicide bombings and suicide attacks such as in Nice.
The vast majority of radical Islamic terrorism's victims have been civilians who had nothing to do with US or French foreign policy.
And last week at a high-school graduation in Germany an Islamic student refused to shake the hand of a teacher handing out diplomas. Why? The teacher was a woman. (The Independent, London, July 13, 2016)
It should be further kept in mind that, unlike the Islamic State, the Western powers can be, and have on many occasions been, embarrassed; they have some constituencies to cater to; ISIS is not a member of the United Nations, human-rights groups or anything else, and doesn't run for office. They behave like creatures from outer space and are convinced that God/Allah is on their side. American leaders, such as George W. Bush, have stated the same on occasion but they don't really act on this in any meaningful, lasting manner, and wouldn't get away with it if they did.
Yes, I of course know all about Hiroshima and Indochina and Iraq. The fact that no American leader has been punished for any of this does not reduce the need to destroy ISIS.
It may come down to this: A video released by ISIS following recent terrorist attacks in Bangladesh declared: "What you witnessed in Bangladesh was a glimpse. This will repeat, repeat and repeat until you lose and we win and the sharia is established throughout the world."(Washington Post, July 8, 2016) In combatting such an obsessed and maniacal force, the West can not afford to be held back by political correctness.

You heard it here first, folks. The first and only man to condemn American imperialism has finally wised up and realizes that The Islamics, a culture which has uniquely done things such as treat women and gays inhumanely, commit nasty murders, and ban alcohol (the horror!) needs to be fought back against, its classrooms need to be commandeered by the West, preferably by CIA spies with neat recording gizmos. (Hey, are more invasions off the table? Extremism in the defense of liberty and all that!) After all, sometimes the West has been slightly embarrassed before continuing on with their inhuman campaigns of mass rape and slaughter, proving now and forever the inherent moral superiority of this cultural monolith.

What an exciting development! With yet another former politically correct anti-imperialist patsy coming out against the mushy-gushy defense of Islamicism, we may soon see a broad coalition from leftist to liberal to Wildersist-Breivikist 4channer unite and finally eradicate the only real problem left in our near-perfect world.

In a recent article I criticized President Obama for saying that ISIS "has nothing to do with Islam".

It is vexing when I hear that Islam is a "religion of peace" since it is not the religion's scripture or abstract tenets that affect behavior, but one's cultural milieu and psychological dispositions. I am a nominalist regarding defining religion, as I merely define a particular religion by the tenets its regards as fundamental, and I regard people as adherents of a given religion if they identify with that religion or appears to practice the religion through involvement in its rituals, attendance of religious services, and outward displays of piety. I think that is a useful heuristic, since it evades many objections based on one's conduct that one is not a "true Christian" or a "kafir" due to their conduct or some minor doctrinal dispute. ISIS is "Islamic" because it, at least nominally, professes and practices some of its rudimentary tenets, such as having the shahada on its banner and enforces the salat on its population.

--
I think the West is fairly liberal and tolerant regarding religious exclusion due to its political heritage of affirming the principle of the separation of church and state as a means of defusing sectarian tensions. According to this principle, no religious sect should be granted any major privileges or concessions, but for pragmatic reasons if a sect indulges, as opposed to merely extolling and glorifying violence, and uses its influence to curtail severely the autonomy of some its members, such as women, then it would earn the enmity of the state.

Such an approach, even one based on the values of bourgeois liberalism, of course, would undoubtedly be a major source of grievance for the religious elites who would benefit from such a privilege. This is a major factor driving the revolts against the PDPA (of Afghanistan), Colonel Qaddafi and President Bashar al-Assad as their regimes are perceived as being too secular .

Edited by Latias (Aug. 4, 2016 11:26:08)

Latias posted:

I think the West is fairly liberal and tolerant regarding religious exclusion due to its political heritage of affirming the principle of the separation of church and state as a means of defusing sectarian tensions. According to this principle, no religious sect should be granted any major privileges or concessions, but for pragmatic reasons if a sect indulges, as opposed to merely extolling and glorifying violence, and uses its influence to curtail severely the autonomy of some its members, such as women, then it would earn the enmity of the state.

i largely agree with your post but am wondering where you see american movements like the quiverfull and the flds fitting in

Latias posted:

The Siege of Waco, in my opinion, was horrible action (I could say crime, but I do not want to commit myself to strong language) by the US government.

I respect your restraint. We shouldn't say anything we might regret later or make baseless accusations.