Yes, when the religions of Abraham manage to forumlate a dogma largely consistent with the Enlightenment and the follow-on to that (race and gender liberties) then they are broadly tolerable. 'Western' Muslims self-identify this way, and in places like Iraq and Iran and Egypt they are likely the majority.
That powerful/rich states of geopolitical importance codify in law and practice a complete rejection of anything and everthing that came out of, broadly speaking, the Enlightenment (and the English pre-quel if one is splitting hairs) places them squarly at odds with acceptability.
I do not doubt that western leaders have long struggled with what they are faced with once they enter 1600 Penn and 10 Downing and similar such Abodes.
Smack dab in the middle of the "oh crap what do I do" moment that likely occurs soon after winning office is one thing : Saudi Arabia. It is much of what is bad about Islam, when it wanders from that it suffers internal rebellion (the raidicla takeovers in 1980 e.g.) and indeed spawns the likes of bin Laden frustrated over its excessive liberalism and partnership with the west.
So, what is a Bush or Clinton or Obama or Brown or Blair, or Major, Thatcher, Reagan, Carter to do?
I'm a disengage and contain guy.
| 