Unmentionable

The West's Religious War

One of our more thoughtful opinionistas has written a piece about the Left's "conflicted" state over ISIS.  In his opining, he shows just how confused and conflicted he also is.  Taken together, Karl Du Fresne and the Left  have a deeply held common view about ISIS. 

Firstly, let's review Du Fresne's analysis of the Left's position.  In summary he argues that the Left is taking a moral view--a highly principled view--but it's blinkered.  That is, it's hypocritical and compromised.

It's hard to think of a more challenging conundrum than the one posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis).  Labour leader Andrew Little was right last week to describe Isis as evil. It's a word seldom heard these days because it implies a moral judgment, and moral judgments are unfashionable. But "evil" is the only way to describe men who coldly behead their captives, and then amp up the shock factor by burning one alive.

There is an element of gleeful sadism in their barbarism. Last week they pushed a gay man from the top of a tall building - reportedly the fourth such execution for homosexuality.  As with their other atrocities, they posted pictures and video online, a gesture that was part boast, part taunt. In doing so, they were saying to the world: "Look what we're capable of. There is no limit to what we will do.  "Norms of civilised behaviour don't apply to us. In fact we hold the civilised world in contempt. You know, and we know, that you are too weak and divided to stop us."

Du Fresne goes on to paint the ISIS military threat as real: therefore, New Zealand cannot walk away.

    This is not like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the objectives were hazy (or in the case of Iraq, tragically misconceived). Isis is not some shadowy terrorist entity; it's a functioning army, operating in plain sight.  That doesn't make it easy to defeat, but neither is it an excuse to do nothing.

Unfortunately [Labour leader] Andrew Little, while condemning Isis as evil, doesn't think it's our business to stop them. It's interesting that where Isis is concerned, the Left sharply deviates from its tradition of siding with the weak and vulnerable.  The Islamic State, it insists, is not our problem, no matter how many innocents die.

I suspect the Left is unable to see past its antipathy towards America and can't bring itself to support any initiative in which America plays a leading role. Its ideological blinkers blind it to the fact that on this occasion, America is on the side of the angels.  Most reprehensible of all is the craven argument that we should avoid antagonising Isis for fear that some deranged jihadist will strike at us in revenge.

That's moral cowardice of the lowest order.

Moral cowardice.  Strong criticism indeed.  But here is the problem.  Du Fresne demonstrates that he just does not get ISIS.  His own moral compass fails to orientate to the reality.  He deeply loathes the apparent gleeful insouciance of ISIS in doing evil to others.  

And these were merely the more flamboyant examples of Isis' depravity - the ones calculated to get our attention and fill us with fear, horror and anger.  Almost unnoticed in the background, Isis is proceeding with its grand plan to establish an Islamic caliphate, which means systematically slaughtering or enslaving anyone who stands in its way. No-one, then, can dispute that Isis is evil. The conundrum is what the rest of the world should do about it.

I wish there was a pat answer, but Isis presents a unique challenge because it stands apart from all norms of combat or diplomacy.  It has no regard for human lives, including its own members. 

But, Du Fresne is equally blinkered.  He claims that ISIS is without rules, regulations, laws, or moral compass.

It acknowledges no rules, it has no interest in negotiation and its adherents - who seem to include a significant number of thugs with criminal records - are said to be happy to die for their cause because it will ensure entry into paradise. How do you fight such an enemy?

How can otherwise intelligent people, like Du Fresne, be afflicted by such wilful myopia? Does ISIS really acknowledge no rules?  Come on.  No, what Du Fresne really means to say is that he does not particularly like the rules and regulations that ISIS lives by.  ISIS is establishing a Caliphate--a land and nation where Sharia Law is the rule and practice of everyone.  What Du Fresne cannot bring himself to say is that ISIS is a consistent (and understandable) manifestation of Islam.  It is ruled thoroughly by the Koran, the Hadith (reported sayings of Muhammad), and Sharia Law.

When Du Fresne complains that ISIS violates "norms of civilised behaviour" we imagine that ISIS devotees shake their heads in disbelief--genuinely so.  So the West follows norms of civilised behaviour when it executes millions upon millions of unborn babies every year? 

Why the blinkers?  If Du Fresne were to acknowledge the religious foundations of ISIS he would immediately face another, more serious problem.  He would open himself up to the charge of religious discrimination.  He would risk saying, Islam--insofar as ISIS comes out of the Koran, manifests the sayings of Muhammad, and applies traditional Islamic law--is intrinsically evil. As Dennis Prager once said, "The only religion the West permits criticism of is Christianity."

He would also have to acknowledge that Western conceptions of tolerance are deeply flawed.  He would have to acknowledge that Western secularism is really the attempt to impose the West's deeply atheistic culture upon others.  That is why the propaganda machine in the West has to insist that ISIS is not a self-conscious, sophisticated, and deeply committed expression of Islamic religion.  Rather it has to appeal to lofty "norms of civilised behaviour" (supposedly shared by all human beings) instead of openly admitting Western prejudices.  It has to paint ISIS as guilty of egregious crimes, not religious beliefs or zealotry. 

The Left (and Unbelief generally) has forged a relentless campaign for secularism, against Christians and Christian values on the grounds of tolerating everyone's right to decide what's best for themselves.  Homosexuality, abortion, adultery all must be approached with wide open arms of libertine tolerance.  Let people do whatever they want--liberty and license for all.  To condemn such actions, views, and behaviour would make one guilty of prejudiced intolerance. It would make one guilty of the deadliest sin.

Whatever ISIS may be, one thing we must all be absolutely sure of--it must not be thought of as religious in any way, shape or form.  The "norms of civilised behaviour" require such an interpretation.  The blinkers remain firmly in place.