The attacks on American civilian officials serving in Libya this month prove, if there was any doubt, that we have long been living in an age of total war. Civilian life, respect for diplomatic institutions, and a reverence for the right to free speech do not come close to characterizing modern radical Islam. While the attacks were originally attribtued to pro-Gaddafi forces, there is emerging evidence that al-Qaeda was also invovled. It is clear that the effects of universalizing ideology, for this new age of radicals, greatly trumps any imperative to observe human rights conventions. But is radical Islam really to blame? Is it not a bit ironic that the nations now condemning these actions were themselves wrapped up in two successive world wars, which featured violations of every level of protocol known then to man? Perhaps this is precisely the argument of right-wing secularists like Geert Wilders - that Europe has evolved and the Islamic world has not.
More generally, what are the limitations of religious practice in a liberal state? Should the state be able to compel deference to the polity? Was Marx right that the state is fundamentally at odds with religion? Or is de Tocqueville to be believed when he claimed the two can indeed function harmoniously - as they did in America? Given the healthcare law's contraception mandate, is that still the case? Is the Church supposed to acqueisece, or take up arms? If the second, then can we really blame other religious people for staying true to the doctrine of their faith? Join us in the Berkeley Mendenhall Room this Thursday at 7:30 p.m. as we debate the limits of liberalism, tolerance, and when (if ever) religious devotion crosses the line.