Via the Daily Nebraskan: Santorum speech excites crowd

Santorum said he believes Muslims’ religious views cannot be changed or altered, so Middle Easterners reject American, democratic ideals.

“A democracy could not exist because Mohammed already made the perfect law,” Santorum said. “The Quran is perfect just the way it is, that’s why it is only written in Islamic.”

Oh, dear. Having had some personal experience with newspapers, it is possible that the error was the reporter’s, not Santorum’s. And, to be charitable, one can misspeak (although given the overall reporting, one is inclined to think that that is what he said). But, still, that’s pretty bad–especially in a speech that purports to help increase understanding.

Beyond the issue of writing things in Islamic, there are some other big issues here. For one thing, if the Muslim faith is wholly incompatible with democracy, how does one explain Turkey? Yes, its democracy has flaws but its governing party is religiously-oriented and they seem to be playing by the rules (indeed, the more anti-democratic elements are the secular ones). There are also a lot of Muslims in India, which is a democracy. And there are at least quasi-democratic elements at play in places like Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and the Palestinian Authority that exist even though Islam is either an important (if not dominant) religion in all those cases.¹ If Islam was so rigid as to be utterly unadaptable/amenable to various forms of civil society and governance, we shouldn’t see such variations, should we?

Also: orthodox Christianity preaches the perfection of its holy book as well, and yet the exact interpretation of said text has evolved over time. I note this because a) like the Quran, the Bible has been abused by its adherents (justifying chattel slavery, anyone?) and b) it is impossible to argue that any group of followers have the exact same and unchanging view of their religion over time.

And there’s more:

He said he believes that Muslims are America’s enemy because they read their religion literally and apply it to real life, instead of in historical context.

The lecture continued when Santorum pointed out what he thought were the main differences between Christians and Muslims. Santorum said Christians, who believe in Jesus Christ, never governed or conquered anyone, but Mohammed was a warrior and killed people.

While it is true that Jesus never went into battle, the bottom line is that violence in the name of Christ is sadly salted liberally throughout history. There is, of course, the whole Crusades thing, not to mention a great deal of Protestant v. Catholic violence in European history. If we want to reduce the parameters to terrorism, I would note that abortion clinic bombings have been done in the name of Christianity, and then there’s that whole IRA thing. One could also throw in Liberation Theology driven guerrilla movements.

As a Christian, I would love to think that nothing violent or evil has been done in the name of my religion, but history teaches otherwise.

And lest one think that perhaps the Nebraska paper is getting it wrong, here’s a report from a similar speech given at Yale:

“The greatest Christian, the Messiah, is Jesus — he never ruled a country, never forced anyone to convert,” Santorum said. “Islam, on the other hand, was founded by Muhammed who went on to conquer much of the Middle East and Northern Africa.”

He pointed to how Muslim leaders of Spain, centuries ago, gave nonbelievers the option of converting or facing death. He did not mention the Spanish Inquisition, and he excused episodes of Christian violence as “misguidance.”

Well, of course, because nobody expects to have to discuss the Spanish Inquisition.

Now, it is true that Santorum appears to be targeting most of his commentary at Islamic extremists but, as one reads the quotes and accounts, it is pretty clear that he doesn’t see that big of a difference between extremists and non-extremists. Indeed, the quote about Muhammed above underscores this, as his thesis is that Islam is a religion of violence.

h/t: Sullivan

Share on Facebook

1. To get into exactly what elements and how they should be evaluated is beyond the scope of this post. However, just the existence of said elements vitiate what seems to be Santorum’s basic premise. [↩]

5 Responses to “Santorum sets us Straight on Islam (or, not)”

1. Ratoe Says:
   February 19th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

   There are also a lot of Muslims in India, which is a democracy.

   Yeah, there are also 2.6 million Muslims in the US as well–including a member of Congress whose constituents are overwhelmingly Christian.

   In the US, of course, most organized anti-democratic religious-based groups have been (self-described) Christian–like the Klan and the militia movement of the 90s.

2. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:
   February 19th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

   Indeed on all counts.

3. Leonard Says:
   February 19th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

   Hey, Rick: when did “Islamic” become a language?

4. Suhir Says:
   February 19th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

   Actually Indonesia is the worlds largest muslim country and they are fairly democratic

5. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:
   February 19th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

   I meant to include it as well.