"Doing good" without objective perspective

Submitted by jennifer solis (United States), May 8, 2008 at 18:42

Dear Trans-Parere,

I agree that moderate Muslims, whether enjoying the freedoms of secular governments or along the border of Pakistan and Afganistan, are doing no favor to themselves by silent accomidation of Islamism.

While those under direct intimidation understandably fold, those free from direct totalitarian Islam are largely silent observers. These seem to be waiting for others to "take care" of the problem.

Which leads me to this question: what "good" can eradicate Islamism? The sentance towards the end of your letter:

To our shame as human beings we must occaisionally be driven to the brink of hell before we react in defense of our natural inclination to do good.

While I would argue how "natural" the inclination to "do good" is (I believe how "natural" depends on self-circumstance; more often than not, this includes alterior motive, gulit and/or pretension), I believe the "good" people have done has been intrumental in perpetuating Islamism.

I would prefer that our "natural inclination to do good" would involve identifying and obliterating the totalitarian ideology that is Islamism.

That "good" would benefit moderate Islam, free society, individual rights, Europe, and America.

It's a shame that we as human beings have to be brought to the brink of hell before objectivity is again a valuable commodity.

Cheers,

Jennifer

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".