Subliminally known for centuries, and surfaced dramatically and tragically on September 11th , is that religion is dangerous when it imposes its will on the political realm. There has always been religious lag, resistance and conflict with respect to modernity and democratization. Ironically, it was Christ who first introduced the concept of separation — "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."

Of course, religion can never be totally isolated from politics because of its innate shaping of individual attitudes; nevertheless, explicit or implicit laws separating church and state, hold the two in balance. Though I may view Islamic practices as unrealistically primitive, I check myself in doing violence to the belief and further tempered in the hope that eventually they will see the wisdom of the West — life, after all, is worth living, and that all is entitled to the plethora of potential goods in the world — or for that matter its own philosophy, such as that of al-F~r~b§ who urged leaders to develop "good, not misguided or retarded societies ."

This hope is, of course, pathetic in light of the Islamic nations that obstinately deny organic growth of secular politics designed to free their subjects [ both genders] to pursue the necessary rights and comforts natural to an evolving modern world. Ascetic values are to be lauded if voluntarily espoused, but to deny the general populace basic needs is criminal. Further, as in some countries, to expect a woman to beg in the streets because she is a woman, or for a girl not to be educated because she is a girl, is ludicrous, an affront to their God. A nation that preaches to its young thou shalt kill all who are not Muslim is arrant child abuse, and should give rise to world-wide condemnation.

 Once justice is done in retaliation for September 11th, the western nations must engage in forcible diplomacy to rid Muslims of "yes, but..." passive acceptance of terrorism and their hypocritical facade that Islam is a tolerant, peaceful religion, which in practice it is not and in theory never was. If within several years, these nations do not openly police and terminate the most severe perversions of their professed belief, and in conjunction liberate their women, it is time — Saddam Hussein, notwithstanding — for modern nations to abandon its military and political sphere of influence in the Mideast, including Israel, of which European descendants having nothing in common with Arabs should resettle in Europe, the western hemisphere, or Australia. They should partially — respecting the Palestinian Jews who remain behind — dismantle all sacred sites but for Jerusalem and Bethlehem, brick by brick and export them to a New Jerusalem, a kind of Louisiana Purchase in, say, Canada. All quarters of Old Jerusalem should be under a multi-religious commission guarded by the UN. If the suicidal pride of Israel persists — and it probably will — then it is on its own, free to build a fortress or unleash its awesome military prowess against all threatening countries. As for OPEC, it needs the modern world, not the inverse — the flow of oil will continue. Besides the time is ripe for a "Manhattan project" to develop alternative fuels as well as homeland security for all countries.

 This is not to say that the West abandon altogether the oppressed under Islamic tyrannies. Covert contacts with freedom loving families and organizations should be forged in order to set up an "underground railroad" for them to escape injustice. The more massive the exodus, the greater the pressure on Islam to weed out religious elders from politics and work toward democracy. All of NATO should be involved in this covert action in furthering human rights.

 This western diplomacy should also extend to ethnic and racial terrorism within their own borders by legislating total tolerance toward their own ethnic mix, together with facilitating separation of church and state in order to forge secular governance of universal morals, guaranteeing religious freedom for the constituents psyches outside the realm of politics. This is a difficult task, for even in the United States, there are innumerable voting blocs that are motivated by religious beliefs — some extreme. This is not to say that secular democracies or enlightened monarchies are without generic morals, which always dictate basic human rights for all. Religious freedom in a democracy, however, is a right only to the extent that it endorses tolerance and these inalienable human rights.
However private a religion that does not infringe publicly on natural rights, yet within abuses or denies the rights of their faithful, must be reckoned with by the state. Jonestown is a case in point where the United States failed to protect its constituents.

Under normal circumstances, the western nations would liberate the Muslims from themselves, but because the democracies are sensitive about religious freedom, they appease Islamic nations, which hide behind the heavy veil of their religion, even though with few exceptions are ruthless dictatorships. The coalition of ‘90 saved Kuwait, but it did not lift a finger to develop a democracy there. Saudi-Arabia, despite its wealth, is still in the dark ages when it so easily could be a magnificent, thriving democracy for all its people, particularly women. Because the western nations had to remain true to the conditions of the ‘90 coalition, it could not liberate the Iraqi people from inhuman oppression. Had it done so and instituted a MacArthur plan as in Japan, Iraq now would be a model that would eventuate in to unraveling the dictatorial evil indigenous to most Islamic nations.