DON'T BUILD THE WALL:

Religious civil society is antidote to anarchy in Iraq and Afghanistan: A church-state connection may lessen the degeneration of Iraq and Afghanistan. (Amitai Etzioni, 4/01/04, CS Monitor)

Advocates of liberty assume that people are good by nature, but corrupted by totalitarian regimes - and that once these regimes unravel, people will take to doing what is right. But being pro- social requires that people internalize a moral code. Communities must gently chide those who deviate from the straight and narrow and honor those who fulfill their social obligations.

In the long run, liberated societies can form new informal moral codes and social controls. In the short run, however, they must build on what is in place. And in many areas, this is religion. I refer not to the fundamentalist but to the moderate teachings that exist in all religions, Islam included. The line that separates the two is precisely what is at issue: Fundamentalism undergirds totalitarian regimes; moderate practices depend largely on moral suasion.

As a guest of Iran's reformers in 2001, I learned their main goal is to establish "a religious civil society" in which people will want to follow the prophet Muhammad rather than being forced to do so. The fact that to Western ears a "religious civil society" sounds like an oxymoron is precisely what is wrong with Western thinking.

The West should not export the French or American idea of separation of religion and state, but instead draw in moderate mullahs and other religious figures as one of the best ways to shore up social order, as has been done in southern Iraq. And whatever other social groupings - ethnic or tribal - that promote informal moral codes must be drawn in if they seek to persuade people to live up to their duties rather than violate basic human rights or worse.

They should profit by the West's mistake and not seek to become as disastrously secular as Europe has and as we were.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 1, 2004 8:11 AM