General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ben Affleck vs. Bill Maher on Islam: Bill's right. [View all]True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)in discussions, and by ignoring the people in our circles who value superficial amity between groups over standing up for fundamental human rights. People like that have nothing to offer in a moral discussion, because their views are purely aesthetic: They just don't want to be bothered with the uncertainties of having to make independent moral choices, so they just try to silence reason and appease madness.
As far as the military angles are concerned, I think we would have far greater moral standing to restrain large-scale policy if we were seen as fearless advocates for human rights than we would if we let the self-hating, dogmatically PC element speak for us. The liberals of the 20th century who loudly condemned the Soviet Union had the credibility to push economic and social reform in America, while those who acted like Stalin and Mao were just leaders with different opinions than ours deserved the contempt they got. People might not intellectually understand it, but they can see moral strength and it persuades them.
There are nihilists on our side of the spectrum who see morality of any kind as inherently hypocritical and unjust, and they can't add anything to the world, only fritter it away in a futile quest to fill the infinite abyss inside the conservative heart. And the conservative heart, unfortunately, has dominated Islam for a very, very long time. The only thing that can change that is to kindle the liberal heart, and confront Muslims who hold theocratic opinions with the fact of their injustice.