Literal Interpretation

Submitted by Paul (Canada), Feb 15, 2006 at 14:49

Daniel Pipes' comments in this article are not to be interpreted literally, but as examples in support to the thesis that the current events are not a sign of a clash between east and west (which implies that one is going against the other head-on) but, rather, that they are being pulled apart (or, turning their backs at each other and walking away). If you go back and peruse the various links to his -- and others -- writings on the topic, this distinction should become apparent.

Having said that, it is absolutely correct that self-sufficiency, independence and the various freedoms that liberalism offers us should -- heck, must -- be persued by whoever in whatever way one wants and sees fit. But, in Pipes view, **isolationism** will cause harm since it will preclude the healthy exchange of (opposing) ideas that are, or should be, the foundation of these freedoms (which seems that everybody wants).

The debate sparkled by the cartoon controversy should be seen as an opportunity by **non-fanatics** of any creed, color and nationality to find some common ground and avoid further divisions (which may not be reversible). I think that this is the message here, and it is certainly wrong for any of us to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it's not happening.

Cordially,

Paul

---

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".