Terrorism by Degrees.

We don't wish to be indelicate, but we must ask: Is "moderate" brutality any less an affront to human dignity than, say, "radical" brutality? Is it even a distinction worth making?

We were moved to ponder this after giving a moment's consideration to difference between "radical Islam" and that thing called "moderate Islam."

What is the distinction if not simply a matter of degree? Is it that "moderate Islam" organizes societies by Sharia law, which requires things like limb amputations as punishment for theft, or stoning to death by a crowd as punishment for adultery, or which condones the mutilation one's teenage daughter for any reason at all?

What is the difference between those who practice such things, and those who blow themselves up in crowded restaurants, really? Does savagery cease to be savagery once it has been enshrined in legal code.

We have had the privilege of having some wonderful friends who called themselves practicing Muslims. But as pointed out in a previous piece, no matter what they called themselves, no matter what shrines they visited, if they obeyed the laws of this land, they are cultural Christians. Or if you prefer, cultural "Judeo-Christians;" because the laws of this land are the social expressions of Judeo-Christian faith systems. We spelled it out clearly: a "moderate Muslim" is nothing more than a cultural Christian, for we all know what is meant by "moderate Muslim" even if nobody dares to say it: he is one who practices the Golden Rule.

We see no distinction in quality between Islamic terrorism and Sharia law: only a distinction in degree.