I support both sides here, to a degree. Our imperialist/interventionist/neocon foreign policy has us meddling in parts of the world where we have no business being whatsoever. For example, our President responded to the Sandy Hook shootings by repeatedly stating that if something can be done to “save one child’s life,” we should do it. If you’re in a place like Pakistan or Yemen—where U.S. drone strikes have killed or maimed far more children than died in Connecticut—how could you not be infuriated by that? The United States cares about its own children. Your
children are just “collateral damage.”
On the other hand, I am highly suspect of Islam, and I think the West should be much more circumspect in dealing with Islamic immigrants. The religion appears to be amenable to violence to an extent that other religions abandoned centuries ago, and I oppose any religion on principle that also claims the right to control secular life or be the basis of the legal and judicial system. That is nothing more than a sort of religious fascism. I have no problems with someone practicing Islam or any other religion, but I also expect that person to adhere to Western cultural and legal traditions like the free press, freedom of speech, and the separation of church and state. It is neither legal nor reasonable for Muslims living in the West to demand a heckler’s veto
over anything that offends the religious sensibilities of the most sensitive among them.