The difference between an ecumenist and a civilizationist

A reader writes:

It just occurred to me what the difference is between you and Daniel Pipes. Your hope is in the recovery of a disintegrating Western Civilization. Pipes’ hope is in Islam becoming assimilated to a robust West. Pipes is doubly deluded.

(I’m assuming that Pipes thinks the West is healthy, because any Westerner would be alarmed at the realization that it’s a wreck, and I don’t see Pipes realizing that.)

LA repies:

Exactly right.

For me, hope is in our waking out of our sleep and seeing that our enemy is our enemy. For Pipes, hope is in our enemy becoming our friend. He places his bets on our enemy. I place my bets on ourselves.

Also, as you said, he assumes (as all assimilationists assume) that the West is basically sound and can assimilate Muslims. I assume that the West is deeply ill and must undergo a radical transformation to return to its true self. He wants Islam to revolutionize itself, and become that which it has never been, moderate. I want the West to revolutionize itself, and become, once again, the West.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 30, 2006 06:15 PM | Send