<\/a>What if a [limited] Islamic caliphate became a reality? How awful would that be? I don\u2019t know, and I\u2019m having trouble figuring out how to think about that possibility, because this is a topic that, apparently, is not to be discussed. Only war against those wanting a caliphate\u2014ISIL\/ISIS\/Daesh\u2014is on the table. The only option we contemplate is to prevent the establishment of an Islamic state. This topic is the Voldemort of geo-politics.<\/p>\n Oh, wait. There already is an Islamic state in the Middle East: It\u2019s called Saudi Arabia. Like the caliphate that we\u2019re so dead-set against, it is brutal to its citizens. It oppresses women. It beheads its opponents. But we\u2014meaning the U.S. and our allies\u2014tolerate its existence. No, we don\u2019t just tolerate it, we consider Saudi Arabia our ally\u2014mostly because of, you know, the oil. So we sell it weapons and war planes. We had military bases there, until 2003, when Saudi Arabia decided it didn\u2019t want them anymore. We entertain the Saudi royal family at the White House. We handle them with diplomatic kid gloves and give them special privileges, while winking at their abhorrent domestic policies.<\/p>\n Even more hypocrisy: Our “friend” Saudi Arabia is a Sunni Muslim state, which is what our “enemy” ISIS\/ISIL\/Daesh wants, too. Would an ISIS-run state be more brutal and oppressive than the theocracies that we currently tolerate and support? That’s a question that is not being asked–publicly, at least.<\/p>\n Maybe we should consider the possibility of letting a limited caliphate develop\u2014and seeing whether it can stand on its own, or whether it would fail. [Just to clarify, I’m not advocating for the reinstatement of the vast 7th Century caliphate–just as I wouldn’t advocate for a new Christian empire, or an empire based on any religion or politicall ideology.]<\/p>\n We don’t really know how ISIS might behave if it actually had a defined territory to govern full-time, but we have some indicators. One study, published by the Brookings Institution<\/a>, observes that while ISIS has been relatively benevolent in the early stages of its takeover of Mosul, Iraq\u2014establishing a more stable economy, providing full-time electrical power, and offering basic services for free\u2014the honeymoon has not been everlasting. As time has passed, people under the ISIS caliphate have experienced a more brutal enforcement of Islamic law and more oppressive taxation and social policies. We need to ask ourselves if 1) ISIS rule is that much worse than that in other Islamic nations; and 2) Is ISIS rule sustainable, or will it burn itself out and\/or create its own counter-revolution?<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know the answers. But can\u2019t we at least look beyond our own propaganda and talk about it?<\/p>\n And while we\u2019re on the subject of objectionable theocracies, let\u2019s look at some of our own politicians\u2019 pronouncements. It has become a mantra of many fundamentalist-Christina politicians to say that the U.S. is a \u201cChristian nation.\u201d Echoing a sentiment expressed by many right-wingers, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL] recently said:<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cWe are clearly called, in the Bible, to adhere to our civil authorities, but that conflicts with also a requirement to adhere to God\u2019s rules. When those two come in conflict, God\u2019s rules always win. In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin, violate God\u2019s law and sin, if we\u2019re ordered to stop preaching the gospel, if we\u2019re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that. We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, he believes that any Constitutional right given to Americans that he thinks goes against \u201cGod\u2019s rule\u201d should be ignored \u2013 because \u201cGod\u2019s rule\u201d supersedes Constitutional law.<\/p>\n When U.S. politicians use that kind of rhetoric, what right do we have to denounce anybody else\u2019s theocracy, anyway?<\/p>\n