Here is the pivotal point of the issue. We have been raised to see our ethics as necessarily separated from political realm. The exactly opposite is true in Saudi Arabia. I can be a good Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hare Krishna and exist in a society that does not entirely adhere to and reinforce my religious beliefs (a.k.a. a theocracy). It is my responsibility as an adherent to a religious philosophy to follow the rules of my philosophy, regardless of secular law. If my ethics do not allow me to have an abortion, then I will not have one, despite the legality of this procedure. If my religion bans the consumption of pork and alcohol then it is my responsibility to avoid these items, since I will not suffer a secular penalty for consuming bacon bits and fully kraeusened Old Style.
Why is this so important? Not everyone believes what I believe. While there are important secular laws concerned with murder, assault and some other regulations, our goal is to keep society functioning with these regulations, not enforce a religious standard. This barrier allows for the freedom to express one’s religion to the fullest, and co-exist with others who also want to express their religious beliefs.
Many Muslim countries have no such barrier, and any totalitarian regime worth its salt can use this to cement their power. North Korea, the most atheistic nation on the planet, invented Juche, a code of ethics incorporated into Kimilsungism (no, I didn’t make that term up – it would be difficult to pick something this ludicrous out of the ether) as a way of using an ethical code to enforce a political construct. In a lucky stroke for the power mongers in the Middle-East, the religion of Islam required only adoption, a bit of scholarly manipulation (if you think Islam is solely based on the Koran then you need to do some reading) and strict enforcement to be useful as a political oppression tool.
If this methodology sounds familiar, then you might be a student of European history.
So when the U.S. talks about freedom and liberty, this is most likely seen as an attack on the entrenched power structures built using the shield of adherence to Islam. The ideal way to deflect this ‘American Imperialism’ is to say our assault on intolerance and inequality is in fact an assault on the ancient and utterly permanent strictures of Islam. If a Muslim is convinced that the Crusading Americans, who long ago forsook religion and piety, are busy trying to crush Islam (and not the jackass who uses it to bully and oppress said Muslim) then the United States will never be taken seriously. Indeed, we will be opposed by the sort of irrational hatred that is typically born of threatening deep-seated religious beliefs.
When President Obama makes his speech in Cairo this should be first and foremost in his mind. The United States can apologize all it wants for past wrongs, but if true political and social freedom are not embraced in the Middle-East, then all he’s ever going to do there is stroke some egos with his self-recriminations. Then he will return to Washington, where he will have to decide how to handle the next war we have with Muslim theocracy.
