Personally, I see the citing of moral relativism as a primary cause as logical. I think that many people are not really engaging in logical "problem solving" and typically are not identifying root causes and I see Belien's view as an exception. We have been on this road a long, long, long time now, the roots go way back. The problem most face in seeing that is that because the situation has so accelerated in the last 50-100 years that the drama of that is blinding them to tracing back beyond that to causes of those causes.

Specifically on the moral relativism -- when you have no solid belief in anything, the only thing worth anything to you is your hide and your comfort. That alone is a good enough reason to agree to indirectly participate in the execution of someone that threatens that comfort and hide.

And of course on the surface many muslim beliefs are much like traditional Christian beliefs. Doh. The pagan nutcase modeled his religion on his perverted understanding of the Christians that surrounded him.  But just because someone produces a twisted parody of something doesn't mean the original should be thrown out. Human nature abhors a vacumn -- if you throw out the original it will be replaced. And overwhelming odds are that it is Islam that is going to replace it. And that's why Ayaan Hirsi Ali's approach is part of the long suicide march of Western civilization.

The great irony is that those that hold views closest to hers harbor the segment that is willing to sacrifice her life, while those of us that most strongly disagree with her are under an absolute moral imperative to defend her life.

@ European muslim

What is exactly the point of your 'contribution'?  To illustrate that anybody can 'parrot' what someone else is saying?  Where lies the value in that?

Where do you think the 'liberal' Washington Post gets its information on Belgium?  I use the world "liberal" here in the American sense of 'culturally naive-left worldview', which also translates broadly in 'perverse western self-hatred and moral relativism'.  That clearly applies to the main Belgian media outlets and certainly to that 'Centre' at the University of Ghent.  Alternatively, one could also view it as the 'victory' of ideology over empiricism.

What does empirical observation (actual statistics) teaches, as opposed to ideology?   Well, it teaches that, both in America and Europe, PROPORTIONATELY there are more crimes commited by 'foreigners' against 'locals' than vice versa.  While there is no excuse for any crime, it seems ridiculous then to stick the 'racist label'  on 1 of these crimes and not on all the others.  

But, if you want to give "muslims" a bad name by partaking in these intellectually-dishonest propaganda games, go ahead.  In so doing, however, you are certainly not promoting respect for 'muslims' among serious nonmuslems.  And, if anybody wants to see to what the victory of ideology (including religious ideology) over empiricism in the end leads, all they have to do is to observe the actual 'conditions' of 'la condition humaine' in the muslim world today.  You can only lead a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink.   The same applies to ideological people: you cannot force them to see with their eyes that what contradicts their ideology.   

Many of them blame that atmosphere on Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Interest, a xenophobic and hugely popular separatist party in Flanders, the northern part of Belgium. Members of Van Themsche's family hold prominent positions in the party.

"It was not only a racist murder but a political one, because the guy who did it was from the circles of an extreme right party and was influenced by their ideology," said Meryem Kanmaz, a political scientist at the University of Ghent's Center for Islam in Europe

read the article here:

http://www.minorites.org/article.php?IDA=16468

@ Snorri Godhi

I fear that your "qualification" can only create a lot of confusion, unless perhaps you would explain what you mean by the term "moral relativism".  For my simple purpose here I will define it as (a) a refusal to make moral judgements, (b) a tendency to see moral equivalencies between 'positions' that are manifestly NOT morally equivalent, and/or (c) some combination of a and b.  Neither Americans nor Europeans these days have any great reluctance to make moral judgments (usually of others), so that definition (a) is not relevant here.  But it is clear that contemporary Europeans IN GENERAL are much more likely to explicitly (and more often implicitly) adhere to many absurd moral equivalencies than contemporary Americans do.

Extreme moral relativism remains of course a problem for the whole of western civilisation.  It is the tendency to make absurd moral equivalencies that undermines the willingness to stand up (make concrete sacrifices) for 'own values'.  Indeed, when the latter are just seen as merely 'in conflict' or 'different' - but not morally 'superior' - from competing other values, that there will be toleration of these other values.  That attitude is destructive for the survival of one's own civilisation in the long term, and clearly that problem of moral relativism afflicts Europe today much more than America.

Mobarak Mosque is an Ahmaddiyan mosque, a sect which is not considered "Muslim" by most Muslims.  I'm guessing this is similar to how most Christians see the Mormons. 

I do not think it is right to describe them as "radical", as I think this sect is pretty moderate.  Besides not shaking a women's hand, what radical ideas do they support?

Which radical Jewish group do you refer to? Would the Chief Rabbi in the Netherlands or in Amsterdam shake the Queen's hand?

Islam In Europe

Perhaps it should be clarified that I do think that moral relativism is a problem - in Britain and America. I just do not think that it is much of a problem in continental Europe. This impression is based on talking to people from different parts of the World, mostly academics. If European academics are not relativists, who is a relativist in Europe?

The reason European politicians choose appeasement cannot be reduced to moral relativism. Take Vlaams Belang: the other Belgian parties have an obvious incentive to brand it as "racist"; that does not mean that Belgian voters are moral relativists. Take Ayaan Hirsi Ali: some Dutch politicians have an obvious incentive to ease her out of the country; that does not mean that Dutch voters are relativists.

@ antibureaucratic

It is good that you are not enthralled by "bureaucracy", but that is no 'free pass' for hiding behind politicians.  If politicians tend to appease certain fanatics it is because they think that that is what the public wants them to do.  At least in political systems where politiciams need to get elected from time to time.   And, of course, there are always exceptions.

So, it is the general public's attitudes that are in play here, and that is also where moral relativism comes into the picture.  Why moral relativism has become so widespread in the Netherlands and elsewhere over the past quarter century or so, that is a long story.......

Perhaps Vargas Llosa should ask himself whether the moral relativism of the Dutch, which led to the euthanasia, free drug consumption and gay marriage he applauds, might not have caused the disgraceful attitude of appeasement towards fanatics.

If moral relativism leads to euthanasia, legalization of drugs, and gay marriage, then prohibition of euthanasia, drugs, and gay marriage will not do anything to eliminate moral relativism.  The Netherlands has a tradition of appeasement going back at least to 1940, well before euthanasia etc were legalized.

They also have a tradition of peaceful and prosperous multiculturalism (Protestant, Catholic, Jews, and free thinkers all living together) that stretches back for centuries. Perhaps the problem is not "moral relativism", or perhaps the problem is that relativism has gone too far. I'd think that the welfare state is a bigger problem.