The increasing influence of fundamentalism in the world's major religions seems almost a sign of the times. Islam with its doctrinaire Wahhabist schools and Christianity with its evangelical revivalism aren't the only faiths in which large numbers of believers are turning to faith based literalism. It is happening also in Hinduism with the increasing influence of Shaivite and Vaishnava fundamentalism. It can even be found in branches of Buddhism, such as the Japanese Nichiren sect. The Tibetan New Kadampa Tradition, also arguably exhibits the control and identity compulsions associated with fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is separatist and oppositional in nature. In the case of Islam there are voices that propose a less radical interpretation of their religion. Some of these thinkers embrace secularism and see it not as the enemy of their religion, but as an equalizer guaranteeing the rights of all.

One such is Soheib Bencheikh, the former Grand Mufti of Marseilles.

Bencheikh was born in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in 1961. He graduated in Islamic theology at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He holds a Doctorate in Religious Sciences from the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris, and in 1995 was nominated Grand Mufti of Marseilles. He is also a member of Conseil Francais du Culte Musulman (Council of French Muslims).

I came across an interview with Bencheikh on the Liberal Islam Network. The interview took place while he was on a trip to Indonesia. I have decided to include excerpts from the interview in this post. Some passages have been edited lightly to improve comprehension since the online English translation is at times is a little challenging.


What is your personal view with regard to secularism?

To me, secularism is not a complicated philosophy. In France, laicite is neither religion nor ideology. It is a simple idea concerning administrative neutrality in managing relations between the state and religion. Once a state declares itself a secular state, it must give every citizen freedom to accept religion or not. In a more concrete sense, secularism is the separation between state and religion. It benefits both religion and the state.

What about theocratic or semi-secular countries?

In countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and other Arab countries there is no hope for an overhaul. The task of these states seems bent on one thing, and that is safeguarding the sacredness of religion and the power of authority. They only want to preserve conservative and backward religiosity and utilize it to maintain their power.

Why do you advocate secularism?

As a Muslim, I can practice Islam proudly in France under the authority of the secular state.

The French constitution guarantees the sustainability of secularism, including protection of the rights of individuals and minorities. Therefore, I suggest that anyone who mocks secularism should live in France and America for about five years. I believe they will prove that secularism protects them from shallow religious sentiments.

The opponents of secularism perceive it as something more than administrative neutrality. They see secularism as an ideology that marginalizes and eliminates religion. What do you think?

It’s a big lie to say that secularism will marginalize religion. Secularism is simply about the administration of the state, therefore it will not be easily influenced by religious sentiments. In the west, it is up to you to embrace a religion or not. One’s obedience or disobedience is a private matter between the believer and god. This is different from what happens in the Arab countries, the secular as well as the theocratic ones.

In Saudi Arabia or Algeria, I feel that the inquisitorial institutional ethos surrounds me. Hence, my prayer, my worship, my life and death isn't for God. Everything I do, is done for the institution that spies upon my every movement and observance. Everything we do is not for God, but for maintaining the authoritarian control and its positive image before the public.

Advocates of the Islamic state claim that the establishment of the Islamic state will guarantee minority rights far better than the secular state does. What do you think?

How can we eliminate the concept of ahlu dzimmah (the protection of non-Muslims in Muslim countries with certain concessions, ed)? Frankly speaking, I and most of the Muslims in France have never wanted to be ahlu dzimmah in relation to the French Catholic majority. We always want to be French citizens whose rights are equal with any other legal citizens. The advocates of the religious state forget that religious barriers have melted in many ways. You can find a Christian Indonesian and a Muslim Swede who live in the same modern secular state. If this positive achievement develops, we will find a state where the majority does not claim special powers just because it is a majority.

You seem to dream about the assimilation of cultures rather than a clash between civilizations. Is this a realistic idea?

Actually, a clash of civilizations does not exist in reality. What happens everywhere is a clash between open groups (munfatihin) and closed ones (munghaliq). There is no clash between West and East. We must remember that the first voice that condemned the American invasion of Iraq was the late Pope John II, while the first who closed his eyes about this tragedy was Sheikh al-Azhar.

Some Muslims think that the ban on wearing veils - niqab (face veil in which woman’s eyes are visible) or burqa (veil covering the whole face) in several Western countries, is an example of the Western secular state’s confrontation with Islam. Is there a clash of values between Muslims in the west and Western culture in general?

My view of civilization as an Arab-Muslim isn't based on the obligation to wear a headscarf, or the niqab and burqa. I have abandoned shallow ideas about standards of civilization based on such artificial matters. I dream about civilization that preserves morality.

The Qu'ranic prescription to "draw their veils over their bosoms" was meant for Arab rural and nomadic women who were already veiled in early Islam but left their bosoms exposed. Hence, we must understand that the verse requires Muslims to dress in a modest fashion.

So, you do not regard this as primary Islamic teaching?

Everyone knows that this matter is not a primary Islamic teaching because it is not one of the five pillars of Islam nor one of the six pillars of Iman. It is a branch of Islamic injunctions, namely to behave decently. Furthermore, there are many ways to behave decently in the modern era. For the nomadic Arab women, the way of obtaining respect and honor was based on the physical aspect. But most Muslim women in France and England today place the emphasis on attaining as much knowledge and expertise as possible.

Do you think that supporters of wearing the niqab and burqa in Western countries have failed to adjust to Western Islamic culture?

In general, they have difficulty interacting positively with contemporary civilization. A French intellectual who wrote a lot about Islam, Roger Garaudy, reminded Muslims about the necessity to free themselves from Islamic Saudinization (masyru`us sa’wadatil Islam). He observed that this tendency arises among many Muslims. To my way of thinking, it would be very miserable if the clash with the West came down to issues of the headscarf and niqab, rather than substantial issues.

Are you frustrated with Muslims’ failure to adapt Islam to local traditions?

Adjustment is our right. What's the point in coercing French Muslims to apply a particular prototype of Islam, which will keep them alienated from the French cultural milieu? They have the right to determine their own Islam ala French, with certain minimum requirements such as belief in God and the prophecy of Muhammad. Why should they change their names to Arabic ones or change their dress? Abu Bakr, Omar, Khadija and Ayesha did not change their names when they embraced Islam.

It is not necessary to create a separation between Eastern and Western civilization. These boundaries were determined by European countries in the colonial era - which Edward Said referred to as imaginary geographic boundaries. Talking about the roots of Islamic classical thought, we find philosophy that originated from Greek, state administration from Persian tradition, the adoption of ‘urf principle (adat/tradition) from the Roman law. That is civilization, which we share in common.

Are you concerned on the rise of ideological Islam in France?

I am worried about the prototype of Islam which most young French Muslims adhere to nowadays. They waste their time by adhering to an understanding of Islam, which impedes them from building better social relationships with their neighbors. They waste their time by discussing the length of beards, the size of trousers etc.

They forget that the prophet Muhammad utilized the best things in his period just as we should in the modern era. In order to honor the Prophetic tradition, we must not act discordantly in the present day, particularly in pointless matters. Muslims must not deviate from the existing social order.

In my dealings with young extremist Muslims, some dialogues ended in a deadlock, some had more positive outcomes. I advised French decision makers to be wise when dealing with these young people. I explained that their attitude didn't derive from their deep understanding of Islam, but from their shallow understanding. They weren't immune to the virus of fanaticism. They invited fundamentalist Muslims to teach them about Islam and that is why they failed to build positive social relationships with French society and became marginalized.

Periodically researchers raise concerns about the health impact of chemicals in commercially produced food and drink. While some scientists play down the risk factor, others warn of the cumulative effect when certain products are consumed in excess, or regularly over a protracted time period. However it's not always easy for the average consumer to get accurate information about potential dangers because industries have their own testing procedures and spin doctors in some cases, ready and willing to challenge negative findings.

Unlike microbiological agents, chemical contaminants in commercial food and drink are unaffected by thermal processing. Aside from known contaminants, researchers also include so-called "emerging food contaminants" such as benzene, perchrorate, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) furan and others.

There is good reason to look more carefully at what we eat and drink these days. While there may be debate about the health hazards of additives, there is no debating the fact that we are absorbing more chemicals in combination. A chemical ingested alone in minute quantities isn't as much of a hazard as the combined effect, even when the amounts ingested are very low. The London School of Pharmacy did some research on this and it found that low doses of different chemicals work together to create a 'significant combination'.

Not all of the chemicals found in food products are added during the preparation process. Dutch researchers found that chemicals get into our food from both packaging sources and the environment. Their research uncovered an odd pot pourri of unintentional additives such as pesticides, flame retardants and phthalate chemical compounds present in plastics.

More alarming is the recent claim by a researcher in the UK that preservatives found in fizzy drinks of the pop variety, have the ability to interfere with DNA functioning. The main concern is focused on E211, or sodium benzoate, generally used as a preservative.

Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology at Sheffield University, tested sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in the lab. He discovered that the benzoate damaged DNA in the cells known as mitochondria. He described the damage as "severe" to the point where the DNA is inactivated - completely shuts down.

An additional concern, is evidence of benzene contamination in soft drinks. A test conducted by Beverage Daily revealed that in some drinks benzene levels were as much as five times over the limit set by the World Health Organization for drinking water. The Times of London reported in 2006 that only 100 of 230 soft drinks tested for benzene met the standard for UK water. Some of the drinks high in benzene were as much as eight times over the limit. Even bottles of reputedly pristine Perrier water were discovered not so long ago with unacceptably high levels of benzene, something the company put down to a production glitch.

How you might ask does benzene end up in commercial drinks? Well it doesn't. The sodium or potassium benzoate, used as a preservative in drinks, forms benzene when it interacts with ascorbic acid (vitamin C) . This chemical reaction is accelerated when the drink is exposed to light or heat.

Part of the problem is the wide range of results recorded in the various tests. This introduces an elevated risk factor which is disguised since consumers have no way of knowing if the drink they purchase contains unacceptably high benzene levels. FDA testing confirms this wide range in results. In tests conducted on 100 beverages in 2006, the FDA reported low levels in most drinks but with two showing levels as much as 15-18 times above the drinking water standard.

Although benzene is a known cancer causing carcinogen, these findings should kept in context. We breathe in benzene during a stroll down a city street and while filling up at a gas station. It is present in cigarette smoke - also in food and water in tiny amounts. The risk factor though is particularly tricky to assess with soft drinks as witnessed by the variability of the test results and the difficulty of establishing a standard across the board. The risk also fairly obviously relates to the type of drink preferred and the quantity consumed. If a young person has developed the habit of drinking copious amounts of pop, this presents a higher risk than the occasional drink. In one study a boy who had experienced excessive weight gain admitted to drinking as many as seven to ten cans of pop a day.

Aside from hazards associated with preservatives, there are other health risks linked to soft drink consumption. A Yale study determined that consumption of soft drinks is associated with increased caloric intake, elevated body weight, decrease in calcium and other nutrients, and increased risk of Type 2 diabetes.

The Yale report also points out that studies funded by the food industry were less likely to show detrimental effects from the consumption of soft drinks than studies that receive no industry funding - no surprise there.

Western societies have become body-image obsessed to an extraordinary degree. Body image as presented by ultra slim models, image consultants and fashion gurus leaves the impression that you can never be quite hot enough.

More people than ever are opting for cosmetic surgery. Being overweight, bald-by-nature rather than choice, or God forbid having the odd missing tooth, amounts to a sort of fashion crime. The quest to get as close to implausible perfection as possible, drives some people to extremes that a couple of decades ago would have been unimaginable.

Increasing numbers of women are even beginning to pay closer attention to the aesthetics of yes ... their vaginas. Vaginas are now being subjected to the same aesthetic judgment as long noses, large stomachs and receding hairlines. It's now possible to undergo procedures that offer a "designer vagina" and there is no shortage of clients.

We're not talking here about sex reassignment surgery. Transsexual and transgendered people, often find surgery very helpful. Patients in this category can benefit from procedures such as hysterectomy for example. Nor are we talking about women who have legitimate medical issues. No we are talking about women who for purely aesthetic reasons have decided to undergo what might best be described as 'vanity' surgery.

Some of the women who sign up for genitoplasty come armed with print-outs of female porn stars to provide the surgeon with a sort of illustrated guide of the preferred look. These procedures are undertaken by women who for whatever reason, have issues with the appearance of their private parts and feel the need to take drastic measures. In most cases the surgery involves reduction of the size of the labia, the removal of skin surrounding the clitoris and even the shortening of the length of the vagina.

Women who are contemplating these procedures should be aware that there are risks involved. Genitoplasty has been known to cause nerve damage and in some cases has inhibited normal erogenous response patterns. There are additional concerns also with respect to long term effects of this type of surgery.

Clinics that offer "labial reduction" even have ads that can be viewed on the internet by clients who are shopping around for the best option. Much like diet clinic ads or hair replacement ads, there are before-and-after shots comparing clients' 'challenged' vaginas with the new and improved streamlined versions.

Is it really about the receding hairline, the paunchy midriff or aesthetically iffy vagina in the end? When you get to know someone and appreciate their qualities as a human being, does a little more here, or a little less there really matter? It's one thing to be the best you can be, but this shouldn't require that people put themselves through hoops in order to conform to unreasonable 'ideals' presented by the fashion industry.

Well publicized criminal cases and investigative studies dealing with exploitative labor practices leave little doubt that forms of modern slavery exist in Western societies. Experts believe it is on the increase. Hardly surprising when you consider the vast pool of potential victims, ease of international travel and the incentives to make use of cheap labor.

In poorly regulated businesses with shady hiring practices and sub-standard work conditions exploitation of workers is fairly common. Garment sweatshops, the hospitality and agricultural industries, are sectors where this type of practice is most common and we're seeing more of this in the States and elsewhere.

A lot of this activity flies under the radar and is under-reported. So when a high profile case hits the headlines, it attracts attention. A recent bizarre case in New York paints a scenario that is more common than most people would like to believe.

Varsha and Murlidhar Sabhnani, naturalized US citizens from India, described in some press reports as "millionaire perfume tycoons" have been indicted on slavery charges. They are accused of keeping two Indonesian women as slaves in their New York home.

The women were allegedly starved, beaten and subjected to a variety of cruel and unusual punishments that ranged from having boiling water thrown at them to being forced to repeatedly climb the stairs. The Sabhnanis deny the charges.

The women, identified in court as Samirah and Nona, arrived in the US legally in 2002. Shortly after their arrival, the Sobhnanis confiscated their passports. An agreement to pay the women for domestic work appears to have been a hollow promise - federal prosecutors claim the money was never given to either woman directly.

This sordid little affair came to light, when one of the 'slaves' escaped while taking out the garbage. She was discovered wondering around the streets attired in only pants and a towel. Both women are presently being cared for by a charity organization.

Ed Husain's new book The Islamist is well worth a read.

Husain grew up in the UK in a family of devout Sufi Muslims. He got involved with a variety of Muslim youth organizations, and eventually ended up a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) - a Sunni pan-Islamist party with the stated aim of creating a caliphate uniting the disparate elements of the Muslim world. He was a recruiter for a period and describes the work of the organization as attempting to "mobilize the Muslim masses" in the UK.

In addition to being an author, Husain is also a PhD student at the School of Oriental and African Studies. A change of path that isn't as unusual as you may think. Quite a few young activists make the transition to a life less defined by radicalism. It's just that unlike Ed, they haven't had the opportunity to share their story with the public.

While acknowledging a hardline Muslim culture exists in many communities in the UK, Husain also points out that significant changes have occurred since the 90's. He refers to a new form of Islam, that is more spiritual and less political. There is a small, but developing trend in Islam to move toward a more private and spiritual expression of the religion.

Husain's book has irked a few on the left who don't like the nod given to Tony Blair's policies. Nor do they go along with Husain's tendency to dismiss cries of Islamophobia as a ploy on the part of the Islamic leadership to obtain special concessions.

The problem with a good deal of the rhetoric that presents Islam as a threat to Europe, is that much of it is alarmist and exaggerated. The rhetoric coming from some circles on the right makes use of selective evidence in order to scare up a reaction. The constant refrain from these forums is unvarying in its negativity. With Chicken Little conviction they warn that "the Muslims are coming ... the Muslims are coming".

A number of right wing forums cite rape stats from countries such as Sweden and Norway. Some of the figures indicate that a disproportionate number of rapists are of immigrant origin. These stats are offered up, not to generate discussion about possible causes, but in an effort to instill the conviction that civilization is under threat.

Some pundits go so far as to argue that Muslim males conspire to sexually assault unveiled western women because they view such women are guilty of violating Islamic standards. There may be some truth to this in a tiny minority of cases, but such rationales tend to be offered as an alibi by perpetrators after-the-fact. Most of these guys aren't convincing in the role of zealots on rape missions. Many immigrants only identify passively with Islam (quite a number rarely darken the door of a mosque). A percentage of immigrants who face unemployment are alienated from the greater society and some may even believe they have nothing much to lose.

Not so long ago, a young woman in Sweden was savagely gang raped by immigrants of Somali origin. The victim happened to be a fair haired Caucasian. When she reported the rape, a photograph was taken showing her face and hair streaked with blood. It was seized upon by a number of conservative pundits as evidence of barbaric assaults being committed against the women of Europe by immigrant Muslims.

The attempt to appropriate an atrocity of this sort as symbol, is typical of the attitude that drives hardline conservative thinking, bent and determined as it is to wake up sleeping demons and stir up reaction. It's not unlike the whipping up of communal rage back in Jim Crow days in the southern States. In that era white victims of 'racial rape' were routinely objectified in an effort to paint the African male as a degenerate sex demon. Behind a lot of the alarmist photographs and commentary, there is the meta-message that Muslims are the primary suspects - predators and assassins lurking in our midst, just waiting for their opportunity to strike.

You almost never see any posts on these forums that take time to explore the day-to-day realities of Muslim communities in Europe, the struggle of individuals to adapt. Nor are they inclined much to talk about Muslims who have defected to a more secular lifestyle, or those who have defected to the enemy - become Christian. Why not? Well because none of that caters to the central motivation, which is to demonize and cast the Muslim immigrant as 'other.'

Those who create a stockade mentality in some cases lose touch with reality. The views of such people are preconditioned by their prejudices. Everything is a conspiracy. People of goodwill who seek to reach out across the divide are regarded as fools, ostriches, traitors. The stockade mentality is defined by hubris and defiance. Naturally their prejudices are re-enforced by their experiences, because when you traffic in negativity that's what you can expect to get back in return. It's a closed-circuit world they live in, where the only messages received are the ones that confirm their version of reality.

I'm unclear what these crusading pundits are defending exactly. Militant Christendom of the crusading ilk exists mainly in the imaginations of people who adhere to a view of European civilization that is rooted in the past and heading for the twilight. The hyper reactionary tendencies in countries like Poland and among groups of nationalist fanatics will not lead to some latter-day revival of an identity that has long since become an anachronism.

The increasing paranoia in response to the growing Muslim presence, evokes memories of the xenophobia that kicked in as the whispers about the Jews back in the pre-WW2 period built to a loud roar. The Jews had less of a demographic presence, but no less clout in terms of their perceived wealth and influence. All of it of course regarded as nefarious and deeply suspect in the mind of the mob. Some alarmists these days are feeding the same beast and heading blindly down a path of unseen consequence. At a minimum, this is irresponsible.

Europe needs bodies. It needs babies. The argument that the birth rate is falling, often conveniently overlooks the children born to Muslim immigrants since they are viewed as a sort of pediatric fifth column. Little attention is given to the fact that Muslim youths are by and large a lot more secular than their parents and grandparents.

Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, a devout young woman who is hoping to be the first female Muslim to take a seat in the Folketing, the Danish parliament, is a self-declared feminist. Moreover she supports abortion rights, has gay friends, opposes the death penalty and claims she couldn't care less what goes on in people's bedrooms. Of course predictably the right refuses to cut her any slack and view her as a puppet for the evil machinations of Islamists. All of which is a little too simplistic, because no matter who is pulling her strings, if elected she will be compelled to adapt to the protocols that govern Danish politics and will in no sense have it all her own way. Isn't this what democracy is about?
 

The European Muslim community is becoming increasingly diverse. There is a trend among some Muslims in the west and parts of the the Middle East to view religion as a private concern.
For proof that Islam is adapting to changing circumstances, you need look no further than Turkey. The Islamic based Justice and Development Party (AKP) has driven more Western style reforms in that country than Turkish secular administrations. Abdullah Gul, the Foreign Minister, is a great favorite with the Europeans. In fact many observers of the Turkish scene, regard the old style secularists with roots in the reforms of Mustafa Kemal aka 'Ataturk' as moribund and backward in their thinking.

To say that the interface between secular Europe and Islam hasn't produced change within the immigrant Muslim community is to be willfully blind. Many positive developments are going on, and the process of adaptation and integration will be hastened if a positive pro-active approach takes precedence over the paranoid view that Muslim participation entails a takeover of 'Christendom.' Americans of all people should know this. It wasn't long ago that the Catholic Irish were regarded as the threat within. Signs bearing the cautionary words "no Irish need apply" appeared in windows in some quarters. Back then if you suggested that a Catholic of Irish lineage could be elected President, they would have thought you were nuts. Yet now the Catholic Irish are front and center in American life, and all of that paranoia and hype has been long forgotten.

Muslims suffer and bleed like the rest of us. If they believe they are being treated like barbarians at the gate, a minority may resort to militant strategies. This isn't a trait only peculiar to Muslims. The fastest way to destroy hope is to fall back on a knee jerk "them and us" mentality that appropriates neutral ground in the name of a war of civilizations.

Religious authority figures don't have immunity when it comes to being made the butt of comedians' humor. Witness the jibes directed at the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, the mockery aimed at Anglicans - especially with respect to the issue of the ordination and marital rights of gays. Almost never do you hear anyone call comedians who take a dig at any of the above "terrorists."

Seems the Vatican though can't take a joke. What can be done onto others, can't be done onto them without "terrorism" being invoked.

At a recent May Day rally in Italy, a comedian named Andrea Rivera made a few jokes at the pope's expense... jokes that were mild by the standards of most stand-up routines. The Vatican reacted with a broadside fired by its newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, which likened the remarks of Rivera to terrorism.

Aren't Christians supposed to turn the other cheek?

Here are a couple of the offending remarks and you can decide for yourself if this gets close to anything you would even remotely describe as terrorism :

Rivera: "The Pope doesn't believe in evolution. I agree, in fact the church has never evolved."

Rivera: "I can't stand the fact that the Vatican refused a funeral for Welby but that wasn't the case for Pinochet or Franco" -

Piergiorgio Welby suffered from muscular dystrophy and after much suffering decided to have his respirator switched off.

If this type of commentary amounts to "terrorism" then the implication is that you can't engage in any satirical criticism of the church in Italy without being smeared. Since when did the church become proctor of what goes on among teens at a May Day rally? Is it really any of their business, even if they are the target of a few gags by a comedian?

In the course of a recent liberal bashing column that appeared on the National Review Online, Thomas Sowell casually dropped the following ...

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

A number of Sowell's fellow conservatives have been less than impressed with this casual reference to a coup d'etat. Professor Bainbridge describes Sowell's comment as "absurd". The prof also wondered out loud on his blog if a coup in the US would actually have any chance of succeeding.

A coup d'etat in the US wouldn't be easy. The country is vast and decentralized. Moreover you are dealing with a populace that is armed and resourceful, quite capable of mounting formidable localized resistance. States like Idaho and Texas could mount large private militias. In the cities gangs that are already armed to the teeth might set aside turf disputes to confront what would likely be regarded as the "fascists" in Washington.

What is of more concern than hypothetical coup scenarios, is the very real take-over of the military by people who share hard line ideological objectives. Not all of these people wear a uniform, many are administrators and officials. An ideological 'coup' of a sort is already underway - only 7% of military personnel describe themselves as liberal. Republicans rule the roost.

The military could become increasingly discontent with a civilian leadership that doesn't reflect its values and seek to affect the political process. This doesn't amount to a coup, but it could certainly pose a threat to constitutional rights and freedoms.

The religious right in the US is staunchly pro-military. Increasingly they view the military as a bastion of values that represent 'true American values' rather than what they are seeing in the media and on the street. It is this increasingly sharp division that is one of the more dangerous aspects of the culture wars that have been raging over the past few years.

Richard Gere is a great actor and has done some excellent work to raise awareness about the situation facing the Tibetan Dharamsala-based government and the plight of Tibetan exiles. But what was he thinking when he bent Bollywood star, Shilpa Shetty, over backwards at an AIDS awareness event in New Delhi and proceeded to kiss ... nuzzle ... what appears to be her cheek and carotid artery?

He claims the maneuver was a parody of a scene in his movie "Shall We Dance." A parody some 4,000 Indian truckers present in the audience would be sure to get right away of course.

Indian sensibilities are all over the map when it comes to displays of this sort. On the one hand you have a progressive urban class who are unlikely to care one way or the other. But the country is also home to religious extremists, who burn things and even kill people when something sets them off.

The incident was greeted with loud complaints from Hindu hard-liners. A judge in Jaipur went so far as to issue an arrest warrant for Gere and Shetty for violating obscenity laws. What Gere should have been thinking before he took his puckered-up lunge is that being a local girl, Shetty will have to deal with any fall-out long after his return to the US.

These seemingly minor events can assume a symbolic importance that far exceeds their actual significance. Considering how far it has gone already, it's reasonable to assume that it will be a while before Shetty is out of the shadow of the controversy.

Gere's next mistake was apologizing a lot, and explaining himself a lot. Once the deed is done, no amount of apologizing alters underlying perceptions and certainly not ingrained prejudices. Apologies may in fact lend unwarranted moral justification to the cranks behind the complaints, who are probably very gratified to know that the big American star began groveling after they resorted to rioting and effigy burning.

Mainstream media in India didn't give any appearance of going off the deep end on the issue. The Times of India described the judicial warrant issued by the Jaipur judge as an attempt to create "cheap publicity" and a former attorney general, Soli Sorabjee, claimed it was far fetched to try and characterize the kiss as "obscene".