Messianic faith in one's own beliefs and way of life is, at best, insufficient to demonstrate its superiority; and at worse can be perhaps the most destructive force in human nature and inevitably demonstrates the bankruptcy of those beliefs.
Hitler thought that way. Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, et al, felt that way. The Crusaders felt that way. The English felt that way when they built their Empire. The Romans felt that way. The Japanese felt that way when the started their half of WWII. Today's Islamic terrorists feel that way.
None of them, except for the English, were pushing a system of representative democracy; and the founding of the British Empire predates the rise of democracy in England and was founded by a monarchy. It's significant that the British began to lose control of their Empire when they installed democracy in their colonies--you can't bind people under even the most noble ideological banner if you do it by force.
Ideological imperialism is particularly repugnant and hypocritical when practiced by a free society, because it runs directly counter to the fundamental principles of such a society. Only a democracy can betray its own principles by engaging in conversion at gunpoint. It's a central theme of Bowser's moral essay that we, as a democracy, must be held to a higher standard. Our own beliefs demand it.
We have a First Amendment to protect freedom of thought as manifested in speech. To suppress thought is a betrayal of our principles; to use coercion to change minds is a betrayal of our principles.
Note this well: Free societies demonstrate their superiority by refraining from wars of ideological conquest.
I leave you with the words of Justice Aharon Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court, writing about Israel's tactics in their war on terror and explaining a judgment disapproving some of those tactics:
‘Our task is difficult,’ he wrote in a brief, eloquent summary. ‘We are members of Israeli society. Although we are sometimes in an ivory tower, that tower is in the heart of Jerusalem, which is not infrequently struck by ruthless terror. We are aware of the killing and destruction wrought by terror against the state and its citizens. As any other Israelis, we too recognize the need to defend the country and its citizens against the wounds inflicted by terror.
‘We are aware that in the short term, this judgment will not make the state’s struggle against those rising up against it easier. But we are judges. When we sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment. We act according to our best conscience and understanding. Regarding the state’s struggle against the terror that rises up against it, we are convinced that at the end of the day, a struggle according to the law will strengthen her power and her spirit. There is no security without law ... We are aware that this decision does make it easier to deal with that reality.
‘This is the destiny of a democracy—she does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual liberties constitute an important aspect of her security stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties. That goes for this case as well. Only a Separation Fence built on a base of law will grant security to the state and its citizens. Only a separation route based on the path of law will lead the state to the security so yearned for.’
<a href="http://www.ariga.com/2004-07-02.shtml>quoted here