An 'integral' response to Sam Harris on Islam

Balder posted Dustin DiPerna's response to the recent dust up. Too pie in the sky. Michael asks the right question-- "Is there a proven path towards integrally interaction with fundamentalists that is effective?"-- and the answer is no. (See qualification at the end.)

I commented earlier on Fareed Zakaria's response.  His stats, along with Maher's accurate stats, should amply demonstrate to AQALinguists that the majority of Muslims are caught in mythical ethnocentrism. Granted there are more rational Muslims, but they are the exception and do not have a voice in these governments. And Harris said he most certainly supports those voices in building the exact kinds of bridges (aka conveyor belts) needed.
But we have to face the hard facts here. And no amount of AQALiscious theory with little to no experience in building such bridges is helping this situation. Except for perhaps Don Beck, who has actually done some work and achieved some results in this regard in South Africa. But even he is now anathema to the AQALified.

In the US we still have a lot of mythic ethnocentrist Christians. The difference is that our form of government has separation of church and state based on Enlightenment rationality. This is not the case in above Muslim governments. To the degree that this separation is being degraded in the US with the influx of fundamentalist religion into politics and policy is the degree to which we are regressing. Perhaps the AQALified should get busy reestablishing that bridge here at home before we regress all the way back to the Crusades?