Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ain't it grand?

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0861ff3eabea1ceb73e4

Would you care to explain for those whose access is blocked.

I'm reminded of a joke:
A boy and his father are standing at a monument. He asks his father what it is for.

"Well, son. Back in '09, a muslim extremist carried some anthrax into the US and made a lot of people very sick, many of them died. This is a monument to the dead people."

"Dad?"
"Yes, son?"
"What's a muslim?"
(the inference being that they are now an extinct sect).

I find extremism (of any kind) to be offensive. Whether it is the religious fundamentalism, or the scientific fundamentalism of what's-his-name.

Still, can't expect more than 14th century thinking from someone whose culture stayed there.

"My Toxins, they are killing you!"

In all seriousness, this misguided nutter is almost certainly all mouth no trousers. If they had the capability to inflict this kind of harm on the United States you can bet they wouldn't be talking about it in front of a large audience and cameras. Lets not forget that we in the west have our fair share of nutcases who will spout hateful nonsense on TV at any given opportunity.

I also think that if they had the ability to do things such as this they would not be talking about it at a press confrence.

And for my weird part of the post,the anthrax that killed people in America was the aims strain(not sure how its spelled)which is really only controlled and made be the American bio-defense labs.Hows that for conspiracy.

Yes the antrax was from a disgruntled American. America does more harm to itself yearly than they could ever hope to inflict. Oh, and the islam faith isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

sexiest_hero wrote:Oh, and the islam faith isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Moors the pity...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Moors the pity...

Its not the 99% of normal Muslims who just want to go about their daily lives that are the issue, its the 1% of nutters for whom it is simply not enough for them to be a practicing Muslim. The whole world must bow to their whim and the world of their god mush be spread, by the sword if necessary.

just as...

Its not the 99% of normal Christians who just want to go about their daily lives that are the issue, its the 1% of nutters for whom it is simply not enough for them to be a practicing Christian. The whole world must bow to their whim and the world of their god mush be spread, by the sword if necessary.

and so an and so on.

LuciusAR wrote:
Its not the 99% of normal Muslims who just want to go about their daily lives that are the issue, its the 1% of nutters for whom it is simply not enough for them to be a practicing Muslim. The whole world must bow to their whim and the world of their god mush be spread, by the sword if necessary.

just as...

Its not the 99% of normal Christians who just want to go about their daily lives that are the issue, its the 1% of nutters for whom it is simply not enough for them to be a practicing Christian. The whole world must bow to their whim and the world of their god mush be spread, by the sword if necessary.

and so an and so on.

This

Well, other than the pun I was using there...

Islam, as a social grouping, needs a wakeup call. Even those nations within the muslim world that we in the west regard as allies or at least less hostile, are still sentencing young women to be buried up to their necks in sand and having them stoned to death because of witchcraft
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7244579.stm

or as I recently read, allowing in a national court of law, the marrying of an 8yr old girl to a middle aged man as a write off to a debt by her father.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/23/saudi-arabia-human-rights

We have Islamic fathers within this country contracting 'honour killing' of their own daughters for doing crazy things like... choosing their own husband or wanting an education. I took a taxi home the other night and the muslim driver was happily telling me how the women of the UK were filthy whores and needed to be taught a lesson, intimating that physical violence by the spouse should be the solution.

When you look back at how enlightened and learned the Islamic world once was, we were once the barbarians howling at the gates, the reverse is entirely the truth now, principally due to their own moderates and liberals not standing up to or resisting their own extremists but rather tolerating them over the 'outsiders'. Islam is regressing, constantly lashing out at any others around it and then looking all shocked and hurt when it's more powerful but patient neighbours finally snap and retaliate.

Fine for some hook handed hate peddler masquerading as a man of god to march through our streets demanding that we should all be murdered for our evil ways of tolerance and education, heavens portent anyone dares challenge it, cos that's racism.

No it ain't, I couldn't give two gaks about the colour of someone's skin, I do give two gaks about them trying to murder my civil rights and subjugate the people I know and love.

And how is this any different to the Crazy cult compounds the Feds have to raid every few years in an effor to save little children, or that whole Waco texas Incident, or the christan witchcraft trails ending in burnings, hanging, drowing, being drawn and quarted. Domestic violence in the United states are just as bad/worse than plenty of other places. Women work the streets under pimps,wived and thier little girls get abused.

"Fine for some hook handed hate peddler masquerading as a man of god to march through our streets demanding that we should all be murdered for our evil ways of tolerance and education."

Welcome to being a Democrat in the Bible belt. You get a free straw to suck it up and move on.

"cos that's racism"

Because it is. Claiming that one group of men, is any more violent or any religion is move violent is silly. Man-kind as a whole has done pretty monsterous things.


"I do give two gaks about them trying to murder my civil rights and subjugate the people I know and love."

That's what they say they are fighing for too, ironic.

If the gorilla-esque chest thumping going on in that vid was any more intense, there would be a collapsed lung there. Or two. Sheez. I wonder why this gets put out on international media...are they all competing to be on top of the target pile? Or is it a big reality show competition like Who Is The Most Outrageous Plotter?

Modquisition on:
Lets keep this topic clear of impugning a specific religion (or lack thereof). Discussion of fundamentalism, terrorism, and pizzaism is ok (I guess until someone tells me otherwise) but lets keep it clear of targetting a specific religion.

sexiest_hero wrote:"cos that's racism"

Because it is. Claiming that one group of men, is any more violent or any religion is more violent is silly. Man-kind as a whole has done pretty monstrous things.

Islam isn't a race. There are Arabs, Indians, Indonesians, sub-Saharans, and many other racial groups that have a many Muslim members. Plus the Muslims who aren't from any of those groups.

I think you'd have to be covering your eyes and ears to not notice the difference between the Christian dominated countries in North America and Western Europe, and the Muslim dominated countries in the Middle East. I highly doubt this is inherent to the religions themselves; as said, the Middle East used to be the civilized world, while Christian Europe were uneducated, violent, extremists. It's an issue of fundamentalism, even the generally "religious" United States has laws that prohibit the government from favoring any religion. Meanwhile the massive amount of fundamentalists in the Middle East have the government in the palm of their hands, if they aren't already the government in it's entirety.

It sounds very nice to say that "99% of Muslims are moderate and 1% are fanatic, just like Christians," but it's just not true. Sorry, it's not. It's a politically correct little soundbite, that does not reflect the reality of the Middle East. Do you really think it's 1% of the population that wants to prohibit women from walking in public or wants to have people able to sell their daughters? That's how the laws are made. If it's only 1% of the population calling out for those laws, the other 99% sure is pretty passive, don't you think?

The reality of it is, the amount of fundamentalists and extremists is, in this decade, higher in the Middle East than it is in the West, and they are less opposed in the countries they're in. Now, I'm not saying all Muslims are fanatics, I'm not even saying the majority of them are, but there is a significant amount of fanatics going largely unopposed in the Middle East, and because of this the laws of Middle Eastern countries are far more centered on religious dogma and values than any Western country. America is far from perfect, but our laws and culture do not have the same degree of violence, misogyny, or intolerance that the laws and culture of the Middle East, as a whole, does have.

You do Muslims a disservice to act like this is the normal behavior of "another culture", an intrinsic part of their religion, or an insignificant problem.

(Also, why can't we have a thread largely centered on Islam? Most of our religious threads are largely centered on Christianity.)

I'll answer the last. The other threads deteriorate to discussing Christianity. Whether I agree or disagree I'm trying to avoid a thread hammering any specific religion or belief system.

Ah. I suppose that makes sense.

I'm not trying to hammer Islam here myself, I only mean to point out how fundamentalist Islam is having a far greater effect on the Middle East than fundamentalist Christianity is having on America/Western Europe.

Thats a true statement.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
It sounds very nice to say that "99% of Muslims are moderate and 1% are fanatic, just like Christians," but it's just not true. Sorry, it's not. It's a politically correct little soundbite, that does not reflect the reality of the Middle East. Do you really think it's 1% of the population that wants to prohibit women from walking in public or wants to have people able to sell their daughters? That's how the laws are made. If it's only 1% of the population calling out for those laws, the other 99% sure is pretty passive, don't you think?

The nations with those laws aren't democracies. In most instances they are kingdoms, with a couple dictatorial republics thrown in for good measure. Public opinion has far less meaning in such a situation. That said, if enough people thought ill of a practice it would change. But they don't, which isn't really surprising given that opposing something you don't like in a monarchical state is far more difficult than doing the same in democratic/republican one. Especially a monarchical state which shows little interest in what transpires outside of the public sphere. Its a choice between wearing a bur'qa while watching your neighbors do stupid things to one another, and fighting. Which one sounds more palatable?

Orkeosaurus wrote:
The reality of it is, the amount of fundamentalists and extremists is, in this decade, higher in the Middle East than it is in the West, and they are less opposed in the countries they're in.

I'd say that only the latter is true. It also isn't surprising given the general lack of available resources, and resultant dependency on state largess.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Now, I'm not saying all Muslims are fanatics, I'm not even saying the majority of them are, but there is a significant amount of fanatics going largely unopposed in the Middle East, and because of this the laws of Middle Eastern countries are far more centered on religious dogma and values than any Western country. America is far from perfect, but our laws and culture do not have the same degree of violence, misogyny, or intolerance that the laws and culture of the Middle East, as a whole, does have.

True. Though it is worth remembering that the level of tolerance we have come to enjoy is a very recent component of the legal system. As in the last 40 years or so.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
You do Muslims a disservice to act like this is the normal behavior of "another culture", an intrinsic part of their religion, or an insignificant problem.

But it is an insignificant problem due to its intractability. We cannot change Muslim culture, we are not Muslims. All we can do is work to prevent that culture from doing us harm. A fact which takes us down an entirely different line of argumentation.

However you have to correctly assess what is "Muslim culture." Prior to the ascendancy of petrodollar fuelled wahhabiism, there was a plethora of cultures. Indeed such islamic centers as Indonesia were marked by non-combative islamic cultures. That has shifted over time.

I would proffer its far less to do with Islam than with a rise of a fundamentalistic Arab tribal culture into new areas, or at least a resurgence of the strength of that culture.

Frazzled wrote:However you have to correctly assess what is "Muslim culture." Prior to the ascendancy of petrodollar fuelled wahhabiism, there was a plethora of cultures. Indeed such islamic centers as Indonesia were marked by non-combative islamic cultures. That has shifted over time.

I would proffer its far less to do with Islam than with a rise of a fundamentalistic Arab tribal culture into new areas, or at least a resurgence of the strength of that culture.

That may be, but its hard to ignore the reality of Islam's militant bend; even if it is almost entirely allegorical. I think you're on to something, though I might shift the onus onto the state. The promotion of strong cultural values has historically been one of the primary methods of maintaining control in a tenuous political environment. It just so happens that the strong cultural values present in the majority of regions tend to be heavily misogynistic. The oppression of women is hardly an Arab invention.

Oh I am not ignoring the shift, but I am stating that the caise is not necessary Islam with a capital I, but exported conservative Wahhabiism using Islam almost as a cover to stoke new forms of militant fundamentalism that had been dormant in many areas.

Frazzled, you're ever so much more pleasant to read when you take a topic seriously, did you know that?

dogma wrote:The nations with those laws aren't democracies. In most instances they are kingdoms, with a couple dictatorial republics thrown in for good measure. Public opinion has far less meaning in such a situation. That said, if enough people thought ill of a practice it would change. But they don't, which isn't really surprising given that opposing something you don't like in a monarchical state is far more difficult than doing the same in democratic/republican one. Especially a monarchical state which shows little interest in what transpires outside of the public sphere. Its a choice between wearing a bur'qa while watching your neighbors do stupid things to one another, and fighting. Which one sounds more palatable?

Two absolute monarchies, one semi-constitutional one. The dictorial republics aren't entirely within the hands of the dictator; they don't have truly free elections but the fact that the country is still constitutionally a republic gives the dictatorship less free reign to go against the wishes of their people then they might otherwise have. Most secular dicators aren't particularly interested in upholding an extreme religious view anyways; a dictator, looking to stay in power above all else, won't run up against the general populace. The demands for radical Islamic law are not coming from the top in these dictatorships, they are coming from the general population, and they are enforced by the dictatorship because there is demand for it. As for the theocratic states, such as Iran, these states are not functioning with 1% of the population supporting them. The government of Iran actually is disliked by the majority of it's population, but it does have enough support to keep perpetuating itself. Futhermore, if you look at a large number of religious killing/rock throwing/etc, you'll see them happening in the tribal villages and towns far away from central authority. Look at the Taliban, for instance. They came into power against the government, with the support of the fanatics in the general population. This is not 1%. Maybe those willing to strap a bomb to themselves are that small of a percentage, but the amount of Islamic fundamentalists is significantly larger. (Even 20% would be enough to make a lot of waves. I'd probably guess something near this.)

I'd say that only the latter is true. It also isn't surprising given the general lack of available resources, and resultant dependency on state largess.

I'm going with the simplest solution. There is a great deal more support for fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East than there is for fundamentalist Christianity in the West, and I'm going to go with "there are more people who practice fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East than fundamentalist Christianity in the West" as one of the main reasons. I just don't believe that it's a complex network of dictators, many of them fairly secular and who have nothing to do with one another, working together to make sure that the Middle East remains a more fundamentalist region than the West.

I don't understand the opposition to it. If I said "there are more fundamentalist Christians in America than there are in Norway" I doubt there would be this disagreement.

True. Though it is worth remembering that the level of tolerance we have come to enjoy is a very recent component of the legal system. As in the last 40 years or so.

Yes, the roots of it may go further back than that, but is a fairly recent event.

But it is an insignificant problem due to its intractability. We cannot change Muslim culture, we are not Muslims. All we can do is work to prevent that culture from doing us harm. A fact which takes us down an entirely different line of argumentation.

Insignificant for us, maybe, but not for the people living in the Middle East.

I'm not advocating another "Iraqi Freedom" here, I'm just saying it's worth noting that some of their problems are significant.

Plus, Western culture has had a lot of effect on the Middle East, from clothes to music to food, etc. There will be some crossover, even without direct intervention.

Da Boss wrote:Frazzled, you're ever so much more pleasant to read when you take a topic seriously, did you know that?

Only when you can get past the cranial rectal inversion that is my typing.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Two absolute monarchies, one semi-constitutional one. The dictorial republics aren't entirely within the hands of the dictator; they don't have truly free elections but the fact that the country is still constitutionally a republic gives the dictatorship less free reign to go against the wishes of their people then they might otherwise have. Most secular dicators aren't particularly interested in upholding an extreme religious view anyways; a dictator, looking to stay in power above all else, won't run up against the general populace.

That depends on how effective the extreme religious view can be in securing social unity. Fundamentalist Islam is essentially a throwback to pre-Ottoman times founded on the premise that it was the intervention of the West which brought about the fall of that Empire. To some extent this is correct, though Western intervention was only possible because the Europeans were able to do two things:
1) Learn from the Ottomans.
2) Circumvent the Middle Eastern monopoly on trade with China and India.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
The demands for radical Islamic law are not coming from the top in these dictatorships, they are coming from the general population, and they are enforced by the dictatorship because there is demand for it.

That's debatable. When you look at places like Saudi Arabia what you see is a top down enforcement of the Wahhabi moral code. The population embraces it because the Saudis also provide a quality of life which is highly preferable to the historical alternative. Its almost exactly the same thing that happened in Europe prior to the Enlightenment. Places like the UAE, Yemen, and Qatar lack the centralized authority of the Al Saud family, but are otherwise highly comparable.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
As for the theocratic states, such as Iran, these states are not functioning with 1% of the population supporting them. The government of Iran actually is disliked by the majority of it's population, but it does have enough support to keep perpetuating itself.

The government of Iran is disliked by the majority of the population because it is incompetent. They stay in power by providing wealth to those who are loyal to the state credo; regardless of whether that loyalty is for reasons of piety or financial expedience.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Futhermore, if you look at a large number of religious killing/rock throwing/etc, you'll see them happening in the tribal villages and towns far away from central authority. Look at the Taliban, for instance. They came into power against the government, with the support of the fanatics in the general population. This is not 1%.

Again, you're mistaking religious fanaticism for the congregation of wealth. The fact that the Taliban was supported by the United States didn't hurt either. Also, its worth noting that revolutions are not generally popular movements. They tend to be enacted by small sections of the larger demography that are touched by a particularly eloquent leader. The Bolsheviks are a perfect example.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Maybe those willing to strap a bomb to themselves are that small of a percentage, but the amount of Islamic fundamentalists is significantly larger. (Even 20% would be enough to make a lot of waves. I'd probably guess something near this.)

If you want to open the definition of fundamentalist to that extent, then the number of Christian fundamentalists in America is just as large. In fact, I remember a survey from a while back indicating that the national percentage of Evangelicals/Born-Agains/Pentecostals was something on the order of 30% of the population.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I'm going with the simplest solution. There is a great deal more support for fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East than there is for fundamentalist Christianity in the West, and I'm going to go with "there are more people who practice fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East than fundamentalist Christianity in the West" as one of the main reasons. I just don't believe that it's a complex network of dictators, many of them fairly secular and who have nothing to do with one another, working together to make sure that the Middle East remains a more fundamentalist region than the West.

The flaw in your reasoning lies in the belief that fundamentalism is more prevalent in the Middle East than in other parts of the world. The reality is that regressive religious thinking is a problem everywhere. What makes it a bigger problem in the Middle East is the weakness of the states in question relative to their Western counterparts.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I don't understand the opposition to it. If I said "there are more fundamentalist Christians in America than there are in Norway" I doubt there would be this disagreement.

I wouldn't disagree, but I would point out that there are probably just as many fundamentalist Norwegians as there are fundamentalist Americans; they just are not likely to be bent equally towards Christianity.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Yes, the roots of it may go further back than that, but is a fairly recent event.

Social justice is an interesting beast. Many people argue, for example, that the Reformation was inspired by religious toleration in the Ottoman Empire.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Insignificant for us, maybe, but not for the people living in the Middle East.

But you don't live in the Middle East, and by your argumentation the people that live there don't have a problem with fundamentalism. So what is the issue?

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I'm not advocating another "Iraqi Freedom" here, I'm just saying it's worth noting that some of their problems are significant.

Plus, Western culture has had a lot of effect on the Middle East, from clothes to music to food, etc. There will be some crossover, even without direct intervention.

That depends a great deal on the futures of the economic landscape.

dogma wrote:That depends on how effective the extreme religious view can be in securing social unity.

Good point; however, a fundamentalist religion can only work as a source of unity if that religion is commonly shared. If there was little support for that doctrine it would only divide people further from the government, if there is popular support for it, well, fundamentalism is then commonplace and has a large effect on culture and law in that region.

That's debatable. When you look at places like Saudi Arabia what you see is a top down enforcement of the Wahhabi moral code. The population embraces it because the Saudis also provide a quality of life which is highly preferable to the historical alternative. Its almost exactly the same thing that happened in Europe prior to the Enlightenment. Places like the UAE, Yemen, and Qatar lack the centralized authority of the Al Saud family, but are otherwise highly comparable.

Ah, sorry, when I was referring to the dictatorships I meant the compromised republics, not the monarchies. The house of Saud certainly does enforce it's religious views from the top down, their rule is justified by religion in the same way Christian monarchs were.

The government of Iran is disliked by the majority of the population because it is incompetent. They stay in power by providing wealth to those who are loyal to the state credo; regardless of whether that loyalty is for reasons of piety or financial expedience.

Yep.

Again, you're mistaking religious fanaticism for the congregation of wealth. The fact that the Taliban was supported by the United States didn't hurt either. Also, its worth noting that revolutions are not generally popular movements. They tend to be enacted by small sections of the larger demography that are touched by a particularly eloquent leader. The Bolsheviks are a perfect example.

Congregation of wealth? Huh? What does that have to do with enacting tribal laws strictly punishing morality?

The Taliban doesn't/didn't have the unanimous support of those under it's rule, they were widely disliked even before America started to put the pressure on them, but they had enough popular support to continue to do what they did, even while it was outside the legitimate authority of the government.

If you want to open the definition of fundamentalist to that extent, then the number of Christian fundamentalists in America is just as large. In fact, I remember a survey from a while back indicating that the national percentage of Evangelicals/Born-Agains/Pentecostals was something on the order of 30% of the population.

There's a huge spectrum of fanaticism between killing yourself to hurt those you think go against your religion and simply being highly religious. My problem isn't with anyone being highly religious, it's the extremely religious that go through great efforts to try and stop others from doing what they see as immoral, even if it couldn't have any direct effect on them. The people who call out for gay sex to be illegal, to reduce the rights of women and minorities, to persecute people who don't share their religion; this is far more common in the Middle East than it is in the West. Gay marriage has plenty of people foaming at the mouth, but it's not even an issue in the Middle East. There's barely any "fundamentalist" Christians that look for legal rights being reduced for women, but it's common in the Middle East; and, when not enforced by law, it's commonly enforced in tribal territories and such anyway. These generally aren't suicide bombers and fanatics of that type, they're part of the general population, and they strongly wish for their religious views to be forced on others, more so than is common in the West.

To be fair, "fundamentalist" is an extremely broad term. There is an issue that stems from what exactly is enough fanaticsm to be considered fundamentalist, and an issue of the extremely religious who nonetheless don't wish to try and take other's morality into their own hands.

I apologise for being somewhat hasty in calling people "fundamentalists," it may not have been the best word to use. Maybe "fundamentalists who advocate the enforcing of their religion's morality on others by force" would be a better example of what I'm getting at.

The flaw in your reasoning lies in the belief that fundamentalism is more prevalent in the Middle East than in other parts of the world. The reality is that regressive religious thinking is a problem everywhere.

You realize where the error in this logic is; something can be a problem everywhere and still be more common in one part of the world.

What makes it a bigger problem in the Middle East is the weakness of the states in question relative to their Western counterparts.

I agree, to an extent. However, I think religious fundamentalism has probably, in addition to many other things, helped to stall the advancement of stable governments in the Middle East. The conflicts between the Sunnis and Shiites (which, granted, are often no worse than the secular tribal conflicts), the denouncement of many legitimate ideas as being "Western" (even when they're not, particularly) and therefore unfit for use, the conflict that arises between the clergy and the government, etc.

I wouldn't disagree, but I would point out that there are probably just as many fundamentalist Norwegians as there are fundamentalist Americans; they just are not likely to be bent equally towards Christianity.

Um... I'm not sure what you mean here. What religion would they be of then?

I'm talking about religious fundamentalists more than anything. I don't mean political or racial or some other type of fundamentalism.

I can't help but get the feeling that you're twisting fundamentalism to mean whatever would result in it being equally common across the globe. Of course if you base fundamentalism relative tot he rest of the country's population you'll never get a different percentage (if it's the most religious 10%, it's always going to be 10%), but if you base it off of objective standards in how they interact with others there is a difference. Surely you're not saying all countries are equally religious? If they're not equally religious, why must they have the same amount of extreme religious views?

Social justice is an interesting beast. Many people argue, for example, that the Reformation was inspired by religious toleration in the Ottoman Empire.

Sounds plausible to me. The contact between the Middle East and medieval Europe seems to go underrepresented a lot of the time.

But you don't live in the Middle East, and by your argumentation the people that live there don't have a problem with fundamentalism. So what is the issue?

I'm not saying that no one in the Middle East has a problem with fundamentalism, I think there are people that do, but are silenced by their government/culture/religious bureaucracy, etc. They're mostly the ones I'm feeling sorry for.

That depends a great deal on the futures of the economic landscape.

Well, unless you have an inside tip I don't think the economic climate will be making a major U-Turn anytime soon. There's a lot of talk about the recession, and the swine flu, and everything else but it seems that in general things don't change too quickly.

It's a possibility, but not really a likelihood. Certainly not some "butterfly effect" thing that there's no hope of predicting.

Lordhat wrote:Ain't it grand?

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0861ff3eabea1ceb73e4

Them's fightin words!

Orkeosaurus wrote:Good point; however, a fundamentalist religion can only work as a source of unity if that religion is commonly shared. If there was little support for that doctrine it would only divide people further from the government, if there is popular support for it, well, fundamentalism is then commonplace and has a large effect on culture and law in that region.

That isn't necessarily true. I'll bring up the Saudis again because they are a perfect example. Wahhabiism rose in rough concurrence with Saudi military victories. The people accepted it not because it was supported prior to the rise of the Sauds, but because the Sauds were successful and they followed the teachings of Abd-al-Wahhab.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Congregation of wealth? Huh? What does that have to do with enacting tribal laws strictly punishing morality?

You can't enact tribal law if you don't have the resources to do so. In the modern world that resource is defined by economic strength. The Taliban was able to claim 'control' over Afghanistan because it was the wealthiest contiguous body in the country.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
The Taliban doesn't/didn't have the unanimous support of those under it's rule, they were widely disliked even before America started to put the pressure on them, but they had enough popular support to continue to do what they did, even while it was outside the legitimate authority of the government.

You're assuming that Afghanistan functioned like a nation as we understand it. That isn't the case. The Taliban was simply the most powerful governing force in a 'nation' defined by multiple governing forces. Afghanistan has not know any form of remotely legitimate government since the days of the Mughal Empire.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
There's a huge spectrum of fanaticism between killing yourself to hurt those you think go against your religion and simply being highly religious. My problem isn't with anyone being highly religious, it's the extremely religious that go through great efforts to try and stop others from doing what they see as immoral, even if it couldn't have any direct effect on them.

The problem is that where you see no causal relationship, they see an obvious one. And to a point they are correct. The West very obviously caused the downfall of the Islamic Empire. However, it wasn't a matter of loosening morals, but general complacency in the face of an ambitious and unified opposing force.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
The people who call out for gay sex to be illegal, to reduce the rights of women and minorities, to persecute people who don't share their religion; this is far more common in the Middle East than it is in the West. Gay marriage has plenty of people foaming at the mouth, but it's not even an issue in the Middle East. There's barely any "fundamentalist" Christians that look for legal rights being reduced for women, but it's common in the Middle East; and, when not enforced by law, it's commonly enforced in tribal territories and such anyway. These generally aren't suicide bombers and fanatics of that type, they're part of the general population, and they strongly wish for their religious views to be forced on others, more so than is common in the West.

I agree with you until the last sentence. You're interpreting religious thinking far too narrowly. Religion relates to more than just God, it relates to ideals. Progressivism, for example, is a form of religion constructed around the myth of progress. The average person wants to enforce all, or part, of their perspective on the rest of their community.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
To be fair, "fundamentalist" is an extremely broad term. There is an issue that stems from what exactly is enough fanaticsm to be considered fundamentalist, and an issue of the extremely religious who nonetheless don't wish to try and take other's morality into their own hands.

I apologise for being somewhat hasty in calling people "fundamentalists," it may not have been the best word to use. Maybe "fundamentalists who advocate the enforcing of their religion's morality on others by force" would be a better example of what I'm getting at.

You realize where the error in this logic is; something can be a problem everywhere and still be more common in one part of the world.

If the problem you're addressing is religiously motivated violence, then I agree it is more common in the Middle East. But, as you pointed out, fundamentalism is not necessarily violent. I'd also add that religiously motivated violence isn't necessarily fundamentalist.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I agree, to an extent. However, I think religious fundamentalism has probably, in addition to many other things, helped to stall the advancement of stable governments in the Middle East. The conflicts between the Sunnis and Shiites (which, granted, are often no worse than the secular tribal conflicts), the denouncement of many legitimate ideas as being "Western" (even when they're not, particularly) and therefore unfit for use, the conflict that arises between the clergy and the government, etc.

I'm not so sure I agree. If anything I think religious fundamentalism was the inevitable reaction to the top down secularism imposed by Western Imperial powers. You can't simply tell a group of people what to do, and not expect anyone to simply say 'no'.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Um... I'm not sure what you mean here. What religion would they be of then?

Anything conceivably. Even things not conventionally classified as religion.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I'm talking about religious fundamentalists more than anything. I don't mean political or racial or some other type of fundamentalism.

I can't help but get the feeling that you're twisting fundamentalism to mean whatever would result in it being equally common across the globe. Of course if you base fundamentalism relative tot he rest of the country's population you'll never get a different percentage (if it's the most religious 10%, it's always going to be 10%), but if you base it off of objective standards in how they interact with others there is a difference. Surely you're not saying all countries are equally religious? If they're not equally religious, why must they have the same amount of extreme religious views?

Because I would state that all countries are equally religious. Largely because I do not define religion by the presence of a faith in God. A religion can be constructed around anything which can be conceived of through 'supernatural' means. This means nationalism, tribalism, and other such human division have the capacity to be subject to religious devotion. People who claim to be 'real Americans' are essentially making the same claim as those who say they are 'true Christians'.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Well, unless you have an inside tip I don't think the economic climate will be making a major U-Turn anytime soon. There's a lot of talk about the recession, and the swine flu, and everything else but it seems that in general things don't change too quickly.

It's a possibility, but not really a likelihood. Certainly not some "butterfly effect" thing that there's no hope of predicting.

It isn't so much a matter of 'butterfly effect' so much as cultural predisposition. Places like India and China begin to consumer more goods, and so goods targeted at those markets become more widely available. Anyone with a bend against the West isn't likely to buy into something clearly produced for it when there are alternatives available.

dogma wrote:That isn't necessarily true. I'll bring up the Saudis again because they are a perfect example. Wahhabiism rose in rough concurrence with Saudi military victories. The people accepted it not because it was supported prior to the rise of the Sauds, but because the Sauds were successful and they followed the teachings of Abd-al-Wahhab.

Alright, but after the unification through these military victories it became accepted, correct?

Otherwise how would it serve as unifying force?

You can't enact tribal law if you don't have the resources to do so. In the modern world that resource is defined by economic strength. The Taliban was able to claim 'control' over Afghanistan because it was the wealthiest contiguous body in the country.

Ah, I see what you're getting at.

Money is a lot, but where did they get the money from? Where did they get the support from when they first started out? America, partially, we did supply a lot of arms to the region, but the truth is there is support for their extreme policies in the places they came power. Not universal support, not even support by a majority of the population (later on at least), but there were people supporting them. Hell, that's where they recruit from.

You're assuming that Afghanistan functioned like a nation as we understand it. That isn't the case. The Taliban was simply the most powerful governing force in a 'nation' defined by multiple governing forces. Afghanistan has not know any form of remotely legitimate government since the days of the Mughal Empire.

Ah, no, didn't mean to make it sound like I thought the Afganistan government was the only authority in the land. It is one though, and it's an authority that was turned over in favor of a fundamentalist religious authority.

The problem is that where you see no causal relationship, they see an obvious one. And to a point they are correct. The West very obviously caused the downfall of the Islamic Empire. However, it wasn't a matter of loosening morals, but general complacency in the face of an ambitious and unified opposing force.

I think that point is a rather significant one, though.

(Wait, aren't we in agreement here anyways?)

I agree with you until the last sentence. You're interpreting religious thinking far too narrowly. Religion relates to more than just God, it relates to ideals. Progressivism, for example, is a form of religion constructed around the myth of progress. The average person wants to enforce all, or part, of their perspective on the rest of their community.

I disagree with that definition of religion, personally.

Are you going to say that Vietnam was primarily motivated by religion, because capitalism is a religion? What's the point? You dilute the meaning of the word. Every war is a religious war, every fanatic is a religious fanatic, every cause is a religion.

If the problem you're addressing is religiously motivated violence, then I agree it is more common in the Middle East. But, as you pointed out, fundamentalism is not necessarily violent. I'd also add that religiously motivated violence isn't necessarily fundamentalist.

Yeah, perhaps I was getting ahead of myself with the fundamentalism thing earlier. The Amish could be considered to have a fundamentalist religion, but they mostly leave others alone.

I would say that the majority of religious violence is fundamentalist though. Not all of it, certainly, there are plenty of other sects that cause problems, but it seems like more than the fundamentalist's share of violence is perpetrated by them.

I'm not so sure I agree. If anything I think religious fundamentalism was the inevitable reaction to the top down secularism imposed by Western Imperial powers. You can't simply tell a group of people what to do, and not expect anyone to simply say 'no'.

Trying to say "Here! Now you use our culture" was stupid, especially since the Middle East is probably more established than even Europe.

Still, it's kind of biting off your nose to spite your face a lot of the time. When you look at groups that oppose education for women, satellite dishes, pictures, etc, there's no good reason for that.

Anything conceivably. Even things not conventionally classified as religion.

Because I would state that all countries are equally religious. Largely because I do not define religion by the presence of a faith in God. A religion can be constructed around anything which can be conceived of through 'supernatural' means. This means nationalism, tribalism, and other such human division have the capacity to be subject to religious devotion. People who claim to be 'real Americans' are essentially making the same claim as those who say they are 'true Christians'.

Once again, I'm not sure I find your definition of religion to be particularly pragmatic.

It isn't so much a matter of 'butterfly effect' so much as cultural predisposition. Places like India and China begin to consumer more goods, and so goods targeted at those markets become more widely available. Anyone with a bend against the West isn't likely to buy into something clearly produced for it when there are alternatives available.

True, but India and China have already adopted a lot of Western culture themselves, and have given quite a bit of their culture away as well. Western culture has become increasingly globalized, especially when you consider all the things thought by many Muslim fundamentalists to be Western.

Even if India and China do come into the forefront, which is likely, although it will probably take a while, they will have a lot of Western culture already embedded in them (and they'll have plenty of their culture to hand too, of course).

Interestingly, before the twin towers it was Timothy McVee who'd killed the most US citizens in the US. As far as I understand it, he managed to be a 'fundamentalist' without involving religion. I think with that type of mindset you have no hope, in their minds you are wrong and they are right.