Spirituality
19 Apr 06
20 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerTry actually reading what I said, dimwit. What the Iranian Revolution would have to do with the cultural assimilation of minority groups is beyond me. Please explain how it somehow "invalidates" my point (do you even know what my point is?).
The Iranian Revolution of '79 would seem to invalidate your "sociological truth". The recent success of right-wing parties in Europe (and India, a few years back) would seem to invalidate your "sociological truth".
As I said, you're being simplistic.
20 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI completely agree with you--but what has this got to do with the "Islamisation of Europe"? Why, too, are Muslims singled out for special attention, when there are so many other varieties of immigrant trying to enter the EU? (Another reason that your 9/11 example is such a red herring is that Europe is--apparently--under discussion here).
Yes. Poverty and illiteracy are not the only (or even main) factors driving extremism. In the case of Muslims, my own experience tells me it has a lot to do with US (and other allies'đ foreign policy. There's also the general backlash against perceived hedonism.
20 Apr 06
Here's my point from page 3:
I made no universal claims. It's generally true that the wealthier people are the less religious they are and it's generally true that as a country gets richer it gets more secular. Both are true in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries which is why you see a Islamist Fundamentalist movement there, mirroring in ideology the Christian Fundamentalist movement here.
What "they" i.e. Muslims do is dependent on what millions of individual do. Contrary to your seeming assertion, there are Muslims who don't regard their religion as a centerpiece of their life. As they become more enmeshed in Western culture this trend will continue. And it will affect their children even more as they go to public schools. I've yet to see any instance in history where this assimilation process didn't take place to some degree.
The Iranian Revolution fits in how again?
20 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI did. I saw it after I posted and I agreed with you.
See the post just before yours.
Is it possible that despite growing up in a society where tolerance and religious freedom is encouraged you can turn into a fundamentalistic extremist? The only reason I can see is if you're at the same time indoctrinated through your family and friends to believe that secularism and tolerance with other cultures is a bad thing. Then you won't really absorb the education at school unless you're really intelligent, self-reliant and brave. It takes a lot of courage to go against your "good" family when it comes to things that are accepted by them but you feel is wrong.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Iranian Revolution happened in a country that was probably the most Westernised, secular and wealthy country in the Middle East at the time. Even with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, it's not clear whether they will swing towards a more secularised culture or a more extreme one. These are exceptions to your "generally true" principle.
Here's my point from page 3:
I made no universal claims. It's generally true that the wealthier people are the less religious they are and it's generally true that as a country gets richer it gets more secular. Both are true in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries which is why you see a Islamist Fundamentalist movement there, mirroring in i ...[text shortened]... s didn't take place to some degree.
The Iranian Revolution fits in how again?
In Britain, which has a long history of immigration of Muslims, the Muslim community is heavily polarised. Of course, not every Muslim is a 7/7 bomber - but the level of sympathy for their motivations (if not their methods) would surprise you. The situation is not dissimilar in other European nations. Once again, these are exceptions to your "trend".
As I said before, your sociological model is too simplistic.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by stockenIt's quite possible. You have to contract the virus of idealism. It's a terrible thing to see--perfectly normal, intelligent people turn into robots and march off to join whatever cult or cause meshes with their personal neuroses...
Is it possible that despite growing up in a society where tolerance and religious freedom is encouraged you can turn into a fundamentalistic extremist?
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by stockenI generally don't like the word "indoctrination" - all of us are influenced to a greater or lesser extent by our culture, our family, our friends etc.
I did. I saw it after I posted and I agreed with you.
Is it possible that despite growing up in a society where tolerance and religious freedom is encouraged you can turn into a fundamentalistic extremist? The only reason I can see is if you're at the same time indoctrinated through your family and friends to believe that secularism and tolerance with oth ...[text shortened]... your "good" family when it comes to things that are accepted by them but you feel is wrong.
Even the secular ones.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, YOU are simplistic. So far all you've done is "what about Hitler" arguments. Your constant intellectuall shallowness and profound ignorance of history is truly staggering.
The Iranian Revolution happened in a country that was probably the most Westernised, secular and wealthy country in the Middle East at the time. Even with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, it's not clear whether they will swing towards a more secularised culture or a more extreme one. These are exceptions to your "generally true" principle.
In ...[text shortened]... exceptions to your "trend".
As I said before, your sociological model is too simplistic.
Iran was not, and is not, a "secular" nation. It had a secular ruler, which is a far different thing. Do you understand the difference? The Shah tried to shove a Westernized culture down the throat of an unwilling populace. That is the exact opposite of cultural assimilation in a Western secular nation.
Please try actually learning some history.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWealth and education are no barrier to extreme ideology.
There I was thinking we were talking about the egg-and-sperm race presented in that article.
Fanatics are tough to fathom. Wealth and education are no barrier to extreme ideology. Think about Patty Hearst--not to mention US citizens attempting to join Al Qaeda. Do you understand the fanatic temperament?
Too true.
Do you understand the fanatic temperament?
I've had my share of bump in’s with fundies (although these were Christian)
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAgain, I have to disagree with you in part. It's true that Iran at the time was secular as in no religion in politics. But it was far from a westernised country. There was no democracy and people were extremely opressed. Under those conditions (education or not) it's easy to see how people can turn to the other extreme (as, of course, they did).
The Iranian Revolution happened in a country that was probably the most Westernised, secular and wealthy country in the Middle East at the time. Even with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, it's not clear whether they will swing towards a more secularised culture or a more extreme one. These are exceptions to your "generally true" principle.
In ...[text shortened]... exceptions to your "trend".
As I said before, your sociological model is too simplistic.
I've known quite a few iranians who were there during or just before the revolution. They actually thought that bringing Khomeini to power would make for a much more stable, just and prospering Iran. The killing irony being that they are worse off now than they ever were before Khomeini. There's a new revolution brewing amongst the youth of Iran and hopefully they will be more inclined to spreading democracy and promoting religious and social freedom.
20 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd you are not "stacking the cards" with your selective rebuttals and scathing insults?
No, YOU are simplistic. So far all you've done is "what about Hitler" arguments. Your constant intellectuall shallowness and profound ignorance of history is truly staggering.
Iran was not, and is not, a "secular" nation. It had a secular ruler, which is a far different thing. Do you understand the difference? The Shah tried to shove a Westerni ...[text shortened]... similation in a Western secular nation.
Please try actually learning some history.
20 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can wave your double PhD in History any moment now...
No, YOU are simplistic. So far all you've done is "what about Hitler" arguments. Your constant intellectuall shallowness and profound ignorance of history is truly staggering.
Iran was not, and is not, a "secular" nation. It had a secular ruler, which is a far different thing. Do you understand the difference? The Shah tried to shove a Westerni ...[text shortened]... similation in a Western secular nation.
Please try actually learning some history.
The question of whether Iran was a "secular nation" (whatever that is) is irrelevant. You said:
It's generally true that the wealthier people are the less religious they are and it's generally true that as a country gets richer it gets more secular.
You said a nation would become secular by becoming richer - you weren't talking about nations that were already "secular".
Well, do you deny that Iran and Iranians got richer under the last Shah?