This Week in Middle Eastern Monotheism

[Osborne Russell]

The world would be a dull place indeed without MEM.

1.
Study disputes numbers of faithful
Scholars:Religious in U.S. are undercounted
By Michelle Boorstein
The Washington Post
September 12. 2006 8:00AM

Among the most innovative aspects of the survey, scholars say, are questions that probe how Americans describe God's personality. Respondents were offered 26 attributes ranging from "absolute"and "wrathful" to "friendly," and asking if God is directly involved in their affairs and worldly affairs.

The researchers separated God's attributes into four categories: angry, judgmental, benevolent or distant. Researchers found that the largest category of people - 31 percent - was those who believe God is both wrathful and highly involved in human affairs.



2.
Muslims demand apology for Redding mayor's verbal attack

ROBIN HINDERY
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO - Sacramento-area Muslims are asking for an apology from the mayor of Redding, who said some Muslims find it acceptable to lie, cheat and murder.
During an event last week commemorating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Mayor Ken Murray said Shiite Muslims believe they "are duty-bound by religious law to lie, cheat, steal, kill all who do not worship their version of Allah."

"Folks, they're not like us," he told those who attended an annual remembrance vigil on the steps of the Shasta County Courthouse, in the city about 160 miles north of Sacramento. His comments were reported by the Redding Record Searchlight.
In a statement given Monday to The Associated Press, Murray acknowledged making those statements but said he was "wrong" when he attributed criminal behavior to Shiites.
He said he was referring instead to the Wahhabi sect - a brand of Islam most prevalent in Saudi Arabia and practiced by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

3.
Pakistan Makes Compromise on Rape Law
By SADAQAT JAN
The Associated Press
Monday, September 11, 2006; 9:39 PM
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan's government agreed to a compromise deal with hardline Islamic lawmakers Monday over proposed changes to a law that has long made punishing rapists almost impossible in the country.
The widely criticized Hudood Ordinance law, based on Islamic tenets, requires a woman who claims she's been raped to produce four witnesses. Religious political parties had fiercely criticized an amendment bill that would have dropped the requirement as un-Islamic.

Opposition lawmaker Hafiz Hussain Ahmed called it victory for Pakistan's coalition of six hard-line religious parties.
"Now they have acknowledged that the amendment was in conflict with the Quran," Ahmed said.

Last month, the government presented the amendment bill to drop the four-witness requirement, but more than 60 hardline lawmakers threatened to vacate their legislative seats in protest. That could have forced a by-election and a major political crisis for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

4.


Iraqi elections believed to have worsened divisions, report says

Posted on Mon, Sep. 11, 2006
By Drew Brown
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON - Iraq's political process has sharpened the country's sectarian divisions, polarized relations between its ethnic and religious groups, and weakened its sense of national identity, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.
In spite of a sharp increase in Sunni-Shiite violence, however, attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces are still the primary source of bloodshed in Iraq, the report found. It was the latest in a series of recent grim assessments of conditions in Iraq.

5.
Pope lashes evil of jihad
AFP
September 14, 2006 12:00am

POPE Benedict has hit out at Islam and its concept of holy war during a visit to his Bavarian homeland.
The thinly veiled attack on extremist Islam's justification for terrorism came during a theological lecture to staff and students at the University of Regensburg, where the former Joseph Ratzinger taught theology in the 1970s.
Using the words, "jihad" and "holy war", the Pope quoted criticisms of the prophet Mohammed by a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II, during a debate with a learned Persian.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," Benedict quoted the emperor as saying.


6.
Bush sees 'Third Awakening' of religion in U.S.
By PETER BAKER
Washington Post
9/13/2006
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation's struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as "a confrontation between good and evil."

The First Great Awakening refers to a wave of Christian fervor in the American colonies from about 1730 to 1760 and the Second Great Awakening generally lasted from 1800 to 1830. Some scholars and writers have debated for years whether a Third Awakening has been taking place, although some identify other awakenings in U.S. history.
Bush aides, including Karl Rove, have read Robert William Fogel's "The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism."
Bush has been careful discussing the battle with terrorists in religious terms since he had to apologize for using the word "crusade" in 2001 and often stresses that the war is not against Islam but those who corrupt it. In his comments Tuesday, aides said Bush was not casting the war as a religious struggle but describing American cultural changes in a time of war.

[Meerkat]

The good thing about religion on TV is you can turn it OFF! :)

[PatCox]

Elsewhere in middle eastern monotheism, particularly the christian-european part, the science of medicine has has vastly reduced infant mortality and lengthened the span of life and health. Rocket ships send people to the moon, and place communications satellites in orbit. The standard of living of the average person is such that in any other era of earths history even the average person would have been considered wealthy, for they have large homes which are heated in winter and cooled in summer, they are able to eat various foods throughout the year withour regard to seasons or storage problems, they possess clothing in abundance, and are kept more safe and secure from criminals and violence than the majority of people through the history of mankind.

And all of these advancements were achieved almost wholly in christian countries based on MEM, and none of these developments were achieved independantly anywhere else on earth by people of any other religious system.

So go live in a cave if you don't like MEM, or be a hindu peasant of the year 1500 living under the caste system, and write back and tell us how evil christianity is again. Give up vaccines and take your chances with disease like a good pagan.

[George.]

But but but Pat, those are achievements of the Enlightenment, rationalism, and the scientific method, which only flourished once they were free of the constraints of MEM... the "Christian countries" you refer to are actually the most secular nations to have ever existed...

[Meerkat]

TY George.

[Osborne Russell]

And all of these advancements were achieved almost wholly in christian countries based on MEM, and none of these developments were achieved independantly anywhere else on earth by people of any other religious system.

1. On a sea of natural resources, especially oil, ripped off from the infidels.

2. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

[PatCox]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, nevertheless in the sociological petrie dish that is the world, its the result of the big experiment.

What do we find across societies? That they all have religions, that they all have codes of ethics and moral behavior, and that they all ail to abide by their standards.

Oh, and we find that the concept of a secular nation itself only arose among the christian nations. That the concept of science based on empiricism flourished only among the christian nations. I was reading today, prompted by that annoying christian SamF, about William of Occam, who promulgated a theory that observation and logic could not prove the existence of God, which, combined with his nominalist philosophy, led to the concept some describe as "non-overlapping magisteria," the idea that science is not incompatable with theology, which is what allowed science to develop in the christian countries.

Christianity, despite how some echo Marx in calling it the opiate of the masses, allowing miserable people to endure miserable conditions without hope of change, in fact has fostered a society which is more welcoming to change than any other; hell, even the form of christianity sweeping america now is new, dating from only the 1800s (evangelicals).

Meanwhile buddhism has led the buddhists from toiling in the paddies 5,000 years ago to toiling in the paddies today, with exactly the same tools, livestock, and clothing.

Why do you hate your own culture? I am proud of it.

[PatCox]

The infidels never developed the technology to use the oil, and therefore 1. lacked any reason to give a crap about it, and 2 lacked the technology to resist even if they did.

The native americans in North America seem to have had adequate resources, haven't they? I read that ridiculous book by Jared Diamond in which his knee jerk "the west is evil" bias led him to astounding mental gymnastics in pursuit of the goal of depriving the West of any merit for its achievements and blaming the west for the lack of achievement of the savages around the world.

Horse****. Some cultures are better than others. Ours, for all its flaws, is the best. It keeps more people happier, free-er, healthier, and wealthier than any society in the history of our species.

[Keith Wilson]

Pat are you sure we read the same book? Guns, Germs, and Steel? "The west is evil"????? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I much prefer western culture. It has roots in three things - the classical Greek and Roman world (both directly and at second hand, because that world was extensively studied for several hundred years after the Renaissance), in Christianity, and last, most recent, and most important, in the secular rationalist ideas of the Enlightenment. This last one can argue grew out of Christianity or was a rebellion against it - I'd say some of both.

You may have noted how western secular rationalism and technology is being embraced by Asian
Confucian/Buddhist countries with a vengeance.

[Meerkat]

Oh, and we find that the concept of a secular nation itself only arose among the christian nations. That the concept of science based on empiricism flourished only among the christian nations.Democracy arose in ancient Greece, which probably wasn't secular. OTOH, China under Ghinges Khan did seem to be secular (or at least religion agnostic) and much of what the west developed they got the seeds for out of China and the east in general.

Gun powder
Rockets
China
Paper
Furniture
Central Heating (although probably a common development, unless, for instance, Rome was in touch with China way back then)
The Compass (or at least it's precursor?)

I'm sure there are other examples.

[Meerkat]

The notion that all advancement and all things that are good came out of Chrisitianity, either directly or indirectly, is a load of insular xenophobic horse****.

I'm proud of my culture: I'm a Terran.

[PatCox]

But China didn't do anything with its inventions, nothing of great impact, because Chinese society was so conservative. Same thing with the greek steam turbine, they only viewed it as a toy.

Sure there are a few palaces here and there with central heating, but here in our society, everyone has it, housing is considered substandard if its lacking, same with hot running water and indoor toilets. Its a matter of spreading the innovations to everyone as much as just inventing the things.

We are not more warlike or bloodthirsty than anyone else, not by far, we just have better technology (thanks, as you point out, to the chinese) and MEM cannot be blamed for anything (such blame is just as 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc" as my statements regarding science and medicine).

[PatCox]

Yes, of course, Meer, you have it so good, you get to enjoy the fruits of western christian culture, while at the same time you can deride it and choose to be a saintly gentle buddhist. As I said, go live in a hut and work in the paddy all day, then you can vituperate against western culture.

[TomF]

I don't believe that MEMs are an unmitigated scourge, as some seem to feel.

Yes, western culture has its roots in Greek and Roman times; the creation of universities by Christians - first in Paris - didn't hurt the dissemination of learning any. Irish monks contributed to keeping a whack of knowledge alive while Europe fell apart.

The secular Enlightenment did indeed promote the growth of modern science and philosophy - its outcomes disseminated again through what were largely Christian institutions. The Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, despite their obvious religious origins, continue to do massively good work on the whole. The ethics which have been adopted by the West in large measure reflect Christian origins, if not continued Christian identification. Others manifestly DO behave ethically; Christianity isn't an impediment to doing so, despite what some seem to feel.

I heartily concur with Osborne, that the snippets from this week's MEM chronicles are generally execrable. The race has execrable elements in it - the Tamil Tigers aren't religiously inclined, yet use more suicide bombers than anyone else.

Western culture has been shaped, cradled by its historical relationship with the dominant religion in the west at the time. To deny this, or to say that the relationship has been altogether one way or the other, is simply to wear blinders.

[PatCox]

Xenophobia would imply that I fear what is foreign, thats not true of my attitude, Meer; why would I fear my inferiors? The primitives and savages may overwhelm us, and the worlds ecology, by sheer body mass as they continue to reproduce like animals, but they certainly don't present a threat as long as we keep our superior technology out of their barbaric hands.

[Meerkat]

Sorry, I see it as a whole planet and contributions came from all around the globe. Just because one group caught fire and expanded rapidly and suppressed and disparaged other cultures does not, IMO, make it morally or ethically superior.

As for being more warlike, bloodthirsty, agressive and hyper-competitive, we (the west) most certianly are! Look at the evidence!

[Meerkat]

Xenophobia would imply that I fear what is foreign, thats not true of my attitude, Meer; why would I fear my inferiors? Your "inferiors" had a higher standard of living (at least in Japan) a thousand years ago. They had public sanitation, running water and a 90% literacy rate while there were still pigs running the streets of London and Paris and bathing was something you did twice a year if you had to.

Central heating can be found in the meanest shacks in China and Korea and has been for 100's if not 1000's of years.

[George.]

...we find that the concept of a secular nation itself only arose among the christian nations.

...the concept some describe as "non-overlapping magisteria," the idea that science is not incompatable with theology, which is what allowed science to develop in the christian countries.


The concept of a secular nation also only arose among white people. More importantly, it only arose among those nations that have a cultural heritage based on ancient Greece and Rome, and that went through the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment. Religion is as relevant as skin color.

As for the concept that science is not incompatible with theology, that is something that the religious authorities were forced to swallow, once it became clear that the nations that continued to allow religion to supress science would end up defeated and conquered by those that let sciences such as navigation, ballistics, and chemistry develop unencumbered. Nowadays, even the ayatollahs have no objection to nuclear physics, regardless of what Muhammed might have thought about it all.

[Meerkat]

It's not surprising that a Euro-centric worldview would prevail among descendants of Europeans... ;)

[Backfin]

The primitives and savages may overwhelm us, and the worlds ecology, by sheer body mass as they continue to reproduce like animals, but they certainly don't present a threat as long as we keep our superior technology out of their barbaric hands.

Bite your tongue knave.

The "civilized" world has certianly done more to "overwhelm" the world's ecology than the "primitives and the savages." :eek:

[Bruce Hooke]

It is worth remembering that much of the knowledge of the Greeks would have been lost had it not been for the culture that flourished in Arabia while Europe was going through the dark ages. Furthermore, the great Arab mathmaticians, scientists and thinkers did not just preserve Greek knowledge, they greatly expanded on it.

In a similar vein, as Meerkat has already mentioned, China also made great advances in many areas, that later were used by Europeans to develop their/our cultures.

Sure, the western countries based on MEM are on top right now in some important ways. But, it was not always so and it will likely not always be so in the future. We also would not be where we are now if not for the contributions of many other cultures with many other religions. No, Greece and China did not develop the modern technology we have now, but they moved things ahead, technologically and culturally, in a big way. You might just as well ask why we have not come up with what people 1000 years from now will have figured out.

We would not have developed the technologies and ideas we have without the foundation laid by others, and one day those "others" will likely use what we have developed to move ahead of us somewhere down the road.

[TomF]

It's not surprising that a Euro-centric worldview would prevail among folks living in a world that reflects European derived technology, political economy, scientific models, and culture - driven through European developed mass media.

The Chinese certainly were hugely advanced, and some at least of Western technology has its origins in Chinese inventions. But still, when Western ships travelled to Eastern harbours, Western technology overwhelmed the orient.

My point is not that MEMs produce better results - witness Bruce Hooke's fine post. My point is that MEMs aren't the epitome of disgrace and impediment, as some feel.

[Bruce Hooke]

Xenophobia would imply that I fear what is foreign, thats not true of my attitude, Meer; why would I fear my inferiors? The primitives and savages may overwhelm us, and the worlds ecology, by sheer body mass as they continue to reproduce like animals, but they certainly don't present a threat as long as we keep our superior technology out of their barbaric hands.

You seem to think that the great numbers of poor people around the world do more damage to the environment than you do. This is false. Us well off Westerners are destorying the world's environment quite effectively, usually for our benefit and at the expense of the poor people around the world. Just look at the impact of oil drilling in the Niger delta, the impact of global warming on sub-Saharan Africa, the likely future impact of global warming on Bangladesh, and so on and so on and so on.

[Backfin]

My point is that MEMs aren't the epitome of disgrace and impediment, as some feel.

Yes, they can be a nice place to work.

[Meerkat]

But still, when Western ships travelled to Eastern harbours, Western technology overwhelmed the orient.
I had no idea that flooding China with opium was "western technology" ;)

I've got no problem with western culture, being a beneficiary of it, but I respond stongly negatively to the idea that it is, largely by force of arms, anything superior or the crowning achievement of the world. It ain't.

[Bruce Hooke]

...My point is that MEMs aren't the epitome of disgrace and impediment, as some feel.

Reminds me of a fine line from C.S.Lewis. He was talking about humans in general, but the same view applies to a narrower segment of the human race. The gist of it was that we all have things in our history that we can take great pride in, and things in our history that should bring us great shame. To pick a couple of examples readily at hand, one of my ancestors helped bring women the vote in the United States. Another was the captain of a ship in the slave trade.

[Osborne Russell]

The infidels never developed the technology to use the oil, and therefore 1. lacked any reason to give a crap about it, and 2 lacked the technology to resist even if they did.

The native americans in North America seem to have had adequate resources, haven't they?

I take it you are among the 31% per cent "who believe God is both wrathful and highly involved in human affairs."

[Osborne Russell]

My point is that MEMs aren't the epitome of disgrace and impediment, as some feel.

Who is?

[Osborne Russell]

Why do you hate your own culture?

For its cowardice and hypocrisy.

[TomF]

Who is?Who is the epitome of disgrace and shame? I can rhyme off a series of individuals and groups with different claims to the title. Some (like Torquemada, or Bin Laden) were explicitly practitioners of MEMs. Others (like Stalin or Idi Amin) didn't care much for MEMs. Some (like the Khmer Rouge) have claims because of what they did, others (like the UN countries, in their non-response to Ruanda) because of what they didn't do.

You won't hear me arguing that MEMs have no darkness in them - it's pretty obvious. But you will also hear me argue that MEMs have significant light in them. As is true in many other religious traditions, and some traditions of atheism and agnosticism.

[Osborne Russell]

Leaving aside the attractions of historical analysis for its own sake, let's get down to brass tacks.

1. Radical and not-so-radical Islamists believe themselves to be engaged in a struggle of good vs. evil.

2. So does the Pope.

3. So does George Bush and a significant portion of the American public.

4. So does a significant portion of Jews worldwide, with whom most if not all of the people in no. 3 above agree.

5. The more fundamental the segment, the better armed, and the more violent, up to and including outright apocalyptics.

Not just wars but diplomacy, economic relations, and domestic politics in virtually every nation is in thrall to this competition among the Big Three. The present and the future, leaving aside, for now, the past. What other cultural artifact of homo sapiens could even pretend to be in the same league with MEM?

Look what they can do in a week! Adds up over time.

[TomF]

Well, Osborne, are no evil things occurring in the world? No good things? Don't we want to promote the good, at the expense of the other sort? Think of your own list in the thread starter - presumably, you'd like to avoid some or all of that. Me too, MEMer though I am.

And I agree that the more extreme the ideologue, the more violent the means tends to be. But that's a function of extremism ... religious extremists are a rather large group of species within the genus, but the genus is unfortunately not so limited.

My problem is with extremism vs. tolerance and moderation. Whether the extremists are Christian, or Maoist, or Islamist, or any other -ist we manage to dig up. Once convinced one is "right," and has the moral authority from somewhere (Jesus or Adam Smith or Sun Tzu!) to promote it at the expense of others, we're on the wrong road.

[George.]

It used to be that the big problem in Europe was the competition between the Big Two - Catholicism and Protestantism.

From 1517, when it first reared its ugly head, until 1648, when a comprehensive peace was finally agreed upon, it caused endless suffering, death, and destruction. And all through it, any talk of compromise was seen as defeatism at best, and more commonly as heresy punishable by death.

But heresy or not, they had to learn to tolerate each other, and did. The aftershocks lasted another couple of hundred years, but with little or no violent results. Some of the individual intolerance lasts to this day. But all in all, humanity managed to rid itself of the threat of such absurd fanaticism.

The same will happen between the three MEMs, insh'allah, unless some madman launches nukes first.

[PatCox]

Osborne, I don't think there is any fundamental competition or incompatibility between judaism and christianity. Unless the jews are plotting something I don't know about. And really, there doesn't seem to be any deep-rooted antipathy now between muslim nations and christian nations. We trade with them to mutual advantage, no western power, except for us un Iraq, is trying to colonize or oppress them.

They are mad at us for one single reason and one alone: our support for Israel. The only fundamental clash going on, the only deep issue, is that muslims hate israel for what it has done to the palestinians. Its what Bin Laden himself says in every tape, its what the Saudis say all day and night everywhere on their TV, radio, and newspapers. Its their avowed reason, yet the US media wono't tell us and our leaders deliberately lie about it.

Thats it. Thats what fuels radical islam, and thats radical islam's goal, avenging the palestinians.

They don't "hate us for our freedoms." Thats BS. This is not a clash of, or for, civilization.

They hate us for our support of Israel. Thats it and nothing more.

Its because we have taken a side in a turf battle in the middle east.

Any effort to make it any more complicated or broad than that is just propaganda to distract you from the real reason, and to make you think its in your best interest to take part in the fight.

[Meerkat]

Religion is a veneer for the real play: economics. It's always been about money - sex, politics and religion just come along for the ride.

[PatCox]

Not true, Meer you old Marxist you. Religion is sometimes succesfully manipulated for political reasons, but it also does have a life of its own. Funny, though, your short version of the marxist-materialist view of history actually completely exxonerates religion, doesn't it? I wouldn't go that far, sometimes religion itself is the cause of evil.

[Meerkat]

It's not marxist at all - I've never studied Marxism. It's simple common sense. Whether it's been spices, silk, uranium ore, chinese goods or oil, religion and politics have been there either to create a pretext or to join in the spoils. Prosperous nations don't go to war - they have too much to lose - unless of course, there's something they want/need and they can do all the destruction in someone else's country(s). That's just a matter of greed.

If the ME was prosperous, there wouldn't be war or religious strife. Look beyond the Me to all the other places in the world where there's strife going on. Can you name one place that isn't fundamentally about the not-haves wanting more and the haves not wanting to part with theirs?

[George.]

"Religion is sometimes succesfully manipulated for political reasons, but it also does have a life of its own."

That's pretty much what I said on the other thread, before Sam shat all over it.

[Keith Wilson]

If the ME was prosperous, there wouldn't be war or religious strife. Look beyond the Me to all the other places in the world where there's strife going on. Can you name one place that isn't fundamentally about the not-haves wanting more and the haves not wanting to part with theirs?Not that simple, unfortunately. It's analogous to saying, "poverty is the cause of crime", which is only partially true as well. The bloodiest and most destructive wars in history have been fought between the most prosperous countries. Germany was not a poor country, nor was Japan.

[PatCox]

Well the congrats, Meer, for having independantly discovered one of the valid parts of Marx's historical analysis. Though as I said, it can still be taken too far.

[Meerkat]

Not that simple, unfortunately. It's analogous to saying, "poverty is the cause of crime", which is only partially true as well. The bloodiest and most destructive wars in history have been fought between the most prosperous countries. Germany was not a poor country, nor was Japan.Germany started on the path to WW II as a very poor country and because of that poverty fell into the hands of madmen. Japan was pushed into WW II by the near term prospect of resource starvation.

[PatCox]

Meer, its not always "haves" vs. "have nots," sometimes its the takers vs. the taken from.

[George.]

For about 700 years, from 700 to 1400, the Islamic ME was far more prosperous, freer, and more advanced than the Christian West.

Since then, we have caught up and surpassed, although some argue that we have peaked and are in decline.

That's been going on for about 600 years.

Call me back in another hundred. ;)

[Meerkat]

Meer, its not always "haves" vs. "have nots," sometimes its the takers vs. the taken from.Semantics? Whether they don't have it because they never did or it got taken, they want their piece of the pie (back) too!

[Meerkat]

For about 700 years, from 700 to 1400, the Islamic ME was far more prosperous, freer, and more advanced than the Christian West.
And who was warring with them? ;) Trade routes, silk, spices... money - with a kicker of "saving the holy land from the infidel!" ;)

[Keith Wilson]

They hate us for our support of Israel. That's it and nothing more.Also too simple. That's one reason, sure, but another is that in the competition for the heats and minds of people, there is a great division between traditional Islam and the modern West - and Islam is losing. The West is vastly richer, enormously more powerful, in its materialism, secularism, nd obvious public sexuality deeply offensive, and from the outside at least, very very attractive. Girls in Algeria watch movies from Hollywood and start wondering why they have to wear veils and be somebody's second wife and not go to college. Boys in Egypt want to drive a Lexus and think Angelina Jolie looks pretty good. Those of a more serious bent wonder why they have to put up with a such a corrupt, incompetent, and authoritarian government. In this sense there IS a war of cultures going on, and Islam is losing, losing almost everywhere, and has been for hundreds of years. You wonder why there's a violent reaction?

[Meerkat]

So, we're rich and can do all these fun things and they're poor and can't do any fun things and you still don't think the root cause is money or the lack thereof?

I'm not denying that ideology plays a part, but IMO, if you solve the affluence problem, the ideology will follow along. It appears to have done so historically.

[George.]

Girls in Algeria watch movies from Hollywood and start wondering why they have to wear veils and be somebody's second wife and not go to college. Boys in Egypt want to drive a Lexus and think Angelina Jolie looks pretty good. Those of a more serious bent wonder why they have to put up with a such a corrupt, incompetent, and authoritarian government. In this sense there IS a war of cultures going on, and Islam is losing...

Islam is losing, and Christianity already lost, circa 1650. Christianity does NOT produce girls without veils, Lexuses, or Angelina Jolie in tight pants. What it historically produced was oppression of women and corrupt, incompetent, and authoritarian governments. But secularism has won in the West, and may yet do so in the ME.

[pcford]

They hate us for our support of Israel. Thats it and nothing more.


I disagree as well, change of our thinking vis-a-vis Israel is necessary to bringing peace in the Middle East but it is not sufficient.

But it's a start.

Unfortunately, Israeli lobby groups, in particular AIPAC and even more important the radical Christian right, make this exceedingly difficult. The Christian right believes that for Jesus to return, the Jews have to rule in Israel. Never mind that they believe that on the last day the Jews will be barbequed, while the Christians rise to heaven on slender threads to get their reward.

The current administration is fueled by corporatists interest and well as the radical Christian right...among others. To advocate a return to a more even handed approach to the Middle East is to put yourself at risk of opprobrium. Even here, when Rick Starr thought I was criticizing Israel, he called me an antisemite and put me on his ignore list. If this were the real world there might be consequences for such an action, but this is the internet. And cowards can hide.

[Paul G.]

Jesus by all accounts was decent,
I also hear that Mohamed was likewise a good man,

the problem is not the religion but the whack jobs who insist on promoting their self serving interests in a corrupt and vile fashion.

[Osborne Russell]

Meanwhile buddhism has led the buddhists from toiling in the paddies 5,000 years ago to toiling in the paddies today, with exactly the same tools, livestock, and clothing.

Buddhism has never claimed to offer a foundation for anything other than relief from self-induced suffering caused by illusion. It does not pretend to express the will of God, His plan for society, His creation and destruction of the world, etc. Mostly unsuitable for conquest or even for organization of anything more complicated than a monastery. Even the Japanese militarists, with a long head start, largely failed to make Buddhism part of militarism.

So in the competition of social organizing principles, Buddhism doesn't so much lose as forfeit. As George said, most religions are amalgams of philosophy and politics. Buddhism has very little politics. Westerners therefore consider it inferior.

Try to imagine a scene like this in medieval Europe -- they'd chop the guy's head off:


Emperor of China: Welcome great sage! Long have we waited to experience your wisdom! See, I have built many temples, endowed many scholars, provided for countless monks and nuns, and sponsored the copying of distribution of countless sutras. Based on these actions, what may I expect in this life, and in the life to come?

Bodhidharma: Vast emptiness.

[stumpbumper]

The idea that western cultures are superior is what led to the justification of the slave trade in the 1700s and imperialism in the 1800s. Yet we continue to be motivated by our "superiority" in our encounters and interactions with other societies today, and it keeps us in trouble.
Christianity has been kidnapped by our inflated western ego as well. A little respect and humility would serve us well. Jesus probably would not have taken issue at all with Siddhartha's truths and paths. We could learn much from eastern religions/philosophies, although most of them, with the exception of Buddhism, had gender bias and justified class divisions.
As far as technology, particularly maritime, China and India were far superior to Europe for centuries before Europeans finally developed the caravelle. The Indian and Chinese merchants had been sailing the coasts of southern Asia for centuries, perhaps as far back as the third century B.C.. The Indian Ocean Trade and the Silk Roads had been thriving for centuries before Europeans just discovered them and got in on an already thriving trade system.
Our "inside looking out" system of viewing history and present day politics is flawed.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

But China didn't do anything with its inventions, nothing of great impact, because Chinese society was so conservative. Same thing with the greek steam turbine, they only viewed it as a toy.



Whilst I agree with most of what you've said on this thread, you are astray on this one.

For several thousand years, say from before 1,000 BC to around 1500 AD, Chinese society led the world in all respects. Chinese people lived longer, enjoyed better health, were more secure in their homes and persons, and often lived in large cities. From 223 BC onwards, China was a unified empire, in which war was effectively unknown, barring the occasional change of dynasty. China smelted iron so effectively that, unlike in European archeology, where we never find iron because it was always re-used, Chinese archaelogical sites are full of discarded iron tools. Under the Tang dynasty, China was a place that welcomed immigrants of all descriptions and all religions, which were practised alongside each other without fear or hostility. China invented the novel and the restaurant alongside paper money, the compass, gunpowder, the centreline rudder and the compass and went in for huge works of civil engineering, such as the grand canal.

Why and how it all fell apart is an interesting study - Jared Diamond blames New World vegetables - but China was certainly not a "socially conservative" place until much, much later.

[Keith Wilson]

Why and how it all fell apart is an interesting study Something I'd like to learn more about. What's the deal with New World vegetables???

I suppose that from their point of view they're just resuming their rightful place at the center of things.

[George.]

"From 223 BC onwards, China was a unified empire, in which war was effectively unknown..."

That is largely the reason they slipped behind. No competition, no pressure. Meanwhile, in Europe, multiple nation-states competed, and those who fell behind were beaten up. The invisible hand pushed the lot "forward."

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Something I'd like to learn more about. What's the deal with New World vegetables???

I suppose that from their point of view they're just resuming their rightful place at the center of things.

That's right. It's why they are so quiet, calm and self-assured about it.

The New World Vegetables Theory for the collapse of China goes like this:

At about the end of the Ming, Portuguese seafarers establish themselves at Macao; they are allowed to build a small trading settlement there.

Jesuit priests are interested in the possibilities in China (the J's were fascinated by China for several hundred years, in fact) and travel to Macao. They take with them things that the Chinese might like, such as astronomical instruments (the Chinese liked those, and later on the J's were settled at Beijing as Court Astronomers) and the new vegetables discovered in the New World.

The vegetables catch on like windfire; ever noticed how much Chinese cooking turns on things like sweetcorn, tomatoes, and beans?

The result is a population explosion in China during the Qing; in fact the population doubles.

This has the effect of making labour so cheap that technology is unwanted - everything can be done by human manual labour, and Chinese technology actually goes backwards during the Qing.

[George.]

Sounds like Rome and its abundant slaves...

[Osborne Russell]

Or America with oil, slaves and Mexicans.

[Keith Wilson]

Riiiight. Labor is so cheap in the US that technological development has been negligible for hundreds of years. :rolleyes:

[Osborne Russell]

What makes MEM a scourge:

1. Insistence on one God, who is supernatural, but created nature, and rules it. Therefore everything in the real world must have its place in the supernatural scheme.

2. The supernatural scheme is not something people can settle upon via rationality.

3. Therefore conflict is inevitable -- "Oh yeah? My one God can beat up your one God."

MEM beat out its animistic predecessors because of its greater utility in a conflict. It supports the troops and fortifies the home front. It allows the narrowest self-interest to rationalized as the most transcendent divine purpose.

[Osborne Russell]

Riiiight. Labor is so cheap in the US that technological development has been negligible for hundreds of years. :rolleyes:

I hope we got plenty of it in storage when the oil stops.

[glenallen]

I wish I had more of the skills and raw resources of American Paleo Indians and less dependence upon modernity.
There's a lot to be said for needing only flint rock and animal hides to thrive for 10,000 years as a people.
If the world continues as it is, our heirs may need those Paleo skills.

[PeterSibley]

That's right. It's why they are so quiet, calm and self-assured about it.

The New World Vegetables Theory for the collapse of China goes like this:

At about the end of the Ming, Portuguese seafarers establish themselves at Macao; they are allowed to build a small trading settlement there.

Jesuit priests are interested in the possibilities in China (the J's were fascinated by China for several hundred years, in fact) and travel to Macao. They take with them things that the Chinese might like, such as astronomical instruments (the Chinese liked those, and later on the J's were settled at Beijing as Court Astronomers) and the new vegetables discovered in the New World.

The vegetables catch on like windfire; ever noticed how much Chinese cooking turns on things like sweetcorn, tomatoes, and beans?

The result is a population explosion in China during the Qing; in fact the population doubles.

This has the effect of making labour so cheap that technology is unwanted - everything can be done by human manual labour, and Chinese technology actually goes backwards during the Qing.

That theory sounds a little fanciful Andrew .Its hard to imagine that any Western vegetables ,with the exception of potatoes would have been a nutrituional improvement on a rice based diet.I haven't got my copy of "Farmers of Forty Centuries "to hand,but the figures quoted therein are staggering and they are base on rice and what I would call Asian greens .
I would have thought the population "explosion" would have come from better rice variety selections , improved methods of cultivation and expanded irrigation..

[Milo Christensen]

TWIMEM, cont'd week 2: The pope's remarks anger Al Qaeda to the point of declaring a jihad (but, then, what do I know, I thought they already had declared a jihad?). Wow, the pope involved in escalating WWIII, I mean the pope!

So the freakin' ragheads kill a nun working at a hospital and school. Freakin' ragheads are freakin nuts!

[Osborne Russell]

So the freakin' ragheads kill a nun working at a hospital and school. Freakin' ragheads are freakin nuts!

The person of ordinary intelligence and decency hungers for an alternate explanation.

The Pope -- representative of a major point of view -- says Islam added nothing to MEM but a rationale for the use of force. Muslims say -- what?

1. Not true, or
2. A misinterpretation.

#1 could be easily shown, it would seem, by citation to the Koran. OK, where's the citations?

#2 might take some time, but they've had 1600 years. Heck, it's been 5 years since 9/11/01, but nowhere in the major media do I see even an attempt to do it. I'm waiting -- in vain?

It's a serious question. Must Islam remain at war with the rest of MEM, setting aside for the moment, the rest of the world? Yes or no, please.

[PatCox]

I just got to thinking that MEM is too diverse a group to look at as one. For example, you have jews, muslims, and christians. The one predominantly jewish state in the world is almost a theocracy, but not quite, (kinda like Ireland is almost a christian theocray) and is a free democracy. The majority of the free democracies on earth are populated largely by christians, though there are largely christian countries which are dictatorships and monarchies. There is not on earth, to my knowledge, a christian theocracy. Meanwhile, the muslim world is full of theocratic autocracies and military dictatorships, with the exception of Turkey and maybe Egypt.

Seems to me there are significant differences.

[George.]

You forgot the blacks and the Asians. Most of them live in corrupt dictatorships, while the majority of free democracies have white majorities.

Which proves... ?

[John of Phoenix]

The collapse of China? And caused by vegetables? I missed it somewhere. When did it happen?

Here I thought those billions of people were just keeping to themselves and enjoying acupuncture all these thousands of years. They collapsed?

[Osborne Russell]

There is not on earth, to my knowledge, a christian theocracy.

1. Stick around.
2. While you're waiting, read some history. The current liberal-secular era is the exception that proves the rule.

[PatCox]

Okay, so the fact that the secular liberal democratic societies on earth pretty much all have a christian majority proves that christians are against these things?

And if they deny they are witches, that proves they are a witch, and you can burn them.

What I am suggesting, of course, is that the concept of justice which arose in the MEMs and christianity has led to some good, as well as some evil. the good being, oh, stable, secular liberal democracies. As opposed to the unstable, vastly corrupt, tyrannical governments that arose, oh, everywhere else on earth.

And don't nobody bring up the greeks, sure, they weren't christians when they invented democracy, but guess what, the christians who invented christianity were all greeks and wrote the gospels in greek. I have read plenty of history, and it all points towards the fact that the most technologically advanced, liberal, free societies were developed by christians. We might not have beene kind to our enemies, but who has? At least we are good to each other, which you cannot say for a lot of other societies.

[PeterSibley]

Pat , you have a curiously isolated view of cultural developement .Cultures evolve and their starting intellectual came from those who went before .Each at its peak seems to produce remarkable achievements and somewhat less as things decline .

The acheivements of the West were built upon the achievements of its predecessors,ancient Greece,Rome,China and the Islamic ME.Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Would you mind explaining what it is that so worries you about Jared Diamond's ,"Guns ,Germs and Steel" other than giving the credit for our current supremacy to geographical rather than genetic determinants .

[Lew Barrett]

At least we are good to each other, which you cannot say for a lot of other societies.

Pat,
Although I think there is some merit in a number of your arguments, this last comment is highly debatable, or at least begs the question: "good to each other" in what way?

Do we define "good" as good in WWII which was largely
(or at least over half) a war of European nations, and speaking for the continent, resulted in 50 million dead? Good as in WWI which, with the exception of the Turks was entirely a war of European nations, resulting in 20 million dead? Good as in the development of virulent gases which were used first in warefare against Europeans by Europeans? Need I go on?
The argument that Europeans (and Americans) are somehow better because we are good to each other seems to stretch a step too far to me. With the exception of the last 50 odd years, most of the major wars of the world have been fought over the Continent, and, if I may say so, with a great deal of brutality in consequence of the technical superiority of the available armaments.

[Osborne Russell]

In the nature of things, it's more difficult to find instances where religion clearly played a positive role than the other kind. Abolition of slvary comes to mind, though religion gave strength to the slave-owners too.

But to say that the west is Christian and therefore owes its development to Christianity is a stretch. The main contribution was a rationale for expansion. That expansion produced many benefits -- for the west. It also produced many costs for the west.

What the ultimate plus/minus balance might be is less useful than an inquiry into why the negatives are incurred -- often the same ones, again and again. From Galileo to stem cells. Why?

[Meerkat]

I could have sworn it was Indian-grown opium, brought to China by the Brittish, that brought down the Chinese.