This is horrible news
Just look at predominately Muslim countries. Is there a good one in the lot? All we hear about from these lands is beheadings, stoning of women and honor killings of daughters, embassies burned down over cartoons, illiteracy, belief in wild conspiracies...
No Nobel prizes, no scientific breakthroughs, no contributions to literature, humane letters or art. Almost anywhere any violent conflicts are going on, Muslims are a party to it.
They seem to have a knack for snuffing the light of reason in every corner they infest. Contrast this with the Christianity-spurred Scholastic movement of the theocratic Christian Middle Ages. Other than a few flare-ups, Christianity rode the enlightenment and the renaissance rather than launch bloody rampages against it. Christianity has had its violent episodes, but it powered the advance of Western Civilization, and now sits content to let earthly powers run the governments. There are no Christian theocracies.
There is some good news, if we can believe it…
Despite the rapid growth of Islam, Christianity seems set to remain the biggest religion in the world for the next 20 years. There are currently more than 2 billion Christians - 30 to 35 percent of the global population - making it very unlikely that there will be fewer than 2.2 billion Christians in 2030.Muslim numbers are increasing and spreading across the globe, and that is bad news indeed. I say this based upon my observation of the world.
The report undermines the notion that Europe is heading toward having any country with a Muslim majority. The continent will be about 8 percent Muslim in 2030, it projects.
"The data that we have isn't pointing in the direction of 'Eurabia' at all," Grim said.
"The Muslim population is growing and slowing. Instead of a runaway train, it's trending with the general global population," he said. (CNN)
What is the religious status of successful countries?
The typical successful and free country has a religion-neutral government where practicing believers of various and disparate faiths peacefully coexist with one another and with non-believers. Until Muslims learn to do this, their lands will continue to be snakepits of hatred and economic misery
37 comments:
Just look at predominately Muslim countries. Is there a good one in the lot?
Not with shari'a law in place, and most Moslem countries are moving further and further into shari'a law -- if they're not already there.
Islam is more than a faith: it is a geopolitical system. Hence, separation of mosque and state is inordinately difficult -- if not impossible.
@ "Islam is more than a faith: it is a geopolitical system. Hence, separation of mosque and state is inordinately difficult -- if not impossible."
Indeed. That is what makes muslim countries intolerant places and what makes Islam incompatible with western civilization and our classical liberal democracy.
I have passed no judgment on Islam, I am just making a point it is a struggle to reconcile our two very different cultures.
Pious Muslims will tell you that there is no separation between Mosque and state, and that's fine a long as they keep it over there and don't introduce those foreign, illiberal ideas here. We went through our dark ages, and we don't want to go back.
"that's fine a long as they keep it over there"
Although this is the default position of tolerance, I find it hard to defend when it comes down to human rights abuses.
Jez:
Who are we to tell Muslims how they must behave in their own lands? What gives you that right?
The CNN comments about Eurabia are incredibly deceptive. I've read quite a bit about France and non-muslims aren't having babies anymore while muslim childbirth is enormous. In the under 20 category, muslims comprise 30%. So maybe all of europe isn't threatened in the next couple decades, but France and a couple others are. CNN uses Europe wide statistics to mask what is a clear and present danger. Muslim demographics in non-muslim countries ARE a freight train, which is far in the distance for some and much much nearer for others.
You guys put too much emphasis on religion and not enough on history.
Just remember, there was a time when Islam was not nearly such a negative force in that part of the world, and in world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, is isn't nearly so problematic.
Religion, since it is all just subjective fairy tales, always manifests itself as a reflection of the broader society, not the definition of the society itself.
In the Middle East, just a hundred years ago there were few developed states, and virtually no tradition of parliamentary democracy. When oil become such a valuable resource, European colonial powers divied up the land and installed illegitimate regimes designed to protect the access to oil and not the rights of the peoples.
Militaries were propped up by the colonialists to prop up these regimes. Small oligarchies were fed huge profits in return for oil access while the people did without.
As the colonialists faded into the background, these regimes either were replaced, as in Iran, or simply morphed into ostensibly native powers but with the same purpose as before.
This is the situation in much of the Middle East today. If that can be resolved, all this paranoia about Islam will fade away as well.
JMJ
Hard to say what gives me that right, but it's very difficult to feel good about arguing away something like genital mutilation, or the execution of apostates as simply a different cultural norm.
Do I need a special rights to hold an opinion, or to exchange my ideas freely, or even to "judge" (unpopular as that verb may be) a culture on its own merits? I'm a big fan of freedom of speech.
Jersey: Your comments are worn out claptrap, but I'm sure CAIR is proud of you.
It always amuses me to hear a self-avowed liberal bend over backwards to apologize for the world's most illiberal, misogynist, human rights abusing religion in the world.
Jez: I share your disgust at all you mentioned, and they are human rights abuses. I ask, what can we do about it?
Also, although I disagree with such a philosophy, what right do we have to tell other nations they cannot base their governments on Sharia law?
Silverfiddle, we do what works, of course. Capitalism. A Starbucks on every corner...pays for things like education. Educated people are difficult to shove around. People who are allowed to be responsible for their own destiny, even harder!
Capitalism.
"If that can be resolved, all this paranoia about Islam will fade away as well."
Jersey you have to be purposely making statements like this just to provoke .
Although I do find it amazing how many liberals defend Islam yet the bigger threat is Christianity(Just ask Rosie O'Donnell)
Because this is no threat just paranoia.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
I think it's hilarious you righties are so frightened of EVERYTHING! Stop listening to fearmongers, get on with your life... Geeeeez!!
Nobody here said anything about being afraid or frightened.
Is there anyone on the left who can follow a line of argument?
Jeez, Silver, you're really phoning it in lately on the comment board. What is it that I said that apolizes for anything? Where did I applaud Islam? ALL RELIGION IS STUPID AND DESTRUCTIVE. How many times do I have to make myself clear about that?
And furthermore, in the opinion of most atheists, including myself, Islam is a worst of the three major monotheistic faiths. It's teachings are the most arbitrary, dogmatic, and backwards - and that's saying something!
But religion is NOT the be all and end all of the Middle Eastern Question. Anyone who thinks that simpistically is just projecting their own simplistic religious beliefs on others. And besides, you can't win, at least in today's world, fighting against people's religious beliefs. Even here in modern America, the church is uses any criticism to make itself seem the victim, martyred, and then stand defensively and strike out with reactionary relgiious zeal.
The people of the Middle East will modify and modernize their religious pratices when their lives otherwise improve. Just as it did for the Christians.
Lisa,
I'm not provoking. I'm just trying to have an adult conversation. I completely disagree with Silver that somehow Islam is the problem in and of itself. I think he is being suckered by sleazy, evil, lowlife American war mongers who want a new Cold War, this time with Islam.
And remember, the Cold War was not so "cold." It was a bloody, expensive, divisive, crooked, miserable affair that did great damage to all the nations involved in one way or another. The last thing we need is a bunch of Americans believing the rabble-rousing rightwing rhetoric inspiring real perpetual war with abstract ideas.
JMJ
Hey Sue is that you in the white?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Group_of_Women_Wearing_Burkas.jpg/800px-Group_of_Women_Wearing_Burkas.jpg
its the end of the world as we know it.......................
I'm not fighting against islamic beliefs, I am simply pointing out that it is incompatible with our western civilization's classical liberalism.
And yes, religion does not explain it all. Inbreeding, an overinflated sense of honor, and a legacy of misery, failure and shame are also in the mix.
I've been there, Jersey. I've seen it up close.
Jersey how can you not think that Islam is a problem? They are huge population of the Middle East o if we have conflict with them it's hardly avoidable that we would be at war with Islam and they with us even though it isn't the religion we are fighting it's terrorism . It JUST SO HAPPENS THEY ARE mostly Islamic..
Why is worrying about radicals taking over an abstract idea?It's not that far fetched like it never happened over there before.
Silverfiddle - So you have found the silver lining.... at least for now.
But wait.... Pay close attention to the paragon of dewy eyed irrational liberal progressives and stop listening to the "fear mongers" will you please?
With further respect to Sue's comment... LMAO!
"They seem to have a knack for snuffing the light of reason in every corner they infest."
It's their religion, plain and simple.
"There are currently more than 2 billion Christians...."
You see unlike stupid, bigoted liberals, the common man out there knows which one is the real religion of peace, it's obvious, like the nose on your face.
"The report undermines the notion that Europe is heading toward having any country with a Muslim majority."
I hope that is true, they're betting their entire existence on that.
"The continent will be about 8 percent Muslim in 2030, it projects."
But how many Christians will be left in Europe and i mean young ones, that's the key to keeping your civilization going.
"ALL RELIGION IS STUPID AND DESTRUCTIVE."
Definitely, nations where religion is expelled and shunned did so well didn't they, the glorious soviet union, the utopia of Cuba being shining examples. How many millions did they slaughter by the way? Who cares ey jersey, omelet, eggs etc right. Thank heavens 2.2 billion people doesn't share that sort of lazy stupidity.
"I'm not provoking. I'm just trying to have an adult conversation."
That's good, always throw a joke in there somewhere it lightens the mood.
"And remember, the Cold War was not so "cold." It was a bloody, expensive, divisive, crooked, miserable affair that did great damage to all the nations involved in one way or another."
You forgot to mention it was all started by that Reagan fellow, if it wasn't for him, the glorious soviet union would still be shining up there on the hill of godlessness. A wonderful beacon for you liberals to move to, yes?
"The last thing we need is a bunch of Americans believing the rabble-rousing rightwing rhetoric inspiring real perpetual war with abstract ideas."
Hell yeah, we need them to believe more enlightened blowhard liberal mega-minds like yours so that the genital mutilation, sharia, honor killings and all the beautiful features of islam can become part and parcel of American culture. Like bringing a fragant goat curry to the 4th of july barbecue.
Silver, remember that I worked in international trade. Remember too that I grew up in a "multiculural world." One thing I've learned from all that? People are people. There really isn't all that much difference.
Now, if you've seen that up close too, then fine, but let's take it to the national level. Can you at least see that it's a lot - A LOT - more than religion that's effecting the region these days?
Lisa,
Islam isn't helping things, but we're not helping things by putting all the onus on Islam. The Egyptian crisis is not about Islam, after all. Why would anyone want to inspire otherwise, but for their own malevolent reasons? Even the MB is standing aside, for now... Do you think it's a good idea to drag them into this?
Les - think about it - we're looking and hoping for the EXACT SAME silver lining.
Once again, we Americans are being divided just like Mubarrak is dividing the Egyptians! What a bad joke.
JMJ
We can argue against it for a start. I don't assume that mere argument is sufficient, but I've got a hunch that it's necessary.
Moreover, that argument needs to be in broad, universal, humanist terms ie. reciprocity and empathy. Even if you prefer religious moral appeals, I think history shows that clashes of religion tend to stalemate.
At the same time, we must do better than a curt "mind your own business" when a foreigner criticizes Western culture. It would be silly to expect him to listen to us if we refuse to engage/entertain his arguments about us. In any case, the resulting dialogue might do both our cultures good.
I don't know how far that will get us, but progress depends on a free market of ideas. It is possible that the free exchange and testing of ideas is no match for ingrained state religion. Actually, I expect the great barrier not to be the Arabic theocracies, but the secretive censor states like China and N Korea.
The other obvious alternatives are
a) military intervention -- depending on whom you ask, "Saddam was a bad man" was ample justification for war in Iraq, so why not elsewhere? I wouldn't necessarily be against wise action against N Korea or Zimbabwe, but clearly politics is the art of the possible. Anyway we've already experimented with imperialism and found it to be an evil in itself: that's a good reason for our reluctance to intervene since.
b) economic sanction. This is one we can play along with at home, to a degree. Money is an amazing thing: not only is it exchangeable for goods and services, it's also our vote. If enough people boycott a product, it disappears: therefore don't buy goods from oppressive regimes.
But it's hard to avoid Arab oil.
AOW brings up a very important point-- Islam isn't just another religion, which makes this all the more alarming.
It's a matter of numbers and birth rates. If we stop aborting and contracepting ourselves into nonexistence...
Jersey: Unloading container ships and living in an ethnic neighborhood doesn't cut it.
You're making a distinction without a difference. Islam is not just the religion, its the illiberal cultural bigotry and the militant political agenda as well.
If the practitioners of the religion of pieces had a history of keeping to themselves we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The studious ignorance of the obvious has become the hallmark of the left.
Jersey I know this crisis isn't about Islam although the possibility of it becoming a Theocracy is great. Hey I am all for people fighting for democracy although I find it odd that liberals are only for democracy in countries where the leaders are our friends and could care less about human rights in countries where it's leaders are our enemies.
Is it now all of a sudden OK for the US to be orchestrating democracy in other countries?
Who do you think is behind this?
Jes: Again, I share your regard for God-given freedoms and human rights.
Where it gets dicey is at just what point is it ok for one nation to intervene violently in the affairs of another. Human trafficking and sexual slavery is rampant in many parts of the world. Do you want to go invade?
Your toying with invasion puts you on the George Bush-neocon slippery slope. Careful...
Another great way to stop the Muslim movement is to quit falling back and to make them comply and adapt to the ways of the nation they want to occupy.
Guess I do want to invade or intervene, or at least part of me does. I guess as long as I don't use deception to coerce my country's parliament to support invation, all the while keeping my real motives secret, I'll be OK on the neocon slippery slope.
You're an honest man, Jez.
I have come to the libertarian conclusion that no country has a right to invade another unless attacked. We should have turned the keys to Afghanistan over to the Northern Alliance once we chased the Taliban. So it descends into chaos again? Not my problem.
And we have no respect in the Muslim world because instead of crushing entire lands, we shoot with popguns and then apologize.
Also, calling Saudi and Egyptian dictators dear friends while their citizens kill us also contributes to our losing face.
Silverfiddle, I agree but I would go one step further. Maybe two. As always, free trade has also benefitted countries who labor under oppressive governments. It is a step in the right direction.
Also, please do not forget that free people are always welcome to help those oppressed peoples at their own expense. Many do. I know you are aware that Americans outgive any other country on the planet. Imagine how much more they would give if they were not burdened by unconstitutional taxes?
Quite right, Divine. Also, helping those who ask, like in Central America in the 80's, is also OK. We gave the support, those people gave their blood to fight for their own countries, and they are all materially better now.
Is it good libertarianism to allow genocides on foreign soil to proceed unopposed? Does international law have no place in libertarianism? Is that moral to just stay out of it, because it isn't our problem?
This is another trolley dilemma, isn't it?
No. It's not a dilemma.
Rapes, murder, slavery, every horror imaginable goes on all over the world.
You are free to raise a private army and go clean it up. Where will you start?
Obviously in real life it isn't binary, there are all sorts of levels of diplomatic pressure that can be applied. So yes it's not a dilemma, until you simplify it to "intervene" or "don't intervene". But I mentioned the trolley dilemma because it illustrates the moral/psychological difference between intervention and non-intervention. Is the same morality or psychology that causes most people to choose not to throw the switch even when fewer people would die also behind your interpretation of libertarianism as applied to foreign crimes against humanity.
As to my own army, even if it were legal for me to prosecute my own campaigns around the world, I couldn't afford it. Meanwhile, I'm already funding my fair share of my country's armed forces.
Interesting idea though: are you really happier with the idea of private armies dealing with this sort of thing? Is it not that it's wrong to interfere with a foreign genocide, just that it's outside the purview of a national government?
jez, I would laugh but I know you're serious. Tell me, what good our government has done with regard to genocide in say...Africa?
Shall we keep throwing money and force at the world's problems only to have the inhabitants of those countries resent us and crash our planes into buildings?
I never took you for a bully. Well, yes I did.
Jez: From a government point of view, it must ask itself "Is it in our national interest to intervene?"
Bad stuff going on in Mexico is a bigger theat to America than bad stuff going on in Africa.
Libertarianism aside, I think international consensus also plays a role. Nobody really cared about Saddam putting opponents through shredders, chaining dissidents to lamp posts and cutting their tongues out, etc. Indeed, our putting a stop to it earned us nothing but the world's wrath.
The brutal talibanization of Afghanistan also didn't seem to bother anybody, nor did Janjaweek slaughter and rape of animists.
Post a Comment