A bit more then half, actually. From the CIA world factbook:
Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)
Perhaps it’s possible, but I’ve never heard of an Anglican or Methodist leader (or leaders) speaking out on something like this authoritatively on behalf of the church as a whole. There’s certainly a heirarchy, but its function is very different. I think the RCC is unique among large Christian sects in this regard.
Jeez… and now you compound your distortions? Oh, what a tangled web.
If you hadn’t seen that post, how could you respond by saying
So, you were talking about a later cite that I provided and you were responding to… that you hadn’t seen? Why oh why does that not sound true? :dubious:
Whatever. Why don’t you go talk some more about those wacky protestors who got all upset that someone poked fun at their sacred cow. You’ll earn extra points if you do that while comparing people to serial killers for saying that your sacred cow doesnt’ have an objective standard of proof.
So today, besides torching embassies, they aired their displeasure of the cartoons by going rampage through the christian quarters of Beirut and vandalising a christian church. Can the hypocrisy get any thicker? Fuck those idiots. They can eat shit.
I was referring to the latter cite in my post. The sentence that you quoted, that contained the words “latter cite”, immediately followed a paragraph that contained two cites. The second, or “latter”, was to a thread containing a discussion with you.
You’re doing a superb job reinforcing my opinion that discussion is wasted on you.
I’m rather enjoying reading the reactions to the Muslim burnings (remember the OP?) in this thread. You guys suppose you could take your personal beefs and go tear each other apart somewhere else, please?
Why is it that the reflexive act of some people towards thousands of rioting Muslims is to immediately attempt to draw an equivalence with all religions, or to throw Christianity into the mix?
Does anyone really believe that Christians as a group have the same problems with violence and intolerance? When’s the last time you saw a Buddhist with a suicide belt?
Yes, you can find individual acts of violence committed by people of any faith. Or non-faith. You can even occasionally find small sects of nutbars within most faiths who become violent, suicidal, or whatever.
But clearly something very different is going on in the Muslim world. We’re not talking about a handful of people here. We’re talking about millions. We’re talking about powerful Imams inciting violence and issuing Fatwahs calling for the death of people like Salman Rushdie. That fatwa, by the way, had wide support in the Muslim world. Even Cat “Peace Train” Stevens issued a statement in favor of it.
Polls in many Muslim countries show widespread support for terrorism. It’s been declining in recent years, but it’s still high - on the order of 20-50% of the population in many of these countries.
Much as I hate the man, comparisons with people like Pat Robertson are just wildly off the mark. You can make that comparison on the day when Pat Robertson has 10,000 supporters who riot, burn buildings, and assassinate people whenever he tells them to. You can equate Christianity or Judaism to what’s going on if the Jews react to the next blood libel cartoon by rampaging through Ramallah burning Mosques, or when the next artist who puts a crucifix in a jar of urine has a death order put on his head by Billy Graham.
There is no moral equivalency here. In another thread a poster tried to claim that the treatment of women in Muslim countries wasn’t a human rights issue, just a cultural difference. Tell that to the woman who was caned 100 times last week for daring to live in the house of an unmarried man for a short time, or the woman who was executed for the crime of being raped, or the woman in Pakistan who was turned over to another tribe to be gang raped as ‘payment’ for her own tribal leaders raping a woman from the other group.
We should have as much tolerance for all of this bullshit as we had for apartheid in South Africa. I’m getting damned sick of Muslim outrage at every supposed slight upon their religion and culture, while we look the other way while they murder homosexuals, engage in honor killings, beat their women, cut the hands off of thieves, and stone people to death for heresy.
<insert usual disclaimer about how it’s not all muslims, yes, many muslims are progressive and renounce this stuff, yes, some of it has more to do with the Arab culture and other cultures in muslim countries than the faith itself. Yes, we can coexist with Islam. Yada yada yada>
The thing is, the only way to fix this problem without massive violence is for the moderates and progressives in Muslim countries to stand up and fight for tolerance and marginalize the extremists in their midst. And perhaps for that to happen they have to realize that we will NOT tolerate the extremist behaviour and that their only chance for a peaceful coexistence with the west is to help reform their societies. Do we really enable that by making excuses for every act of Muslim intolerance, and bending over backwards to tell the moderates that it really isn’t their fault and we don’t hold them responsible?
Perhaps it’s time to stand up and simply say, “this is unacceptable to us. We will not tolerant the systematic extermination of homosexuals. We will not tolerate the mistreatment of women. We will not tolerate violence being used to stifle opinion. If you want to join the community of nations, you will fix these things.”
We did it to South Africa. And apartheid went away and they voluntarily dismantled their nuclear weapons.
There seems to be some fundamental differences between Islam and the other major world religions that make liberal beliefs harder to reconcile with the religion. For example, Islam holds that its sacred text was dictated word-for-word by God; whereas even most fundamentalist Christians believe the bible is the “inspired word of God”–that is, not God’s literal words, but mans interpretation of them.
And that’s not even touching on the political and social factors that push them towards religious extremism.
You’re right; it’s a total hijack. I won’t respond to the matter anymore in this thread.
It’s just hillarious to see someone who reacts to criticism of his own religion by going infuckingsane talk about other people reacting to criticism of their religion. Hypocrisy is a funny thing, as is irony.
And to easily tie it back to the OP, part of this is simply an overblown reaction that our own theocratic movement has had. I don’t doubt for a second that there are those in this country who would be burning buildings if they had the law and public opinion on their side, who would attempt to stifle any and all dissent or even questioning of their religion. Metacom doesn’t want people to be able to question his religious dogma on the Dope, other fanatics don’t want it done in a far less intellectual enviornment. The problem is the same: people who abdicate reason once their religion is touched on.
For Metacom, if you compare his beliefs to older beliefs you’re to be yelled at and insulted and not met with reason, at all. For fundamentalists, of any stripe, challenging their religion is an almost mortal offense. It’s just heavy irony to see someone who can’t take any criticism of his religion talking about other people who can’t.
And we will be able to proudly read the Muslims the riot act, Sam, when…
…oil hits $10 a barrel.
Until the day the West can tell them to drink their fucking oil, “sensitivity,” or more precisely, the infantalization of the Muslims will continue. But since we’re junkies, as Bush finally pointed out last Tuesday more than four years after 9/11, we have to keep sucking the dopeman’s dick.
For today, with any luck, the people who insist on drawing ridiculous moral equivalencies to which you allude, Sam, will continue to strain credulity and thus lose influence with the general public.
If this board is any indication, maybe there’s reason to hope. To me, it’s interesting to gauge the reactions from some Dopers who typically frame “Islam vs. West” debates (apologies for admittedly painting with a broad brush) by putting the onus on U.S./Israel/West or the standard “Christians do it, too” tu quoque are either muted or critical of the nutcase Muslims.
If nothing else, the oft-derided idea that these people really do “hate us for our freedoms” has gained some currency.
You know, I think the oil thing is a bugaboo. They can threaten to ‘cut off the oil’ all they want, but it’s a hollow threat. Oil revenue is all that keeps these backwards societies running. God knows they haven’t used their billions to build a diversified, modern economy. So oil is all they’ve got. They’re not going to cut it off. Ain’t gonna happen.
They can ‘refuse to sell to the west’, but that doesn’t matter. Oil is a fungible commodity. Once it’s on the world market, it doesn’t matter where it comes from.
We should not let our fear of high oil prices dictate our silence on matters of gross human rights violations. Period.
But there really isn’t a lot we can do to improve human rights in many of these countries. I doubt that a “deomcratic” Saudi Arabia would be any better, wrt human rights, than the current regime is. What we need is a model for how that type of society can transtition from what it is now to one with a respect for basic human rights. Turkey seems to be the best of the bunch (Muslim although not Arab), but would that country be where it is today without Ataturk? Where is the Saudi, Syrian or Iraqi Ataturk?
Farnkly, our own instersts are not so much in a democratic Middle East, but in a stable Middle East. That’s the paradox. Europe fought decades of bloody wars before it got its border situations more less in agreement. It’s unlcear to me that the Middle East will be able to so without something similar.
It’s not ridiculous. We have a growing theocratic movement in this country which has the potential to be just as frightening as Muslim fundamentalism. People are not saying “Christians do it too, so it’s okay that Muslims do it.” but "Muslims do it abroad, and many Christians do it at home. We should endevour to make theocracy, or any religious stripe, unacceptable.
Well, it is rather hypocritical for a nation whose leadership is increasingly in the pocket of Christian fundamentalists to be opposing Muslim fundamentalists. The point that many of us have been making is that of course the current round of terrorism (and make no mistake ,it is certainly terrorism) on behalf of Muslim fanatics should not be tollerated. But while we’re at it, we might as well clean our own house too.
Because this is one of the effects of any stripe of fundamentalism.
Well, to be fair, Muslims as a group don’t have those problems. There are groups of Muslims who do. Just like American fundies want to rule other people’s lives by their religious laws. And some do murder abortion doctors.
But how is that any different except in terms of numbers? Imagine if there were entire countries taken over by Christian fundamentalists, do you honestly think that their policies would be any different?
There’s certainly no argument that there are more fundamentalists in Muslim countries than there are in Western countries.
If Pat Robertson had the size following and legislative support that Muslim fundamentalists would have, then he would probably be doing the same thing. Do you think, for example, that homosexuality would be legal if Robertson and his goons had their way?
There are Jews on the lunatic fringe who believe that the Muslims should be killed and there are sometimes death threats made against people who depict Christian icons in negative light. Again, I don’t see the disctinction as one of anything other than numbers.
And such abuses did go on in the Western world when religious groups were in power. As such, it is partially a cultural and a societal issue. There is a belief in much of the Arab world that the United States and its allies are waging a war on their very culture. That does not excuse their actions at all, but it’s not all that different as what has been done in similar theocratic times in Europe and America.
Agreed.
I’d agree without reservation. But again, those aren’t exclusive to Muslims. There was a large campaign of a boycott in this country because some department stores had the nerve to say “Happy holidays” , homosexuals have been beaten to death, groups like the Promise Keepers have had a view of women which demanded a degree of subjegation, etc…
But, isn’t that valid? There are peaceful Muslims who only want to live their own lives. There are also fundamentalists who are entrenched in societies which accept their insanity.
Agreed.
My point, however, is that it’s the religious/theocratic/fundie dynamic, and not just unique to Muslims. We have a habit of making excuses for almost all forms of religious intollerance. We recently had a “defense of marriage” fiasco in this country, we have a beuracrat standing over NASA and saying that the big bang is “just a theory” and that religious views have to be taught as well. We have ID being rammed down science teachers’ throats. Etc…
Which is not to say that the current round of violence by extremist Mulsims is in any way, shape, or form, justified or to be tollerated. Just that it’d be nice to see us applying these principles to all aspects of our society. When we’re voting on the same side as Iran, and from similar religious motivations, against homosexuals I think we lose some of the moral high ground when telling people that they shouldn’t try to use their religion govern other people’s lives.
That’s certainly a good idea. But again, we should do the same with ourselves.
Maybe not. But we can start by drawing a line at our own borders. As soon as the radicals start telling us what we can publish, what our women can do, etc., they need to be to told to bugger off in no uncertain terms. We need to stand up for our own values, and make it clear to them what they are and what we will do to defend them. Instead, we look the other way while Muslim immigrants burn cars on a routine basis, and we issue statements condemning cartoons for being offensive rather than condemning people burning embassies. We offer to implement a watered down form of Sharia law in western countries to appease immigrants. Screw that. The Danes went down that route, trying to be accomodating and tolerant of their muslim radical minority’s increasingly shrill demands and violent behaviour. Look where it got them.
And there’s something to be said for empowering moderates in Muslim countries by calling out the fanaticism for what it is and clearly stating that it is immoral and unacceptable. When Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire, liberals in the west went apeshit, but Soviet dissidents loved it. It empowered them, gave them backbone, and gave them the hope that there were allies on the other side.
How are moderate Muslims supposed to stand up against the kind of behaviour we’ve been seeing the last few days when WE won’t?
I think there’s a much deeper issue at play though.
You say that what we need is an example of an Islamic (ideally Arabic) country that respects human rights–but in saying so you assume one of two things:
[ol]
[li]The people whom you wish to look on that country value human rights enough that they’d strive to emulate it; OR[/li][li]as a result of respecting human rights, that country would be transformed in some other way that they’d find desireable.[/li][/ol]
I don’t think either of those is self-evident: I’m not sure that a majority of the population in Muslim countries views human rights (as we understand them) as intrinsically valuable, and I’m not sure an increased recognition of human rights necessarily lead to some other desireable transformation.
I think you and I basically agree. I think the people who are rioting are the ignorant rabble who comprise the main export of your average Muslim failing society. Furthermore, the rioting is being aided and abetted by those elites who see this utter display of Muslim societal failure as fortuitous since it lets them breathe easier for a few days, knowing that the mobs aren’t focussed on them.
Whether the country is an American “ally” :rolleyes: (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) or enemy (Syria, Palestine), or something in-between (Indonesia), the model is usually similar:
use the unearned wealth (whether oil-driven or not) to freeze into place a hierchical society in which tribal membership (and its various idiotic customs) trumps merit (and the enlightenment that usually follows), thus…
ensuring sclerotic economies that can’t compete in the 21st century because they suck so bad, thus…
forcing millions of Arabs and Muslims who have been taught that their religion is infallible and way of life is superior to the Western infidels to compare their failure to Western success (due to the rise of global telecommunications), thus causing…
mass cognitive dissonance, which leads to…
idiots burning embassies because of a fucking cartoon
Fuck these fucked up societies. Grow up, you fucking riotous ninnies. Mohammed can take care of himself without any help from you morons.
Sam, my listing of other religions’ fanatical behaviour is solely in response to the posts that imply “only Muslims do it”. I agree that Islamist reactions are to other religions’, as conventional weapons are to nuclear.
I quite agree. Which is why I’m pissed off with the hysterical bullshit that is all over this board and the western media that fails to differentiate between the vicious, vocal thugs, and all the rest.
I sometimes think that people have forgotten how to do math. Purely hypothetically, let’s imagine that there are 50 million violent Islamic fucknuts in the world. That’s a hell of a lot of assholes - yet there’s more than a billion Muslims in the world. The rioters and terrorists make up less than 5% of that community. The other 95% is not causing trouble.
What proportion of a community has to behave itself before it’s unacceptable to condemn that entire community? Again hypothetically, if 10% of British people are violent outspoken assholes, do we get the right to condemn the other 90% of British outright?
By all means condemn the thugs and their puppet-masters, but please, people, distinguish between the bastards, and the people who can help us to solve their problem from within.
Stop alienating the good guys and driving them into states of paranoia. Even if you’re morally disinclined to court and support the moderates, see it as a pragmatic thing: without their help, this shit is just going to get worse and worse.
Of course.
But it’d also be nice if we told our own religious wackos to knock it off. It’s kinda like “Hey, you can’t use your religion to dictate the lives of our citizens, we’re using our religion to dictate the lives of our citizens!”
Again, we’re in full agreement.
I’d just like it if, in addition to condemning Muslim reactions and such, we wouldn’t give into the American theocratic movement.
The potential for such Christian misbehavior makes the equivalency apt, eh? Are you kidding?
Yes, I agree. All Christian theocracy advocates who torch embassies, take hostages, sever the heads of infidels, and attach bombs to their bodies to kill as many innocents as they can ought to be rounded up and given the harshest sanctions.
How was my family’s ocean cruise any different from the Titanic except in terms of icebergs? Number is sort of an important distinction here. Muslim fanatics may be the minority in their religion, but they’re of a sufficient number to make them a global terrorism issue. Honestly, who was shocked when the reaction to the cartoons–cartoons, for God’s sake–blossomed into riots and torched embassies and hostages? Anyone?
Yes, and if my grandmother had the following and legislative support that Muslim fundamentalists have, we’d be a nation forced to crochet afghans while watching endless repeats of Mannix. I’m not sure it’s an important point, though.
You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of degree, it seems to me.
