Then what, exactly, is the point of your OP? it seems to be little more than that you are upset that some of the people on this board are not as afraid of muslims as you are. Feel free to make your point clear, because right now it isn’t.
We should be cynical towards any supposed Egyptian democracy. We should also be cynical towards any French, Japanese, or American democracy.
Hey, you know what Egypt really needs? More elections. I’ll go with IOZ:
Meh, who knows what it will be like. Personally I’m hopeful it will have some resemblance to a free(er) society with democratic tendencies. I am cautiously optimistic because the upper echelons of the military have been trained in the US and they view their role in society a bit differently than most in the region. The restraint they’ve shown during the protests seems to be a result of this to some degree. YMMV of course, but I think anyone adopting the “Omigod Muslims!!!” as their default position is overreacting.
Obviously the point of the OP was to draw attention to the
massive homicidal depravity of most of the Egyptian population,
inspited by its religion. Let’s run the worst of those numbers
by you again, this time in bold red ink, since they cannot be
repeated too often or emphasized too much:
***82% believe adulterers should be stoned
84% believe apostates from Islam should face the death penalty***
Let me know when you can provide evidence of:
(1) Any Christian support of capital punishment for apostasy.
(2) Any Christian support of capital punishment for adultery.
Yeah, I caught the bit about Pat Roberstson and Haiti, BUT
what I am looking for is religious inspiration for human-to-human
violence, not an insinuation of Godly violence into natural events,
something entirely different, and no threat. Being an atheist I do
not fear God. Being an atheist I do not fear Christians, either, and
I speak from extensive experience on that note. However, you
will not catch me professing atheism within earshot of any Muslim,
because I do fear them, on the evidence of the word of millions
of their brethren.
You may have noticed that many Muslims also go nuts over
blasphemy, a Pakistani governor recently having been gunned
down for advocating pardon of an alleged offender.
At least not nearly as many as before think swell stuff about
AQ/OBL: 19-20% down from a 2006 high of 27%. Of course
19-20% would be several million adults, just in Egypt.
No doubt there are Muslim moderates. They have names like
Sadat and Mubarak, and they cannot win in a fair election against
the numbers connoted by the polls. In fact they may have trouble
even staying alive.
Nothing to worry about? If you think not then I will do your worrying
for you.
And so? I happen to have been to Egypt, found it overall a negative experience and agree that here are many many messed-up aspects to the culture there. What possible influence do you think you or I have over the attitudes of anyone there? What is the concrete result if I decline to participate in what you deem to be sufficient hand-wringing over the state of Egyptian social attitudes?
You must be confusing me with someone else. I have made no statements of equivalence for Christianity in this or any other thread on this general subject.
I never said there was nothing to worry about. I simply refuse to get caught up in the pointless, bigoted hysteria being peddled by the likes of you and the OP. You are bringing nothing to the table.
Not all democracies are created equal.
Aside from all the restrictions on voting, rotten boroughs and et cetera, the United Kingdom was a democracy of some type from the mid-18th century or so and on. It may have been a democracy in which much of society could not participate, but it was definitely “subject-operated” and there were checks on government action.
It wasn’t our idea of a modern, free society.
America in 1789 was also a democracy, without a doubt. But there were lots of restrictions on who could participate and on the individual liberties of people, at least in comparison to today.
However, history has shown modern, free societies grow out of relatively authoritarian democratic states. Because over time, as society becomes more educated, more enlightened, they start to change the laws. In a democracy as society changes so does government.
That’s why even if Egypt becomes a relatively repressive “Islamic democracy” that’s actually preferable to perpetual dictatorship. A perpetual dictatorship leaves little room for the sort of gradual societal “enlightenment” necessary for a truly free society to develop.
Now, the fear is that Egypt’s “democracy” will exist long enough to permanently entrench power in the hands of the clerics, and then we just have another Iran. Iran is a very different breed of “democracy” from that of the 18th century UK/US. Elections happen and are “somewhat free”, but in reality they don’t mean a lot in Iran. The clerical establishment has a permanent place in government, and the Ayatollah can essentially reject the results of any election he disagrees with. So Iran has a permanent, systemic bar to democracy being able to change society as a whole. Unless/until enough Iranians get angry enough that they force a change to the whole system of government.
So if Egypt ends up as a true democracy founded on Islamic ideals and ran by an Islamic party, that’s not “great” but it allows room for the sort of gradual change that is necessary. If it ends up with a constitution that yields great power to a permanent, unelected caste of clerics, that’s not a good direction to be going in at all.
I agree with the rest of your post, but if this is the fear it is misguided. “The clerics” in the sense one speaks of them in Iran do not exist in a Sunni nation like Egypt. The Shia have an organized hierarchy of clerics. The Sunni do not. There are no Ayatollahs in the Sunni world. The fear, if it is to be at all grounded in reality, ought to be that an Egyptian democracy would result in majority rule by the Brotherhood who would then proceed to enact a radical Islamist agenda (this requires assuming that every statement the Brotherhood is making is a pack of lies to mask their true intentions) and then tamper with future elections to ensure one party rule after the fashion of some place like Mexico.
I personally think even this fear is overstated. I do not believe the Brotherhood’s public statements are entirely disingenuous. I do believe they systematically downplay some elements of their agenda, but when I heard one spokeman interviewed and asked if a Brotherhood government would continue to recognize Israel he ducked and bobbed and weaved and never did answer. If they’re just all lying to put us at ease, surely he would have lied to put us at ease.
Either the Brotherhood is a modern western political party or it’s not, you can’t have it both ways 
Heh. But I don’t think they’re a modern western political party. I think they’re a bunch of very sincere Muslims. The spokeman I heard interviewed was a horrible liar, and hence not a modern western politician. The reporter was pushing him for a yes or no answer to “Would a MB-led government continue to recognize the state of Israel?” and you could tell very easily from his non-answer that the real answer was no.
It seems pretty clear that the Muslim Brotherhood did not start this insurrection. But they are suddenly is a very good place. There is very little organization in the fragmented demonstrators, neither on how to run the demonstrations or where the Egyptian government will go after Mubarak steps down , assuming he does. The 25 percent of the population the Brotherhood represents may be the largest group in a sea of fragmented groups. What group could resist running the government when circumstances hand it to you?
While the US does not execute people for “apostasy” we sure do continue to kill people for a host of other reasons. As long as this nations continues to have the death penalty we are hypocrites for condemning others for using the death penalty.
As he asked for “any” Christian support (rather than actual action), I suppose you just need to dig up some polls from Christian Africa. I have heard some scary opinions now and again from Nigerian evangelicals (although they seem quite laid back in actual practice).
Spot on, spot on.
Absolutely agree. Have to start somewhere.
I keep reading lots of Egyptians, secular and Brotherhood are really attracted by Turkey now. If that is what emerges - like Turkey in the 80s maybe - not a bad result. Sure is clear that the current regime has done the West few favours - as I read the UK press, it’s the regime whipping up anti Westerner sentiment now. False friends they seem to be.
I did like your efforts in exploring the instability in fringe Muslim nations. However, I think we attempt to describe or understand those cultures without any sense of what we are talking about. It’s like talking a different lanquage. The very verbage you use is the same kind of verbage that fundamentalist Christians in the US get sandwiched and pigeon-holed with as secularists attempt to explain what is inexplicable.
You list all these statistics in your "bad news" section but the fact is that culture has been established for over 3000 years. Even westernized Muslim reach the end of themselves and return guilt-stricken to the truer faith. I speak with some measure of authority on the subject having spent time living in the Kingdom, not far from Mecca. I can tell you that the culture is so alien to a western person that we can't even know what motivates their passions because the social mores are so radically different.
Having said that, I agree with you that the hope for a true Democracy in Egypt is unrealistic. First off, the only real westernized "Democracy" in the region in the past 75 years was the pre-Shah Iran. We all know there was no real freedom in that country.
Don't overlook the possibility that this instability is being fed by outside sources. The CIA is notorious and proud of their record of strategically destablizing nations. I don't think that the sudden insurgence in North Africa is coincidental. I will be interested to see what shakes out from all this. People may not like Mubarek (who actually may have been responsible for the assasination of Anwar Sadat), but the fact is he has held the peace with Israel for 30 years, something that couldn't be said by his predecessors.
NCDane's response while being well-considered is the perfect example of the disconnect from the actual reality of the situation. As an atheist, he can no more intelligently talk about the processes going the mind of a passionate Muslim any more than he could about an evangelical. He has no frame of reference. He can use the verbage and talk about the rituals, but they don't speak to the logic that aroused that passion.
Mubarek was a secularist. The Shah was successful in Iran in 1979 be
cause of the same thing. Revival to the truer faith. We try to look at Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan and try to gain an insight into Islam. Those people have departed from the truer faith and no longer represent what life is like in the Middle East, despite that they are so different from our own culture while still living in it.
Let me give you a more Western example. An Amish person is generally considered a pacifist. He would rather die than to dissappoint his LORD. Much is the same for the Muslim. Their passion often brings them to a willingness to die for their faith. That is alien in the Western paradigm. Mysogyny is just one aspect of their religion that we can understand in Western culture.
I find it disingenuous to say that we understand what is going on in Egypt or Tunisia or in any strife that centers around the Middle East. We don't understand them because they are so radically different. What is happening in Africa will one day happen in Saudi Arabia, when the religious people realize how their opulent ruling families have so detatched themselves from the faith. In the Kingdom, it will be bloody and the epicenter of a world chess match to control those last vestiges of oil laying under that harsh sandy land.Uhhhhh… right. February is such an engaging month.
I have to think you are being purposefully disingenuous. That 39% is not all hunky dory with extremism. I’m not “concerned” with Christian extremism, but that doesn’t mean I’m okay with people shooting abortion doctors. That 39% probably thinks that religious extremism is not a major threat or doesn’t have a huge effect on their lives- which is not an unreasonable position. It’s a pretty poor country and people have more pressing things to worry about.
First off, just because someone “believes” something doesn’t mean that they think it would be good national policy or should be made into law. I believe that rapists should be kicked in the face. I would not push for a law to kick rapists in the face. I believe it’s generally a bad idea for young couples to live together. I would never in a million years even think of making that a law.
Second off, if you can get 82% of a country to agree on something, maybe you are on to something. A “landslide” victory in the US is something like 55%. I don’t think you could get 82% of Americans to agree that the sky is blue. So clearly whatever they proposing are widely held social norms, and it actually kind of makes sense to base your country on something that apparently everyone believes in.
Anyway, even if it does become law, what skin is it off my back what the penalty for theft is in Egypt? As long as people can get relatively fair trials, why can’t they set up whatever penalties they want. Plenty of countries have harsh laws- in China you can get the death penalty for tax evasion, in Singapore you can get caned for graffiti. I’m sure the Dutch think it’s a touch barbaric that we clog up our prisons with non-addictive drug offenses and prostitutes. If 82% of the country are agreeing on these penalties, then clearly pretty much everyone is agreeing to abide by these laws…if that’s what they want to agree to follow, I don’t see where this involves my judgement or how this could possibly be a threat to me.
As for secularism- why would you expect a non-secular society to be secular? It’s not a universal value.
The point of my OP is clear to others but for your benefit I will explain. I think some people are naively assuming that democracy and freedom and human rights naturally go together as a package deal.
I am simply pointing out that Egypt could become a democracy in the sense that the majority votes and makes decisions, and then, for example, the 84% of Egyptians who believe that people should be killed if they want to leave Islam would vote in the death penalty for Muslim apostates.
Another 82% would vote in favor of public stoning of adulterers. Gays too, perhaps.
As I pointed out, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam says that human rights are subject to Sharia law.
The people could even vote to hand power over to a super-conservative Taliban-style regime that would cut the noses off women who do not cover their faces. And it would be done legally and democratically.
My point: don’t assume that a democratic Egypt will be a freer Egypt. It could be something like present-day Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban.
There is unlikely to be any concrete result to this and 99.999% of all
other internet chatroom threads on divisive political and social issues.
This and the others are first and foremost discussion for its own sake.
I think you are aware of that. For someone so results oriented you have
been a suprisingly active contributor.
I should have directed the commens made on this theme toward others.
Bigoted? Please be more serious.
Who is bigoted, people like me who prefer to let people drift
in and out of any bed and temple they wish, or people like the
80+% Egyptians who would prefer to kill those whom they
consider to be transgressors?
I doubt you would you consider me bigoted for condemning
the Westboro “Church”. I do not think the 80+% Egyptians
cited here are so different from Westboro, except in numbers,
where the difference is vast.
A “host” of other reasons? What besides murder, and not very many
for that?: 37 executions in 2008 compared to 16277 murders.
We are in no way hypocritical unless we permit capital punishment for
the same behavior we condemn others for permitting it.
So you’re saying that because the US executes people for committing murder that we can’t condemn Hitler for executing people for being Jewish?
You have a view of the world that seems to lack the concept of “nuance”.
I am morally opposed to capital punishment. I don’t feel it’s any more acceptable for a government to execute people for murder or kidnapping than it is acceptable to kill them for religious reasons. The only justification for taking a human life is self defense. State sponsored executions are not done for that purpose. I realize not everyone shares that view, nonetheless, that is where I am operating from.