But sure, it’s lower in other countries. “Only” 62% of Malaysians, 76% of Pakistanis, 66% of Palestinians (whom I used to really sympathize with–and I’m still no fan of Likud and other right wing Israelis), and 42% of Iraqis. Woo-hoo!
I’m an atheist and no proponent of Christianity, but their version of religion seems to have advanced past the 15th-century Inquisition mode at least. What percentage of Christians do you suppose would tell pollsters they favor the death penalty for leaving the faith? Zero percent, or <1 percent? That’s a toughie! Round up, or down?
And yeah: maybe in 500 years, Muslims will be similarly enlightened. If you want to stipulate that they are not “bad” per se, just backward, I’ll buy that. But I’d prefer to live among modern, civilized people, thanks ever so much.
I think you’re lowballing the percentage of Christians who would favor the death penalty for apostasy, and certainly the proportion who would favor such if it were a tradition and norm in their society. Getting Christianity out of the business of burning to death “heretics” and “witches” (in both cases, Christians of the “wrong” sect) took a while.
No, not all religions are like this. The ones that are tend to suppress the ones that aren’t.
Isn’t “if it were a tradition and norm in their society” begging the question? And I did explicitly grant that Christians were like this hundreds of years ago, but my point is that I want to live among the modern, enlightened people. I also think Islam should get more demerits for operating this way when they have the clear example of the modern world around them.
Well, Contruct (and you repeated it) mentioned the Ottoman attack on Vienna above, IIRC. That took place in 1683…which if my math is good, was 332 years ago. And the “French” repelling took place at Tours in 732, which even you must admit was a good bit of time.
However, I would ask you (and Construct, if he is still participating), to name the Christian countries that have been militarily conquered/occupied since 1683 by predominately Muslim nations. Shouldn’t be hard, given the proclivities you ascribe to Islam and Muslims… Don’t worry, we’ll wait.
Now, there have been Christian lands conquered by Islamic states in history; Spain was occupied for almost 600 years and of course, the entire country was forced to convert to Islam so Spain is a major Islamic state today…except it isn’t. And after several hundred years of Islamic rule, the Balkan region became Muslim of course…but that didn’t happen either, did it?
Now, how many Islamic countries have been invaded and/or occupied by predominatley Christian forces since 1683? Heck, I’ll take the last 150 years and still have no problems finding some.
You will argue that ‘that was then and this is now’, but that argument turns back on you, since you insist on interpreting materials written 1400 years ago, and which on the actual evidence of history did not result in the charges you lay, IMHO.
I don’t care for any particular religion; I care even less for the more radical elements of any said religion; but painting complex issues with a narrow mind and a broad brush never works out well. Which hasn’t stopped human beings like yourself from propounding it.
The bottom line is that no one who is female, or gay, or a freethinker, can feel safe in a predominantly Muslim country. And in the 21st-century, that’s shameful.
There are plenty of places in Muslim countries (especially lots of parts of Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Tunisia, Jordan, Senegal, and others) in which a gay person, a woman, or a freethinker can “feel safe”. There are plenty of places in which they can’t. This is a pretty ridiculous broad-brush statement.
Don’t recall that the populace in Spain was forced to convert to Islam; although, there were law that made such conversion more attractive than not converting. Or am I mis-remembering Spain’s history here?
As if a single murder, which shocked the nation and led to multiple life sentences for each of the killers, makes Wyoming remotely like a Muslim country. In fact, it illustrates just the opposite.
Yeah, there’s some messed up places there as well, true dat.
For many people, that may be true. But I have stood up for equal rights for women and gays my whole adult life. I stood up at a heated city council meeting in my city (that had to be moved to a larger venue) and argued vehemently for a human rights ordinance whose focus was on gay rights. I continue to boycott a “Christian” business whose owner spoke out against the ordinance at that same meeting. My wife’s best friend is a lesbian who got married last summer when Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage. I used to own a video store with an extensive rainbow-labelled section that I got many compliments on from the local GLBT community.
When it comes to women’s rights, I can’t think of a similar list of concrete actions to point to, but I’m supporting Hillary Clinton for president, and I cheered the achievement last week of the women who passed Ranger training.
I’m no bigot. The problem is with my fellow progressives failing to see how reactionary, repressive, and patriarchal the Islamic culture is. They somehow cannot process that such can be found anywhere in the world outside of white male rednecks and preachers, or they feel guilty for casting a negative light on non-Western peoples. Or they see a lot of right wing assholes saying negative things about Muslims for their own reasons, and figure the enemy of their enemy is their friend. But that is just not true in this case.
I love when idiot Islam-haters trot out the Vienna thing, because it shows how superficial and ideologically-driven their knowledge really is.
The Ottoman siege of Vienna was not an attempt by the ravening Muslim hordes to conquer Europe that was heroically stopped by Christian armies. It was part of an anti-Habsburg European conflict driven by the French, who had a longstanding military alliance with the Ottoman Empire. (The Habsburgs had their own alliance with a Muslim state, incidentally, the Habsburg-Persian Alliance with the Safavids against their mutual Ottoman enemy.)
King Louis XIV had first tried to get the Ottomans to intervene on the side of the anti-Habsburg rebels in Hungary in to put pressure on Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I to accede to Louis’ territorial demands in the wake of the Thirty Years War. He wasn’t successful at that, but when his ambassador to the Ottomans, Gabriel de Guilleragues, promised the Ottoman Grand Vizier that France would not support Leopold I if the Ottomans were to attack Austria, the Ottomans were much more receptive.
The Ottomans duly attacked, and Louis massed French armies on Leopold’s western border to provide enough of a looming threat to the Holy Roman Empire so that Leopold could not throw his entire army into battle against the invading Ottomans. When Polish forces under John III Sobieski (who had agreed to an alliance with the Holy Roman Emperor against the French and the Ottomans shortly before the Ottoman attack) went to the aid of besieged Vienna, French forces intervened (unsuccessfully) to try to stop them.
When the Pope declared the formation of a “Holy League” of allied European countries to defend Christendom against the attackers, and the war started turning against the Ottomans, the French (who had not joined the Holy League) sent their armies across the border into the Holy Roman Empire to relieve pressure on the Ottoman forces. A few years later, the French did it again and sparked a wider conflict, kicking off the Nine Years War and so dividing the armies of the Holy League that the Ottomans were able to retake Belgrade from the Austrians who had conquered it.
Even with French help, though, the Ottoman armies couldn’t withstand the military force of the alliance against them, and they were forced to sign the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 and give up a large chunk of their Balkan territories to the Austrians. The Franco-Ottoman alliance, however, would last all the way up until Napoleon’s time.
I am totally with Hirsi Ali, and for that matter with Raif Badawi and the besieged (and in four cases, murdered) atheist bloggers of Bangladesh.
This “work within Islam, not against it” thing, c’mon. Is that what the women of the FLDS Church should have done, in your view? It’s such an obvious and blatant double standard. :rolleyes:
I think she’s brave and heroic. Is she wasting her time? Hard to say. If someone I cared about wanted to take on that enormous a mission against suicidal odds, I’d likely try to dissuade them (or spirit them to a safer place).
