Now, I read that and I think, how fortunate we are, to have arrived at a point in history where horrible things done in Christ’s name are almost all in the past! Not long past – as recently as the 1960s some people were using the Bible and the “Curse of Ham” to justify racism – but all of that has fallen by the wayside. Very infrequent murders of abortion providers are the only Christian atrocities that seem to happen any more. (Some Christians do still do some things that make a lot of people mad, including me, but they don’t rise to the level of atrocities.)
The world Islamic community does now include a dangerous minority who think the faith demands jihad in the violent sense. But I think Dar al-Islam is about where Christendom was in the 17th Century, when religious differences appeared to be worth fighting over. Christendom got better. It took a long time, but Christendom got better – partly by becoming what we might now call more Christian, in the love-thy-neighbor ethical sense, but mainly by becoming less religious and more secular. Islam could get better, by that same route. And the modern age being what it is, it probably will not take another 400 years; all international cultural pressures tend in the direction of secularization. At some point in the future, all the world’s Muslims are going to look back at today’s jihadism, ISIS, etc., the same way Christians today look back at the 30 Years’ War, wondering what all the fuss was about and why anybody thought this a war worth fighting.
And we had all better hope I am right. Because Islam is not going away. Today, one human being in five is a Muslim. 100 years ago, one human being in five was a Muslim. 100 years from now, one human being in five will be a Muslim. Best-case scenario is one where most of them are just Ramadan-and-Hajj Muslims, analogous to Christmas-and-Easter Christians.
*Like most Dopers, the only prayer I ever pray that early in the morning is “Please, God, make it stop!”
If it’s true, one could make a case that those countries are, again, about where European Christendom was in the 17th Century, and we may hope they’ll get better.
Oh, c’mon, that shit is (mostly) limited to Christian Identity and the Klan and such nowadays, and they’re marginal by any measure. Even the Mormons have (mostly) gotten past it.
Such as. Such as. Such as. To say nothing of Christian phalanges in Lebanon in the 80s, of Anders Breivik and Christian Identity movements, the IRA & related groups…
The truth is, it’s not *Christianism *that got less violent in recent years. It’s the industrialized West.
Oh, come on, now. There’s no sense in which anything done by the IRA was done “in the name of Christ” and while Breivik’s position is deeply confused, it seems that he was an atheist who used religion as a cultural marker to provide a sense of identity.
Of course, Islam is frequently used in much the same way. What this means - and what I think the OP fails to recognise - is that this use of a religion (or indeed of any other cultural phenomenon) is wholly unrelated to its theological content. There is no sense in which Islam or Christianity could “develop” in a way which makes such a use impossible.
Religion was a notable difference between the Slavic ethnic groups during the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia. While all sides had their war criminals the Serbs ( Orthodox Christians) exceeded the scope of the crimes by the other groups. Some Serb revisionists even openly embraced the religious component post-9/11 to try and justify the war as one against extremist Islam. I can only assume they hope their audience is ignorant of how secular most of the Bosniacs were.
It’s not the Cathar Crusade for direct Christianity fueled brutality. It’s hard to discount one of the major differences between the ethnic groups though.
In Lebanon the violence is more about tribal identity than religion.
To give you an idea, the most recent poll found 40% of all Christians in Lebanon approved of Hezbollah, so the Falangists as repulsive as they are aren’t a good comparison.
As for the IRA, they’re as Christian as Al Fatah, the PKK, and Black September is Muslim.
I wonder if it might get worse before it gets better.
Angry, frustrated people now know that there is a community, in radical Islam, where you won’t be told to suppress those feelings. Where you’ll be told everything is black and white, and easy to understand, and can be fixed with violence.
Now, of course that anger and frustration may have legitimate causes. You may be angry over US foreign policy in the middle east. But what do you do about it? Well, one opinion now is radical islam and becoming a jihadist.
(I realize you don’t just choose to believe, I’m saying this is part of the psychology of it, and why that area seems to be growing)
While the secularization thesis that the OP is relying on was a building block of sociology for a long time, informing the work of Marx, Durkheim, Weber and so on, it is increasingly challenged today by scholars. I am very skeptical about it myself, starting from how it conceives of these categories of religious and secular.
If Islam becomes “better” in any particular way, it will not be because it is following some dialectical materialism style life cycle of religion. Muslims live in the present too and they are interacting with their contacts and histories and contexts just like everyone else (which is to say, usually poorly). Christianity in the 17th century was not Islam in the 13th century. Jihadists aren’t living in the past, they are living very much in the now. It’s not a matter of “we got modernity and now you get modernity”. Muslims have been ‘getting’ modernity (often at the barrel of a gun) for a long time, and it has sparked a whole spectrum of reactions. If we want to encourage particular ones over others, then that’s great, and I definitely see many things I’d like to be different all over the world, but we have to make a stronger case than “we got better, you guys will too!” Especially when in their eyes they don’t all really agree that we got better, and that has as much to do with us supporting dictators and being hypocritical as it does with our progressivism.
The fact that certain regions/religions of the world have “progressed” does not mean all regions and religons will similarly do so. Also, because we in the West have progressed does not mean we will always progress. History does not work in such a linear fashion. At least the evidence that it works in a linear fashion is very dubious indeed.
[QUOTE=UDS]
Oh, come on, now. There’s no sense in which anything done by the IRA was done “in the name of Christ” and while Breivik’s position is deeply confused, it seems that he was an atheist who used religion as a cultural marker to provide a sense of identity.
[/QUOTE]
And in that they’re **very **different from the majority of Muslim terror groups because… ?
[QUOTE=Frodo]
Do you have a cite for South America? we are getting remarkably civilized around here, (especially in the southern parts of South America) these days.
[/QUOTE]
The growing cult of Santa Muerte (and the sacrifices done in her name) would be an example of disturbing shit - though the extant to which it is a “Christian phenomenon” exactly, I will grant, is debatable.
That said, and for something less theatrical, I’m given to understand gay bashing and anti-abortion are both Serious Business in the Latin sphere (be it Spain/Italy or South America).
Santa Muerte is in Mexico, Mexico is not in South America…
Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay allow gay marriage, I’m not aware of any recent cases of violent gay bashing (in Argentina at least) and that seems to be gasping and straws too.
