It has to be approached through the idea of family. Consider that even torture in Guantanamo cannot always break the lifetime of conditioning if it starts in the family. And that’s all it is, conditioning. But as that hasn’t been accomplished on the West’s religious populations yet, and in fact many politicians support the process of family based religious brainwashing, you have to accept it is a slow process.
It’s more complex than that, I think. Many of the places where those damning, damning polls come from are not exactly politically stable and, wherever the more extremist elements of Islam are represented in force (or might be tomorrow), it’s not a good thing for one’s health to have a record of openly disagreeing with the dogma, be it religious or social ; or just to have your neighbours hear you openly disagreeing with the dogma for that matter.
So when a guy you’ve never met shows up on your doorstep to ask you pointed religious questions, it’s not surprising that more people would err on the side of caution and ultraconservatism - nobody ever got beat up or worse for being *too *strictly religious after all.
Which is why surveys done in Pakistan, Egypt or China for that matter (same shit, different dogma) aren’t really worth their price in ink.
You want Islam to lose its power, or at least much of it? Invent controlled fusion.
Yes I just thought that Pew would use their pollster magic to account for that. Maybe they don’t ? methodology would be important in that respect.
What happens when the oil runs out ?
Trickier question; in the years before the supplies run out, the scarcity will drive prices up and, if anything, increase the global importance of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. I’d like to see those nations threatened with bankruptcy instead.
Plus I like the idea of controlled fusion. The point being that trying to argue against Islam is pointless because like all religious matters, it doesn’t yield to reason. Undercutting the economic strength of the nations seen as its cultural centers, at least in the Middle East… now we’re talking!
this is I think too strong.
I do not disagree that there is a very strong problem of pressure and contamination to adhere in even the supposed private statement to a pollster - because how can one trust and know - to the most conservative (relative to the society standard or the party line) position and point of view
Yes because of course the religion of the Malaysia, the Mali, the Indonesia, the Senegal, the Morocco, etc. is some how connected with the petrol they don’t export.
this is a very stupid comment that like so much of this dialogue of deafs mistakes the Saudi-Iranian compelxes of the West with the Islam itself.
If you want to write “wahhabite takfiri salafisme” lose much of its power, bon, there you begin to have something that may have a foundation in an actual effect.
Isn’t it obvious?
No Muslims in the West. No mosques in the West. No Islam in the West.
If you want to run around in your deserts burning people in cages and throwing gays from towers, I really don’t care. Just don’t try to invade my lands with your pedophile-following religion.
How ? It’s not like their pollsters can read minds :).
What about a less pessimistic scenario in which the the oil bearing countries use the sun for power ? A loss of oil income, but self sustaining energy supply ?
I cheerfully recognize that oil exports are primarily a driving force of the Islamic nations in and around the Middle East, and that Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh contain the four largest Muslim populations and nearly half of the world total.
Nevertheless, if it was my goal to reduce Islam’s political power, undercutting Middle Eastern oil with a technological solution would be how I’d go.
You are wining no points for blatant trolling.
[ /Moderating ]
See, this is a case in point.
“No Muslims in the West” is a statement by someone who is desperately trying to assert a claim: we (whoever his little group is) own the West, when the reality is quite different. There have been Muslims in the West for a long time, and mosques, and Islam. They have had a stake in the West for ages. The statement is about someone who is struggling with the fact that white / Christian / Anglophone privilege (whatever his specific issue is) is unjust, and increasingly being called out.
“Run around in deserts” makes Muslims sound like aimless children. We do things in an orderly fashion, in a green and pleasant land. “Burning people in cages”: how barbaric! We’re not barbaric! Never mind the death penalty, systemic racism, etc. They throw gays from towers! We’ve been enlightened about gay people since 2013, except that they can still lose their job for being gay in many states.
Oh, and they follow a pedophile. Mohammed certainly did have sex with a child, so that’s technically correct and disgusting and reprehensible. If Mohammed were still alive, I’d be the first to excoriate everything associated with him for this reason. However, he’s been dead for over a thousand years, and the history of medieval Christian Europe is full of 12-year-old girls getting married. I don’t find the difference between 9 and 12 sufficient to erase the horror, so all I can do is hope that contemporary Muslims don’t condone this practice. Lo and behold, outside of a few corners where women are severely oppressed, they do not.
This is just silly. Muslims already live, work, and worship in Western Europe and North America. When polled on social attitudes, their answers generally match the answers of the Christian and secular neighbors among whom they live. Calling for ethnic cleansing, (the logical result of your statement), would harm the countries in which they live, (disrupting economies and inciting civil unrest), and create more hatred among the countries where they are the majority.
It is a nonsense solution based on ignorance and unreasoning hatred.
The original mistake was God’s, putting our oil under their sand. When we finally got around to reclaiming our resources, a number of adjustments had to be made. By them. They had to have nations, so they could have legitimate national leaders who could sign the papers. So we gave them nations and national leaders came forth to lead. By a happy coincidence, they were invariably people who were willing to sign the papers.
Oddly enough, many of the indigenous inhabitants resented our generosity! Such is the perversity of our species. Then, when we were feeling bad about how we had treated some European people, we gave them a chunk of somebody else’s land as a consolation. To our astonishment, this was also resented, even though we let them sign the papers!
And so it went, and so it goes.
Muslims in America are actually *more* opposed to attacks on civilians carried out by individuals or small groups than the members of any other religion in America, including atheists.
Does that mean Western values act as a moderating rational influence ?
I am speaking of historical fact. Mohammed was a murderer, a thief, a psychotic war mongering war lard, a slaver, oppressive to women, and spoke gods literal direct commands on all of these topics.
Right
I am more concerned with the Muslims who read and apply the whole book, who take all of Mohammed’s actions, good and bad, as role model.
so you admit then, it is a religion of violence?