Of course, in MuslimAmerica Muslim fanatics would be the ones hijacking the Republicans and we’d be speculating about what America would be like if it had been Christian.
There would also have been a debate on the SDMB a while back over the banning of cathedrals in Switzerland, with people saying that of course Christianity is dangerous, after all it was Christians who flew planes into the World Trade Center.
All the billboards in Ohio heading south on the interstate would would say 'Have you found Allah?" and “Allah is watching you.”
It’s impossible to answer because the history of the world would be so different. I think Americans would mold Islam the same as they have done with Christianity.
If we’re talking about America, the question really doesn’t make sense.
Sure, if Tours in 732 or Vienna in 1529 had gone substantially differently, there might have been a Muslim Europe, or maybe a crushed Europe and a colonizing Muslim North Africa, either of which could have given rise to Muslim powers in the new world. Let’s grant that as a possibility.
But that still wouldn’t have led to anything remotely like America. So much of America’s foundational history–and, even more, its mythology–is based on European Christian factionalism. Without Henry VIII, the Glorious Revolution, the Reformation and 30 Years War, etc., none of it makes any sense. Without Massachusetts’ Pilgrims, Maryland’s Catholics, Pennsylvania’s “give every sect a chance” idea, etc., who are the colonists? A country settled uniformly by mainstream Sunni Muslims wouldn’t have had the American Revolution, tried to develop the idea of a nation built on ideology instead of ethnicity, etc.
At best, you can imagine something like Kemalism arising two centuries early and halfway around the world (and without the examples of western democracy and secularism to inspire it) and say, “Kinda like Turkey, I guess.”
The big reason why Islam has not secularized isn’t entirely history, though. It’s also the simple fact that it is younger. There seems to be a general rule that religions get more accepting of secular concepts as they age.
I’m not sure about this.
Buddhism seems to be generally more secularized than Hinduism, despite being its younger offspring. Judaism has only secularized in the very recent past, and even then mostly within already-secularized Christian countries. Within Christianity, there seems to be more secularization in the Protestant world than the Catholic and Orthodox worlds, even though Protestantism is much younger.
Also, is 14 centuries vs. 20 centuries really a big enough difference to swamp accidental historical differences?
I can hardly wait. I think it would be hilarious to watch 'em enforce Sharia law down in Southern California.
I don’t think this is necessarily so. I think the big difference is that Christianity was a minority religion for the first three hundred years of its existence - it developed as a non-state religion. Islam, on the other hand, caught on quickly - it was a state religion within the lifetime of its founders.
It seems to me it has been awhile since males were allowed four wives (much less the thousands of wives some wealthy Arabs have) genital mutilation was practiced, “temporary” marriages were allowed, by Christian leaders. Slavery has been around until recently in historic terms, but I’d say the move against it in the West has been dramatic and decisive. No, Der Trihs, the differences between Islamic sexism and Christian sexism are not trivial. I will grant you that Christian sexism has been deep and ingrained and has lasted into historic times … for example, it was not until the 1990s that the last US state changed its law so that marital rape existed. (Prior to that, the law was that a husband could use his wife sexually as he liked, and she could not claim rape … her consent was perpetual and lifelong).
That said, the differences between Arab and Christian sexism are significant, and it’s no use inflating Christian sexism and minimizing Arab sexism to make them seem similar. You have to make reasonable distinctions about these things.
Another interesting posibility. Would Hollywood have developed in a Muslim country?
Islam has rules against depicting human beings. Movies and television are based on that.
Obviously, there are now movies and televison industries in Muslim countries. But I question whether they would have originated there is they hadn’t already existed and demonstarted their success in non-Muslim countries. Cultural resistance would have killed off Hollywood before it had a chance to grow.
And the American movie and television industry has been a big part of both the American economy and American culture. It would be a big change to American influence on the world and the world’s influence on America if we were an importer of movies and TV rather than an exporter.
No, actually Christianity is neither anti-woman, anti-homosexual, anti-science, anti-freedom, or anti-justabouteverything.
Wrong again. The origins of the concept of secularism, and the veyr word, come from Christian society, and particularly the splitting of the priesthood into religious and secular segments. In the ancient Pagan societies there was no difference between religious and secular governances. Hence, for example, in the Roman Empire it was required that all persons worship the Emperor, as he was both a government and religious figure. In majority Christian societies there’s always been a separate government and religious leadership. Muslim socieites, on the other hand, did not typically split government and religious leaderhship until the Ottoman invasions.
Another untruth from you.
Another untruth from you.
Well, Der Trihs, you’ve made some specific claims here. Let’s see you back them up with cites. Of course, you’ve been asked to back up your claims against Christianity with cites on numerous occasions and you’ve never been able to do so. Nonetheless, I’m asking you to do it again.
Wealthy men in Christian countries have always had no problem keeping a bevy of mistresses around. Likewise they have no problem visiting prostitutes. I’d say the big difference is with Islam you at least have some obligation to your mistresses and prostitutes, and need to take care of your kids if you knock one of them up.
Female genital mutilation is not an Islamic practice, did not originate from Islam, is considered abhorrent in the vast majority of the Muslim world, and is gladly practiced by Christians and pagans in areas that have that custom. It has no more to do with Islam than, say, eating dates.
The people I can think of who are the most accepting of slavery- say Taurags in Mali- are considered to be only loosely Muslim.
A sufficiently large majority can change the Bill of Rights. A smaller majority that tries for a long time can get the Supreme Court to interpret the Bill of Rights out of existence. A smaller majority still can elect politicians who ignore what relevant court rulings.
Cite, please.
I don’t think there’s such a general rule at all. Anyone who knows the history of the Muslims world knows that there’s been an enormous upsurge in religious fervor, and in hatred directed against secular institutions, during the past sixty years. Look at the status of law and government in Iran or Algeria or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia in 1950 and compare it to today. It just doesn’t fit with you “general rule”.
Oh come on - you know as well as I do that if a post from the person in question contains anything true about religion, it is because he missed the edit window.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, no kidding. It’s pretty ridiculous to claim that Islamic and Christianity societies are the same in regards to religious freedom, women’s rights, or countless other topics when a quick check of the facts, current or historical, shows otherwise. For example, in ancient Greece and Rome, about a quarter to a third of baby girls were killed because male children were more valuable, and many parents simply didn’t want to spend the resources to raise a girl. Likewise Rome had the law of Pater Familias, the right of total control for the man at the head of the household, up to the power to execute family members. After Christianity took over in the fourth century, one of the first major changes in Roman society was the abolition of these things. Which would come as no surprise, given how Jesus argued for and fought for the rights of women in the Gospels. But if you read the Koran, you’ll find no arguments for women’s rights from the Prophet Mohammed, so not surprisingly you’ll not see much historical benefit for women’s rights originating in Muslims countries.
Yeah, but it’s still fun to poke him about it and see what the response is.
Comin’ right up:
From here: Laws regarding rape - Wikipedia
Only thing I got wrong was the last state. North Carolina.
Loosely Muslim. Is that like, not true Scotsmen?
I’ll cede the argument on genital mutilation, but I dont buy your argument wrt prostitutes and mistresses. A man in the West may hire prostitutes and take mistresses, but not with religious sanction. Whereas Islam has that whole four wife rule, and IIRC, the Saudi princes have had hundreds, even thousands of wives.
And in terms of my general argument – that the propensity of violence and brutality and sexism in Muslim societies is much greater than in Western societies I do not see anything you have said that effectively disputes it. It’s just reasonable to look at all those Muslim societies with such problems and think, “Well, as a practical matter, Islam probably had something to do with it.”
I would like to be a little more accurate IMHO. For the problems outlined I would say the difference is that the effective opposition to the “problems” are active in Christianity and their leadership and almost non existant amongst the Islamic leadership.
I would expect the country to mirror other nations that are majority Muslim.
I diasgree. There are a lot of moderate Muslims who decry violence in their world. But they don’t get much press, especially over here. Just as I bet there are a lot more Moslems that know the name of that idiot minister who wanted to burn Korans, than there are Americans who know his name. We hear about fatwahs on Salman Rushdie, not about calls for peace and moderation. The press does not serve anyone well here or there, except the radicals.
A simple majority couldn’t, but a super majority could. The US constitution can be changed, and has been a few dozen times.