lowden
Unfortunately Abaddon, the religion and culture of the Hardcore Islamic World are one and the same.
Ah, so there are hardcore and softcore versions? So we agree that Islamic culture is not monolithic, but is rather, like Christian culture, a combination of different cultures united by a religious tradition?
You may have noticed my use of 'Arab' and 'Persian' to specify different Islamic cultures. And to be blunt when it comes to most violent extremism we are talking about a very specific sect of Arabian Islam, the Wahhabis, who have proselytised their sect in various places (thus it popping up in Indonesia and Afghanistan, although neither are Arabic). Other Muslims can be oversensitive but are normally only VOCAL, which I think we will both agree is their right.
Idiot Muslims banging on about how such-and-such offends Allah are just as entitled as the (smaller percentage of) idiot Christians who bang-on about how such and such offends god. And they are identical in their conceit that their feelings about their invisible unprovable friend should be taken into account by non-believers. Holy Jesus on a fricking stick (see, some Christians would complain vocally about such blasphemy); some even try to impose their religious opinions on other people's bodies; how medieval is that?
Please note I divide froth-mouthed protest from blowing people up. One is a right (no matter how silly I think it might be for people to protest about), the other isn't.
Now given you agree with that Islam is NOT a monoculture. I don't how you can then say that 'the religion and culture of the Hardcore Islamic World are one and the same'.
You disagree with me saying Islam varies according to the culture expressing it yet the very way you say it implies that there is more than one way of expressing it . Please clarify, restate or retract.
Until these two become separate and they start to advance culturally the accursed medieval law that they live by will continue to draw the utmost derision from more civilised societies.
Well, I agree some Islamic cultures are basically medieval. Some Nigerian Christians torture and even kill children because they believe they are demonised; seems medieval behaviour is not just a Christian thing or Muslim thing, but is a CULTURAL thing. I do agree that secularisation is vital, as it is the insistence on the churches (or the mosques) role in government and law that is such a retarding force to cultural development.
It is their brand of religion that gives them their beliefs, which are then turned into laws.
THEIR brand of THEIR religion, which is a result of THEIR culture.
I note you just disagree with me rather than actually demonstrating my contention (religion is expressed by culture) is false. Please by all means show where my reasoning or examples are wrong. You're free to have another opinion, but pure disagreement without any attempt at engaging with the points I made is not a really interesting conversation for either of us.
Another example of why I feel my contention is valid;
- Medieval Europe: Christian, brutal and ignorant. Incapable of living side-by-side with other religions or even variations of the same religion.
- Medieval Islam: End of a golden age with scientific knowledge respected, and capable of living side-by-side with other faiths.
See? The SAME religions, over time or in different places, doing different things.
To credibly disprove my contention (religion is expressed by culture) you have to actually come up with a flaw in my argument.
Many Anglicised Moslems do display a more open and lenient approach but even in the UK there is a foul and pestilent undercurrent of Islamic intolerance.
Maybe you object to my choice of words rather than what I actually mean. I say 'religion is expressed by culture' and you seemingly disagree, yet both immediately above and in another comment above addressed separately you actually agree with my point by conceding using other words that separate groups of Muslims practise Islam differently.
I cannot EVER see the Islamic world changing and that's a sad thought for human society as a whole.
What evidence do you have for this belief? I mean, the Islamic world has changed in the past, as has the Christian one. You can believe what you like, but you appear to be insisting what has happened in the past cannot happen again without a logical argument.
There is no defence whatsoever for the backward, human rights violating that these Fundamentalist Islamic nations spew onto their citizens.
Defending something ("it is okay it happens") is different to understanding why something happens. I do the latter not the former, so statements of the obvious ("There is no defence whatsoever for ... human rights violating") directed at me have limited value.
greendawn
I don't think Turkey...
Yah mean the country that had universal female suffrage two years BEFORE the UK? Seventeen years before France? 44 years before Switzerland? Damn backward Muslims... LOL
is a quasi democratic country because it is ruled by the military, they are the real power in the land and not the politics
What do you know about the recent history of Greece, Spain and Portugal? I'd review their political history in the last three decades, as you are in danger of applying different standards. Portugal joined the EU 12 years after a military coup, Greece 14 years after a coup, and Spain was a dictatorship until 1975.
There is no way that Turkey will enter the EU with this kind of political set up and it's hard to see this changing as the generals are so well entrenched, can they really give up their positions of ultimate control over the country, remove many oppressive laws (eg the laws against "insulting" turkism and the army which readily lead to suppression of freedom of speech) and allow true democracy? Time will show but if it does ever happen it will be a first.
Humph. I'd also ask what you know about the history of Turkey, specifically Ataturk and onwards. You seem to have a either a lack of information about the military in Turkey, or are applying a double standard and saying Turkey can not do what three modern European countries have done.
In 1997 it was the military that gave a warning that the then Prime Minister's Islamicism was eroding the values of the secular state, and kept on giving them until he stood down. So if Tony Blair's faith meant he risked compromising the (yes I know we don't have one this is an example) British Constitution, you would criticise the military for speaking out against the secular nature of our country being eroded? You would have the military keep faith with the Prime Minister rather than the Constitution? I think not, but please, do say...
Oh, and Greece still has active and still used Blasphemy laws, and has questionable press freedom with a similar issue over 'Macedonia' existing as the one over Armenia or Kurdistan in Turkey. What was your argument about freedom of speech exactly? Greece is an EU member. Is the illogical nature of your position due to not knowing that EU countries have freedom of speech issues and recent military involvement in their government or is bit of a double standard because Turkey is Islamic and the rest of Europe isn't?
If you are opposed to Turkey due to its Islamic background, please tell me why. Is your religious bigotry based on a belief all Islam is 'bad' in someway, or due to your beliefs about the harm that Turkey could do as a culture have facts and reasoning behind them that apply specifically to Turkey (rather than generic Islamostan fear -mongering)?
